Post by Gil Jesus on Sept 15, 2023 3:51:01 GMT -5
The Revelations of Commission Exhibit 133-A
Several details in the photograph known as Commission Exhibit 133-A, were never addressed by either of the federal investigations into the assassination.
The first detail has to do with the sling mounts on the rifle. One of the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the rifle is the obvious difference in the sling mounts between the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and the rifle depicted in the famous “backyard photograph” CE 133-A.
As the reader can see, the Depository rifle, CE 139, had side mounts for the sling both front and rear.
While the rifle in the CE 133-A photo obviously has a bottom mount for the sling in front.
There is obviously a difference between the front sling mount which is on the bottom in the 133-A photo and the front sling mount on the Depository rifle which is on the side.
Several details in the photograph known as Commission Exhibit 133-A, were never addressed by either of the federal investigations into the assassination.
The first detail has to do with the sling mounts on the rifle. One of the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the rifle is the obvious difference in the sling mounts between the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and the rifle depicted in the famous “backyard photograph” CE 133-A.
As the reader can see, the Depository rifle, CE 139, had side mounts for the sling both front and rear.
While the rifle in the CE 133-A photo obviously has a bottom mount for the sling in front.
There is obviously a difference between the front sling mount which is on the bottom in the 133-A photo and the front sling mount on the Depository rifle which is on the side.
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/front-mount.jpg
How did the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee deal with the difference in the sling mounts? It was never addressed.
The photographic evidence indicates that the rifle depicted in the backyard photograph designated Commission Exhibit 133-A is not the same rifle allegedly found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
This is evident in Shaneyfelt's testimony, in which he said that he could not positively identify the rifle in the photo as the CE 139 rifle.
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WC_Vol4_281-shaneyfelt-no-id-rifle.gif
Not only do the sling mounts and the holster in CE 133-A not match those in evidence, but a closer look at the foliage indicates that the CE 133-A picture was NOT taken in March of 1963.
On March 30, 1967, a man named John Cappel, who was the same height as Oswald, was photographed in the backyard at 214 Neely Street in Dallas.
The purpose of this photography session was to recreate the shadows seen in the "backyard photos".
But it did more than that. Having been taken on the same date as the alleged "backyard" photos of Oswald, it revealed a great difference in the status of the bush in the background.
While the bush in the known March/1967 photo has not yet bloomed, the bush in the "backyard photograph" is in full bloom.
This evidence would seem to suggest that the famous "backyard photographs" were not taken in March of 1963. They may have been taken later in the year, possibly in the fall.
If that's true, the timeline would be consistent with what occurred in the late summer / early fall of 1963:
The revelation of "A. Hidell" in New Orleans.
The sale of the 40" rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods.
The announcement of the President coming to Dallas.
And the subsequent hiring of Oswald at the Texas School Book Depository.
All of the above have a timeline of August to mid-October 1963.
The photographs could have been taken at any time during this period.
Commission Exhibit CE 133-A's authenticity had another problem when examined by the Commission's expert: it could not be matched to the Imperial Reflex camera that allegedly took the pictures.
Evidence CE 133-A Could Not Be Matched To The Imperial Reflex Camera
The Warren Commission was forced to admit that its expert, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt, could not match Exhibit 133-A to the Imperial Reflex camera it said took the pictures.
On page 596 the Report said that, "Shaneyfelt could not determine whether 133-A had been photographed with the Imperial camera, because the negative of 133-A had not been found and the print itself did not show a shadowgraph area."
Four years later, another copy of CE 133-A was found.
The 133-A/De Mohrenschildt Photo
In 1967 after he returned from Haiti, George De Mohrenschildt found a third backyard photograph...On the back of this photograph was written: HUNTER OF FASCISTS, HA HA HA.
The inscription was first written in pencil and then gone over in ink. The HSCA's handwriting expert, Joseph P. McNally, testified that the writing was not the handwriting of Oswald or Marina (2 HSCA 386).
In addition, McNally testified that,"it is Russian written by somebody who is not particularly conversant" in the language, "or someone who is below grade school level." (Ibid.)
Or someone studying the language.
It's amazing that photographs of Oswald with a rifle were found in the garage of a woman who was learning the Russian language and here we have a note written on the back of one of those photos by someone not that familiar with Russian and they didn't even compare her writing?
How did De Mohrenschildt get it? And who wrote "A hunter of Fascists, Ha, ha, ha!" on the back?
George would later be found with a shotgun shoved into his mouth a few hours before the HSCA's intrepid investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, could question him about that photo -- or anything else. His death was ruled a suicide and anything he knew about the "backyard photographs" died with him.
Another Photo, Another Pose: The Dees Photo
In 1976 the Senate Intelligence Committee located another photograph of Oswald in the backyard with a pose that was slightly different. This never-seen-before photo was found among the belongings of Geneva Dees, the widow of Dallas police officer Roscoe White.
Roscoe White was not the only Dallas Police officer who possessed "backyard" photographs.
The 133-A & C Stovall Photos
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA_Vol2_350_jfk-F-178.jpg
What was he doing with copies of the photos ?
Back in the day, there was no such thing as making a copy of a picture from another picture. In order to make copies, you had to copy from the negative.
If you had gone into a photographic store in the 1960s with a picture, they could not have made copies for you without the negative.
I know. I've been there.
How did George De Mohrenschildt and Richard Stovall get a copies of CE 133-A when the negative was never found?
