Post by Rob Caprio on Jan 27, 2019 11:18:47 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/backyardphot.jpg
i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/27/00/45AB083000000578-5022503-image-a-64_1509062389318.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) endorsers claim that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) OVERTURNED the WC’s OWN FBI photographic expert, Lyndal Shaneyfelt, by claiming they said the rifle in the BackYard Photographs (BYPs) is the same one found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) on November 22, 1963.
Let’s see if they really did this or not.
***********************************
Here is the testimony from FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt before the WC.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. **I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.**
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, **but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.**
It is pretty clear to me. He said he COULD NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFY the rifle in the photograph as being the same one found in the TSBD. End of story.
The WC took their OWN evidence and IGNORED it as they claimed IT WAS THE SAME RIFLE. In other words, they lied. Now, when confronted with that lie John Mytton wants to run to the HSCA for help. I find this hilarious as most WC endorsers live in 1964 and avoid the HSCA most of the time, but when faced with the inaccuracy of the WC’s claims they then are willing to run to the HSCA for help.
Even if what the HSCA claimed was true, and we shall see if it is or not, IT DOESN’T change the FACT the WC LIED about their OWN evidence in claiming it was the same rifle! How could they know another government panel would look at this to possibly support their claim that was NOT supported by their own evidence? They couldn’t. So in 1964 when they claimed it was the same rifle, COUNTER to what their own evidence showed, they lied. End of story.
Now, let’s look at this HSCA evidence that supposedly shows it was the same rifle. The two photographic experts called to testify regarding the BYPs were Calvin McCamy and Sgt. Cecil Kirk. One of the things Kirk says about the BYPs is curious to me.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you step to that chart and point to the other photographs that were investigated by the panel? Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this item.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into the record.
[The information follows:]
JFK EXHIBIT F-178
Sergeant KIRK. These are the two photographs that were sent over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Dallas Police Department as a result of the execution of a search warrant on the Paine residence. In addition, they also turned over to the FBI this photographic negative. These are the three elements that were examined by the Warren Commission.
In addition, the photographic panel also was asked to examine 133-A, De Mohrenschildt, which was recovered by the committee investigator from the deceased estate of Mr. De Mohrenschildt, and also requested to examine 133-C, Dees, which has been established to be from a deceased Dallas police officer, and also asked to be examined 133-A, Stovall, and 133-C, Stovall, which was turned over to the investigators by retired Officer Stovall who executed the search warrant at the Paine residence.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are all the materials represented on that flow chart either original negatives or first generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The camera panel established that the 133-B negative is the original camera negative material and all the other photographs on this chart are first generation prints.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did the panel base its analysis upon materials that were not original negatives or first generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The panel agreed to only investigate first generation prints and original negative material.
This is a sound policy as with each copy you lose quality, but the part I have an issue with is this—how did they know all the photos besides CE-133B (which they had a negative for) were first generation copies? How did they determine this? Who knows as he was never asked this question. It was just taken for granted what he said was true. This is no better than what we saw many times with the WC’s testimony.
Here is something else the WC, and subsequently the HSCA, NEVER bothered to find out about.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. You indicated earlier that the differences in size in these photographs as they are depicted in the flow chart is attributable to the manner in which they were produced. In your opinion, would you tell us now how Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and B were produced?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. These were referred to in the panel as the drugstore prints. It was determined that they most likely were produced on a commercial printer, the type which we would find in processing houses that do printing for camera stores and drugstores and so forth. The masking on the front, even though it looks square, is a 32d of an inch off.
In the top lefthand corner you can see where the convertible mask and the automatic printer has come together. On the reverse side of the photographs in the lefthand corner there is a little graphite mark almost obscured by someone who has written their initial and data on it.
What “drugstore” produced them? Can any WC defender tell me this? “Most likely” is all we get. Sound familiar? Fifteen years later we are getting the same INCOMPLETE work. Wouldn’t the same “commercial” printing equipment be available to the Dallas Police Labs? The CIA? Other government shops?
This is curious too.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Of the backyard picture showing Oswald with the rifle, were only the DeMohrenschildt print and the 133-B negative studied for frame edge markings?
Sergeant KIRK. That is correct, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Why is that?
Sergeant KIRK. Because those were the only material we had to show the frame edge markings.
Why are they looking at the DeMohrenschildt (DeM) PHOTO and a the negative for CE-133B? Doesn’t that seem odd? Why not compare the negative to the other photos? Well, if we consider that many experts who have studied this topic for years have said the DeM version is the NEGATIVE for CE-133A we see in evidence then it makes sense. Remember, the negative for CE-133A was NEVER found per the Dallas Police Department (DPD). The fact that the DeM photo is larger and is much more clear has convinced many that it is the original/negative and CE-133A is a copy.
This testimony would seem to confirm this as there is NO other reason to be using it along with the negative for CE-133B otherwise.
Mr. GoLDsMITH. Does the DeMohrenschildt print have fewer identifying frame marks on it than the 133-B negative?
Sergeant KIRK. It does if you look at it with this type of lighting under which it was photographed for the exhibit today. Items 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11 are visible if you look at the photograph under reflected light. However, if you place the original print on a light box and look at it from light projected through the print, if you look at it using a small power magnifier you would be able to pick up the other identifiers that I put in here with dashes.
This again confirms he found the same “edge marks” on the negative for CE-133B and the DeM photo. Now onto the topic at hand. Shaneyfelt would say it was NOT possible to show which camera, to the exclusion of all others, these photos came from.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you attempt to determine whether 133A had been photographed through the camera, Commission Exhibit 750?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not, because in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph is made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133A does not show that shadowgraph
Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the shadowgraph area show on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.
But of course the HSCA would try to show they knew better on this topic too.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant, have you investigated the allegation that the Oswald Imperial Reflex camera was used only to take the backyard pictures of Oswald with the rifle?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When did you do that?
Sergeant KIRK. August 1 of this year.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Exactly how did you go about examining this issue, Sergeant?
Sergeant KIRK. I went to the National Archives and requested to see all of the photographs and all of the photographic negatives that were turned over to the Warren Commission and listed as that material that was taken during the execution of search warrants from the personal effects of Lee and Marina Oswald.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Was this exhibit (JFK F-189) compared with any other materials or photographs exposed in Oswald's camera?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, it was.
It should be noted at this point that the WC, and subsequently the HSCA, NEVER showed the Imperial Reflex camera they are discussing was Lee Harvey Oswald’s (LHO) camera in the first place. As usual, they just kept on CLAIMING it was with NO supporting evidence. The DPD found a MINOX camera among LHO’s possessions and this became a “light meter” when the FBI took it from the DPD. Why? Because this type of camera was commonly used in SPY work and they couldn’t let us know LHO had one.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What was the result of that comparison?
Sergeant KIRK. The comparison was made with the test negative, the 133-B backyard photograph, the 133-A DeMohrenschildt photograph, and they were found to contain the identical identifiers and scratch marks. It is our opinion that the same camera produced the baby picture.
Big deal. Like so much other stuff in this case this is USELESS since they NEVER SHOWED LHO owned or had access to the camera they are claiming took the pictures.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What were the panel's overall conclusions regarding the frame edge marks and camera scratch marks that it evaluated?
Sergeant KIRK. That it is a reliable source of identification and it is our opinion that the camera did indeed produce these photographs.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you say these photographs, you are referring to the backyard pictures?
Sergeant KIRK. The backyard pictures and the baby picture.
What? This is NOT new stuff folks, and yet, a PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPERT WITH THE FBI (who access to the same points of reference in 1964) said this!
Quote on
Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.
Quote off
In fact, Shaneyfelt made another curious comment as he said you could NOT determine what particular camera a photo came from without the “shadowgraph area” and that comes from a negative or a print of a negative. Why would this NOT be seen on CE-133B when that was a negative he was looking at? Or CE-133A which was supposedly a print of a negative (albeit they couldn’t find the negative)? Why were both sources LACKING a “shadowgraph area” as he said?
How could the HSCA make a positive claim when they would lack this too? Oh that is right, they used “edge marks” and “camera scratch marks” I forgot.
The HSCA, like the WC, NEVER let issues like this get in their way. McCamy took over and they just continued like they had proven something when they did NOT.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCamy, after the panel had established that the Oswald backyard pictures had been taken with Oswald's Imperial reflex camera, what was the next step in the investigation?
Mr. McCAMY. We next addressed the issue of whether or not these were fake photographs.
I’ll address this at a later point in another post as this post is about the rifle and whether or not it is the same one found in the TSBD or not. Look at the first question regarding this topic.
Mr. FITHIAN. Basically, I guess I would ask that you describe for the panel whether the rifle that Oswald is seen holding in the backyard pictures is the same one that is in the Archives, that the Warren Commission concluded was the weapon used to shoot John F. Kennedy.