How did Roscoe White and Stovall get copies of CE 133/Dees when that photo and negative never (officially) existed?
In fact, by 11/23, copies of CE 133-A (the "Life" photo) were being made available by the Dallas Police.
There is no way these officers could have come into possession of the photographs they had without the Dallas Police having had the negatives.
And that fact became obvious by what the House Select Committee on Assassinations found when they examined the photographs.
Coming in Part IV : Evidence Police Had The Negatives That Disappeared
As a result, the Commission was forced to admit that Shaneyfelt, "Did not find enough peculiarities to positively identify the rifle in 133-A as the C-2766 rifle, as distinguished from other rifles of the same configuration."
In other words, he couldn't even tell it was a Mannlicher-Carcano.
But the difference in the sling mounts and the FBI's inability to identify the rifle in CE 133-A was not the only evidence to indicate that CE 133-A was not a true depiction of Oswald and the weapons.
An examination of the holster depicted in CE 133-A reveals that it is a full sized western-style holster, not the snub-nosed holster allegedly found in Oswald's room.
Not only do the sling mounts and the holster in CE 133-A not match those in evidence, but a closer look at the foliage indicates that the CE 133-A picture was NOT taken in March of 1963.
On March 30, 1967, a man named John Cappel, who was the same height as Oswald, was photographed in the backyard at 214 Neely Street in Dallas.
The purpose of this photography session was to recreate the shadows seen in the "backyard photos".
But it did more than that. Having been taken on the same date as the alleged "backyard" photos of Oswald, it revealed a great difference in the status of the bush in the background.
While the bush in the known March/1967 photo has not yet bloomed, the bush in the "backyard photograph" is in full bloom.
This evidence would seem to suggest that the famous "backyard photographs" were not taken in March of 1963. They may have been taken later in the year, possibly in the fall.
If that's true, the timeline would be consistent with what occurred in the late summer / early fall of 1963:
The revelation of "A. Hidell" in New Orleans.
The sale of the 40" rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods.
The announcement of the President coming to Dallas.
And the subsequent hiring of Oswald at the Texas School Book Depository.
All of the above have a timeline of August to mid-October 1963.
The photographs could have been taken at any time during this period.
Commission Exhibit CE 133-A's authenticity had another problem when examined by the Commission's expert: it could not be matched to the Imperial Reflex camera that allegedly took the pictures.
Evidence CE 133-A Could Not Be Matched To The Imperial Reflex Camera
The Warren Commission was forced to admit that its expert, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt, could not match Exhibit 133-A to the Imperial Reflex camera it said took the pictures.
On page 596 the Report said that, "Shaneyfelt could not determine whether 133-A had been photographed with the Imperial camera, because the negative of 133-A had not been found and the print itself did not show a shadowgraph area."
Four years later, another copy of CE 133-A was found.
The 133-A/De Mohrenschildt Photo
In 1967 after he returned from Haiti, George De Mohrenschildt found a third backyard photograph...On the back of this photograph was written: HUNTER OF FASCISTS, HA HA HA.
The inscription was first written in pencil and then gone over in ink. The HSCA's handwriting expert, Joseph P. McNally, testified that the writing was not the handwriting of Oswald or Marina (2 HSCA 386).
In addition, McNally testified that,"it is Russian written by somebody who is not particularly conversant" in the language, "or someone who is below grade school level." (Ibid.)
Or someone studying the language.
It's amazing that photographs of Oswald with a rifle were found in the garage of a woman who was learning the Russian language and here we have a note written on the back of one of those photos by someone not that familiar with Russian and they didn't even compare her writing?
How did De Mohrenschildt get it? And who wrote "A hunter of Fascists, Ha, ha, ha!" on the back?
George would later be found with a shotgun shoved into his mouth a few hours before the HSCA's intrepid investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, could question him about that photo -- or anything else. His death was ruled a suicide and anything he knew about the "backyard photographs" died with him.
Another Photo, Another Pose: The Dees Photo
In 1976 the Senate Intelligence Committee located another photograph of Oswald in the backyard with a pose that was slightly different. This never-seen-before photo was found among the belongings of Geneva Dees, the widow of Dallas police officer Roscoe White.
Roscoe White was not the only Dallas Police officer who possessed "backyard" photographs.
The 133-A & C Stovall Photos
The House Select Committee also recovered copies of CE 133-A and CE 133 /Dees from retired Dallas Detective Richard Stovall.
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA_Vol2_350_jfk-F-178.jpg
What was he doing with copies of the photos ?
Back in the day, there was no such thing as making a copy of a picture from another picture. In order to make copies, you had to copy from the negative.
If you had gone into a photographic store in the 1960s with a picture, they could not have made copies for you without the negative.
I know. I've been there.
How did George De Mohrenschildt and Richard Stovall get a copies of CE 133-A when the negative was never found?
How did Roscoe White and Stovall get copies of CE 133/Dees when that photo and negative never (officially) existed?
In fact, by 11/23, copies of CE 133-A (the "Life" photo) were being made available by the Dallas Police.
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/copies-available-through-police.png
How could they do that without having the negative?
How could they do that without having the negative?
There is no way these officers could have come into possession of the photographs they had without the Dallas Police having had the negatives.
And that fact became obvious by what the House Select Committee on Assassinations found when they examined the photographs.
Coming in Part IV : Evidence Police Had The Negatives That Disappeared