Is this a TOTALLY inaccurate question or what? First of all, it was NEVER shown LHO was in the BYPs no matter what the HSCA claimed. They totally avoided the whole chin issue and did NOT even bother to measure it for starters. The point is this, as of 2013, NO one can show LHO posed for those pictures, what camera was used, what rifle was in them, and where they were developed.
Secondly, the issue of whether or not the rifle in the National Archives (NA) is the SAME one found in the TSBD as been addressed by many over the years. There is no way to show it is. The HSCA said itself in its OWN report that the barrel had been “altered by wear” due to so many test firings that it could NO longer produce bullets that matched the ones the FBI produced in 1964, that were presumably fired in 1963 or the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital (PH)! This means you have NO linkage to show it was the same rifle, so how can you claim it was based on some photos you can’t show are original? Also, who was “test firing” it so much to cause all this wear?
Finally, when did the WC show CE-139 was the murder weapon again? I don’t remember seeing the supporting evidence for this claim in the twenty-six volumes. Can some WC defender direct me to it?
Now, back to the testimony. After a long description of how they did experiments we finally get to the main point. I will edit some of the replies by Sgt. Kirk as he uses the same method many WC defenders on this board (and others) use, they flood you with detail and information to hide what they are really saying.
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Thank you.
Now, Sergeant, the FBI concluded that and they told the Warren Commission that the mark on the forestock of the rifle that you are holding was not sufficient to identify positively this rifle. Do you agree with the FBI?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir.
Mr. FITHiAN. Why don't you?
Sergeant KIRK. Well, sir, we refer to this as a random pattern.
Mr. FITHiAN. As a what?
Sergeant KIRK. As a random pattern. You can expect this weapon, just as you can expect all those TV cameras, to receive certain amounts of damage when it is handled. If you were to examine those cameras, even though they are the same, you would not find dents and chips out of the surface in precisely the same area.
…We have examined this chip out of the forestock and we have determined it is quite old, some attempt is made to sand it down, and it was finished the same color as the stock. It was probably damaged in one of two ways. It received a shock on the top of the forestock that knocked off the chip, which means the top forestock has been replaced, or the stock was damaged as it was taken apart.
Let me interrupt his very long reply for a second to ask a question. When was any of this “chipping” mentioned by Shaneyfelt, Frazier, et. al? I don’t remember this being an issue so what is he talking about?
It is my opinion that this is unique and unto itself. As you can see here, we photographed the duplicate weapon that was purchased from the distributor of this rifle, the one who allegedly sent it to Dallas, which is photographed here on the top, and it does not show any of the damage that the second photograph does.
I have made a photographic enlargement of the chip out of the forestock.
We have here a United Press International photograph taken of the rifle being displayed outside of the homicide office in the Dallas police department headquarters. A photographic enlargement shows the same chip out of the stock in precisely the same location, going in the same direction, and same dimensions.
And yet, Shaneyfelt did NOT see it?
Taking 133 DeMohrenschildt, which at the time was the best photograph we had, we find the same defect in the wood, the same dimensions, and the same location. I might add that 134, which was discovered only this weekend in the Archives, even better illustrates this damage.
So the “best photo” he has is one that is NOT tied to the WC at all and was NOT found for years!
I might add, in all candor, with respect to the FBI, they did not have 133-A DeMohrenschildt. They did not have 133-A Stovall. They did not have 134 or did not recognize 134 as being first generation print.
No they did NOT, so he is using photos that show LHO was being framed as his PROOF! How ironic is that? What was Stovall doing with these photos in the first place? What does it matter? Is he claiming Shaneyfelt did NOT have equipment that could show this “chip” in CE-133 A and B in 1964? I highly doubt that. And yet, he NEVER mentioned it.
So, their conservativeness they had then was based on the amount of evidence they had to work with, not on what we had to work with today.
What he is working with are more photos found under odd circumstances that show LHO was being framed (a photo found by the DeMohrenschildts in 1967, a photo found by Roscoe Whites’ wife (some have posited he is the one that made the fake photos in the first place) after his death in 1973, and a couple of photos found in Stovall’s possessions in 1978) in a likelihood! Why was NO mention of this "chip" made in 1964? Surely it would have been seen.
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
So because of some alleged chip it is the same rifle? What about the sling swivel mounts NOT matching?
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. I will come back to you in just a minute. Do you know, Sergeant, whether or not the FBI at the time of the Warren Commission went through a process that would be the equivalent of yours, plus Mr. McCamy's, or can you shed any light on that?
Sergeant KIRK. The only testimony that I found in the Warren Commission report was relying on the testimony from one agent, Agent Shaneyfelt. There is no indication I could find where it was subjected to the analysis that this committee has on this weapon.
Nah, of course not. Shaneyfelt just looked at the photos real quick and decided to RULE AGAINST matching them for fun. IOWs, he went against what his boss would WANT just for the fun of it! It gets better though.
Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. McCamy, can you give us any measurement or photogrammetric process or anything that you did to further nail down this I think vital question.
Mr. McCAMY. Yes. We made measurements, measurements on the rifle, and on the photographs to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place.
Beyond that, however, I went to the Archives and made 21 photographs of the rifle using a variety of different kinds of illumination. On those photographs, it was possible to see a large number of nicks, scratches and so on, distinguishing marks.
Again, he is just ASSUMING this is the same rifle found in the TSBD on November 22, 1963, when their own evidence shows they CAN’T prove it.
I then went back through all of the photographs I had mentioned to you. In many instances--I believe in 56 different instances--I was able to find markings that appear on this rifle that were on the photographs that were made back there on the day of the assassination.
So, we are very confident that this is indeed the rifle that was carried from the book depository--oh, incidentally, I can carry it farther than that.
I found distinguishing marks of this rifle on a motion picture that was made at the time the police officer picked the rifle up off of the floor of the book depository. So that I think is very convincing evidence that it is the rifle.
IF you say so, but I require evidence and NOT just talk about marks being on the rifle. After all of this supposed work they then agreed on this key point.
Mr. FITHIAN. So what you are saying then is that in addition to the defect or the chip, whatever, you photographed and used--I guess what I would put sort of the equivalent of the camera scratch marks--you put those on the photographs that you took and then compared them analytically with the other defects that showed up on the rifle, or marking characteristics in other photographs that were existing at the time of the Warren Commission; is that what you are saying?
Mr. MCCAMY. That is right. They were compared on all of those photographs. I did not do photogrammetric measurements on all of them.
Mr. FITHIAN. Did you have any problem? Did you have any mismatches?
Mr. McCAMY. No, there were no mismatches. But it is, I think, appropriate to point out that whether or not one will see a particular scratch or discoloration depends strongly on illumination.
So, you cannot expect that all of the marks will show on all of the photographs.
Sergeant KIRK. I might point out, Mr. Fithian, since this is very brightly illuminated in this area here, you might not necessarily be able to see the same detail as in this photograph, which is evenly illuminated.
So, what Mr. McCamy is saying, it seemed identifiers would not show up in each photograph because they are not illuminated in the same manner.
So after saying they used a chip and marks to determine it was the same rifle they then admitted they couldn’t see all the marks due to illumination! IF all the marks don’t show on all the photographs how in the world can you say it is the same rifle?
Obviously you can’t, and that is why Shaneyfelt told us the truth in 1964 when he said he could NOT positively identify the rifle in the photos as being the same one found in the TSBD. As we have seen, you can’t even show the one in the NA is the same one found in the TSBD based on their own report.
The bottom line is this, the WC LIED about its own evidence in 1964, and the HSCA did NOT show what FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified to was INCORRECT. All they did was claim to make some new discoveries (chip and marks) and to show it was the same rifle. Given the following FACTS I find it highly doubtful it is the same rifle.
1)The BYPs have NEVER been shown to be genuine.
2) LHO was NEVER shown to have ordered or received a 40” Carcano, let alone C2766 in particular.
3) The sling swivel mounts don’t match between the rifle in the photos and CE-139.
4) The HSCA admitted you can’t match bullets from the rifle in the NA with bullets fired in 1963/1964.
5) No one associated with the DPD, FBI or the WC ever mentioned a “chip on the forestock” as Sgt. Kirk and Mr. McCamy did to conclude they are the same rifle. This seriously calls into question the findings of the HSCA.
The WC sunk itself in 1964 by lying about its own evidence, and the HSCA did NOT rescue it as present day WC endorsers will have you believe.
The bottom line is this—the rifle in the BYPs CANNOT be shown to be the same rifle found in the TSBD on November 22, 1963, AND, the rifle found in the TSBD on November 22, 1963, CANNOT be shown to be the same rifle in the NA!
3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/backyardphot.jpg
i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/27/00/45AB083000000578-5022503-image-a-64_1509062389318.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) endorsers claim that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) OVERTURNED the WC’s OWN FBI photographic expert, Lyndal Shaneyfelt, by claiming they said the rifle in the BackYard Photographs (BYPs) is the same one found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) on November 22, 1963.
Let’s see if they really did this or not.
***********************************
Here is the testimony from FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt before the WC.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. **I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.**
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, **but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.**
It is pretty clear to me. He said he COULD NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFY the rifle in the photograph as being the same one found in the TSBD. End of story.
The WC took their OWN evidence and IGNORED it as they claimed IT WAS THE SAME RIFLE. In other words, they lied. Now, when confronted with that lie John Mytton wants to run to the HSCA for help. I find this hilarious as most WC endorsers live in 1964 and avoid the HSCA most of the time, but when faced with the inaccuracy of the WC’s claims they then are willing to run to the HSCA for help.
Even if what the HSCA claimed was true, and we shall see if it is or not, IT DOESN’T change the FACT the WC LIED about their OWN evidence in claiming it was the same rifle! How could they know another government panel would look at this to possibly support their claim that was NOT supported by their own evidence? They couldn’t. So in 1964 when they claimed it was the same rifle, COUNTER to what their own evidence showed, they lied. End of story.
Now, let’s look at this HSCA evidence that supposedly shows it was the same rifle. The two photographic experts called to testify regarding the BYPs were Calvin McCamy and Sgt. Cecil Kirk. One of the things Kirk says about the BYPs is curious to me.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you step to that chart and point to the other photographs that were investigated by the panel? Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this item.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into the record.
[The information follows:]
JFK EXHIBIT F-178
Sergeant KIRK. These are the two photographs that were sent over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Dallas Police Department as a result of the execution of a search warrant on the Paine residence. In addition, they also turned over to the FBI this photographic negative. These are the three elements that were examined by the Warren Commission.
In addition, the photographic panel also was asked to examine 133-A, De Mohrenschildt, which was recovered by the committee investigator from the deceased estate of Mr. De Mohrenschildt, and also requested to examine 133-C, Dees, which has been established to be from a deceased Dallas police officer, and also asked to be examined 133-A, Stovall, and 133-C, Stovall, which was turned over to the investigators by retired Officer Stovall who executed the search warrant at the Paine residence.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are all the materials represented on that flow chart either original negatives or first generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The camera panel established that the 133-B negative is the original camera negative material and all the other photographs on this chart are first generation prints.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did the panel base its analysis upon materials that were not original negatives or first generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The panel agreed to only investigate first generation prints and original negative material.
This is a sound policy as with each copy you lose quality, but the part I have an issue with is this—how did they know all the photos besides CE-133B (which they had a negative for) were first generation copies? How did they determine this? Who knows as he was never asked this question. It was just taken for granted what he said was true. This is no better than what we saw many times with the WC’s testimony.
Here is something else the WC, and subsequently the HSCA, NEVER bothered to find out about.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. You indicated earlier that the differences in size in these photographs as they are depicted in the flow chart is attributable to the manner in which they were produced. In your opinion, would you tell us now how Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and B were produced?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. These were referred to in the panel as the drugstore prints. It was determined that they most likely were produced on a commercial printer, the type which we would find in processing houses that do printing for camera stores and drugstores and so forth. The masking on the front, even though it looks square, is a 32d of an inch off.
In the top lefthand corner you can see where the convertible mask and the automatic printer has come together. On the reverse side of the photographs in the lefthand corner there is a little graphite mark almost obscured by someone who has written their initial and data on it.
What “drugstore” produced them? Can any WC defender tell me this? “Most likely” is all we get. Sound familiar? Fifteen years later we are getting the same INCOMPLETE work. Wouldn’t the same “commercial” printing equipment be available to the Dallas Police Labs? The CIA? Other government shops?
This is curious too.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Of the backyard picture showing Oswald with the rifle, were only the DeMohrenschildt print and the 133-B negative studied for frame edge markings?
Sergeant KIRK. That is correct, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Why is that?
Sergeant KIRK. Because those were the only material we had to show the frame edge markings.
Why are they looking at the DeMohrenschildt (DeM) PHOTO and a the negative for CE-133B? Doesn’t that seem odd? Why not compare the negative to the other photos? Well, if we consider that many experts who have studied this topic for years have said the DeM version is the NEGATIVE for CE-133A we see in evidence then it makes sense. Remember, the negative for CE-133A was NEVER found per the Dallas Police Department (DPD). The fact that the DeM photo is larger and is much more clear has convinced many that it is the original/negative and CE-133A is a copy.
This testimony would seem to confirm this as there is NO other reason to be using it along with the negative for CE-133B otherwise.
Mr. GoLDsMITH. Does the DeMohrenschildt print have fewer identifying frame marks on it than the 133-B negative?
Sergeant KIRK. It does if you look at it with this type of lighting under which it was photographed for the exhibit today. Items 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11 are visible if you look at the photograph under reflected light. However, if you place the original print on a light box and look at it from light projected through the print, if you look at it using a small power magnifier you would be able to pick up the other identifiers that I put in here with dashes.
This again confirms he found the same “edge marks” on the negative for CE-133B and the DeM photo. Now onto the topic at hand. Shaneyfelt would say it was NOT possible to show which camera, to the exclusion of all others, these photos came from.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you attempt to determine whether 133A had been photographed through the camera, Commission Exhibit 750?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not, because in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph is made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133A does not show that shadowgraph
Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the shadowgraph area show on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.
But of course the HSCA would try to show they knew better on this topic too.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant, have you investigated the allegation that the Oswald Imperial Reflex camera was used only to take the backyard pictures of Oswald with the rifle?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When did you do that?
Sergeant KIRK. August 1 of this year.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Exactly how did you go about examining this issue, Sergeant?
Sergeant KIRK. I went to the National Archives and requested to see all of the photographs and all of the photographic negatives that were turned over to the Warren Commission and listed as that material that was taken during the execution of search warrants from the personal effects of Lee and Marina Oswald.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Was this exhibit (JFK F-189) compared with any other materials or photographs exposed in Oswald's camera?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, it was.
It should be noted at this point that the WC, and subsequently the HSCA, NEVER showed the Imperial Reflex camera they are discussing was Lee Harvey Oswald’s (LHO) camera in the first place. As usual, they just kept on CLAIMING it was with NO supporting evidence. The DPD found a MINOX camera among LHO’s possessions and this became a “light meter” when the FBI took it from the DPD. Why? Because this type of camera was commonly used in SPY work and they couldn’t let us know LHO had one.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What was the result of that comparison?
Sergeant KIRK. The comparison was made with the test negative, the 133-B backyard photograph, the 133-A DeMohrenschildt photograph, and they were found to contain the identical identifiers and scratch marks. It is our opinion that the same camera produced the baby picture.
Big deal. Like so much other stuff in this case this is USELESS since they NEVER SHOWED LHO owned or had access to the camera they are claiming took the pictures.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What were the panel's overall conclusions regarding the frame edge marks and camera scratch marks that it evaluated?
Sergeant KIRK. That it is a reliable source of identification and it is our opinion that the camera did indeed produce these photographs.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you say these photographs, you are referring to the backyard pictures?
Sergeant KIRK. The backyard pictures and the baby picture.
What? This is NOT new stuff folks, and yet, a PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPERT WITH THE FBI (who access to the same points of reference in 1964) said this!
Quote on
Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.
Quote off
In fact, Shaneyfelt made another curious comment as he said you could NOT determine what particular camera a photo came from without the “shadowgraph area” and that comes from a negative or a print of a negative. Why would this NOT be seen on CE-133B when that was a negative he was looking at? Or CE-133A which was supposedly a print of a negative (albeit they couldn’t find the negative)? Why were both sources LACKING a “shadowgraph area” as he said?
How could the HSCA make a positive claim when they would lack this too? Oh that is right, they used “edge marks” and “camera scratch marks” I forgot.
The HSCA, like the WC, NEVER let issues like this get in their way. McCamy took over and they just continued like they had proven something when they did NOT.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCamy, after the panel had established that the Oswald backyard pictures had been taken with Oswald's Imperial reflex camera, what was the next step in the investigation?
Mr. McCAMY. We next addressed the issue of whether or not these were fake photographs.
I’ll address this at a later point in another post as this post is about the rifle and whether or not it is the same one found in the TSBD or not. Look at the first question regarding this topic.
Mr. FITHIAN. Basically, I guess I would ask that you describe for the panel whether the rifle that Oswald is seen holding in the backyard pictures is the same one that is in the Archives, that the Warren Commission concluded was the weapon used to shoot John F. Kennedy.
Is this a TOTALLY inaccurate question or what? First of all, it was NEVER shown LHO was in the BYPs no matter what the HSCA claimed. They totally avoided the whole chin issue and did NOT even bother to measure it for starters. The point is this, as of 2013, NO one can show LHO posed for those pictures, what camera was used, what rifle was in them, and where they were developed.
Secondly, the issue of whether or not the rifle in the National Archives (NA) is the SAME one found in the TSBD as been addressed by many over the years. There is no way to show it is. The HSCA said itself in its OWN report that the barrel had been “altered by wear” due to so many test firings that it could NO longer produce bullets that matched the ones the FBI produced in 1964, that were presumably fired in 1963 or the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital (PH)! This means you have NO linkage to show it was the same rifle, so how can you claim it was based on some photos you can’t show are original? Also, who was “test firing” it so much to cause all this wear?
Finally, when did the WC show CE-139 was the murder weapon again? I don’t remember seeing the supporting evidence for this claim in the twenty-six volumes. Can some WC defender direct me to it?
Now, back to the testimony. After a long description of how they did experiments we finally get to the main point. I will edit some of the replies by Sgt. Kirk as he uses the same method many WC defenders on this board (and others) use, they flood you with detail and information to hide what they are really saying.
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Thank you.
Now, Sergeant, the FBI concluded that and they told the Warren Commission that the mark on the forestock of the rifle that you are holding was not sufficient to identify positively this rifle. Do you agree with the FBI?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir.
Mr. FITHiAN. Why don't you?
Sergeant KIRK. Well, sir, we refer to this as a random pattern.
Mr. FITHiAN. As a what?
Sergeant KIRK. As a random pattern. You can expect this weapon, just as you can expect all those TV cameras, to receive certain amounts of damage when it is handled. If you were to examine those cameras, even though they are the same, you would not find dents and chips out of the surface in precisely the same area.
…We have examined this chip out of the forestock and we have determined it is quite old, some attempt is made to sand it down, and it was finished the same color as the stock. It was probably damaged in one of two ways. It received a shock on the top of the forestock that knocked off the chip, which means the top forestock has been replaced, or the stock was damaged as it was taken apart.
Let me interrupt his very long reply for a second to ask a question. When was any of this “chipping” mentioned by Shaneyfelt, Frazier, et. al? I don’t remember this being an issue so what is he talking about?
It is my opinion that this is unique and unto itself. As you can see here, we photographed the duplicate weapon that was purchased from the distributor of this rifle, the one who allegedly sent it to Dallas, which is photographed here on the top, and it does not show any of the damage that the second photograph does.
I have made a photographic enlargement of the chip out of the forestock.
We have here a United Press International photograph taken of the rifle being displayed outside of the homicide office in the Dallas police department headquarters. A photographic enlargement shows the same chip out of the stock in precisely the same location, going in the same direction, and same dimensions.
And yet, Shaneyfelt did NOT see it?
Taking 133 DeMohrenschildt, which at the time was the best photograph we had, we find the same defect in the wood, the same dimensions, and the same location. I might add that 134, which was discovered only this weekend in the Archives, even better illustrates this damage.
So the “best photo” he has is one that is NOT tied to the WC at all and was NOT found for years!
I might add, in all candor, with respect to the FBI, they did not have 133-A DeMohrenschildt. They did not have 133-A Stovall. They did not have 134 or did not recognize 134 as being first generation print.
No they did NOT, so he is using photos that show LHO was being framed as his PROOF! How ironic is that? What was Stovall doing with these photos in the first place? What does it matter? Is he claiming Shaneyfelt did NOT have equipment that could show this “chip” in CE-133 A and B in 1964? I highly doubt that. And yet, he NEVER mentioned it.
So, their conservativeness they had then was based on the amount of evidence they had to work with, not on what we had to work with today.
What he is working with are more photos found under odd circumstances that show LHO was being framed (a photo found by the DeMohrenschildts in 1967, a photo found by Roscoe Whites’ wife (some have posited he is the one that made the fake photos in the first place) after his death in 1973, and a couple of photos found in Stovall’s possessions in 1978) in a likelihood! Why was NO mention of this "chip" made in 1964? Surely it would have been seen.
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
So because of some alleged chip it is the same rifle? What about the sling swivel mounts NOT matching?
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. I will come back to you in just a minute. Do you know, Sergeant, whether or not the FBI at the time of the Warren Commission went through a process that would be the equivalent of yours, plus Mr. McCamy's, or can you shed any light on that?
Sergeant KIRK. The only testimony that I found in the Warren Commission report was relying on the testimony from one agent, Agent Shaneyfelt. There is no indication I could find where it was subjected to the analysis that this committee has on this weapon.
Nah, of course not. Shaneyfelt just looked at the photos real quick and decided to RULE AGAINST matching them for fun. IOWs, he went against what his boss would WANT just for the fun of it! It gets better though.
Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. McCamy, can you give us any measurement or photogrammetric process or anything that you did to further nail down this I think vital question.
Mr. McCAMY. Yes. We made measurements, measurements on the rifle, and on the photographs to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place.
Beyond that, however, I went to the Archives and made 21 photographs of the rifle using a variety of different kinds of illumination. On those photographs, it was possible to see a large number of nicks, scratches and so on, distinguishing marks.
Again, he is just ASSUMING this is the same rifle found in the TSBD on November 22, 1963, when their own evidence shows they CAN’T prove it.
I then went back through all of the photographs I had mentioned to you. In many instances--I believe in 56 different instances--I was able to find markings that appear on this rifle that were on the photographs that were made back there on the day of the assassination.
So, we are very confident that this is indeed the rifle that was carried from the book depository--oh, incidentally, I can carry it farther than that.
I found distinguishing marks of this rifle on a motion picture that was made at the time the police officer picked the rifle up off of the floor of the book depository. So that I think is very convincing evidence that it is the rifle.
IF you say so, but I require evidence and NOT just talk about marks being on the rifle. After all of this supposed work they then agreed on this key point.
Mr. FITHIAN. So what you are saying then is that in addition to the defect or the chip, whatever, you photographed and used--I guess what I would put sort of the equivalent of the camera scratch marks--you put those on the photographs that you took and then compared them analytically with the other defects that showed up on the rifle, or marking characteristics in other photographs that were existing at the time of the Warren Commission; is that what you are saying?
Mr. MCCAMY. That is right. They were compared on all of those photographs. I did not do photogrammetric measurements on all of them.
Mr. FITHIAN. Did you have any problem? Did you have any mismatches?
Mr. McCAMY. No, there were no mismatches. But it is, I think, appropriate to point out that whether or not one will see a particular scratch or discoloration depends strongly on illumination.
So, you cannot expect that all of the marks will show on all of the photographs.
Sergeant KIRK. I might point out, Mr. Fithian, since this is very brightly illuminated in this area here, you might not necessarily be able to see the same detail as in this photograph, which is evenly illuminated.
So, what Mr. McCamy is saying, it seemed identifiers would not show up in each photograph because they are not illuminated in the same manner.
So after saying they used a chip and marks to determine it was the same rifle they then admitted they couldn’t see all the marks due to illumination! IF all the marks don’t show on all the photographs how in the world can you say it is the same rifle?
Obviously you can’t, and that is why Shaneyfelt told us the truth in 1964 when he said he could NOT positively identify the rifle in the photos as being the same one found in the TSBD. As we have seen, you can’t even show the one in the NA is the same one found in the TSBD based on their own report.
The bottom line is this, the WC LIED about its own evidence in 1964, and the HSCA did NOT show what FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified to was INCORRECT. All they did was claim to make some new discoveries (chip and marks) and to show it was the same rifle. Given the following FACTS I find it highly doubtful it is the same rifle.
1)The BYPs have NEVER been shown to be genuine.
2) LHO was NEVER shown to have ordered or received a 40” Carcano, let alone C2766 in particular.
3) The sling swivel mounts don’t match between the rifle in the photos and CE-139.
4) The HSCA admitted you can’t match bullets from the rifle in the NA with bullets fired in 1963/1964.
5) No one associated with the DPD, FBI or the WC ever mentioned a “chip on the forestock” as Sgt. Kirk and Mr. McCamy did to conclude they are the same rifle. This seriously calls into question the findings of the HSCA.
The WC sunk itself in 1964 by lying about its own evidence, and the HSCA did NOT rescue it as present day WC endorsers will have you believe.
The bottom line is this—the rifle in the BYPs CANNOT be shown to be the same rifle found in the TSBD on November 22, 1963, AND, the rifle found in the TSBD on November 22, 1963, CANNOT be shown to be the same rifle in the NA!