Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 24, 2019 22:03:48 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
merdist.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/FBI-1964-reenactment.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/-2fFUAbZdbfw/UpCJXeJmMFI/AAAAAAAALIg/ZBC9-ocIooM/s1600/Lee+Harvey+Oswald+13.jpg
The House Select Committee On Assassinations (HSCA) would look into the Backyard photograph (BYP) issue (Commission Exhibits 133-A and 133-B). The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that they were genuine, but failed to provide the reader with evidence that supported this claim.
The HSCA also put much worth in these photographs even though they proved nothing in regards to the assassination. Even if they were genuine, and I don’t think that they were, they would have been taken in late March 1963 and the assassination was not until November 22, 1963. Simply posing for photographs, even with weapons, doesn’t make someone an assassin.
We see the HSCA puts stock in the photographs by this statement.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0072b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0073a.gif
(347) One of the most publicized questions to emerge in relation to the Kennedy assassination involves the authenticity of photographs showing Lee Harvey Oswald standing in his backyard, with a holstered pistol strapped to his waist, holding a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and two newspapers. These have become known as the backyard photographs.
(349) If the backyard photographs are valid, they are highly incriminating of Oswald because they apparently link him with the rifle. If they are fakes, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy. "Faked" backyard photographs indicate a degree of conspiratorial sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that a highly organized group had conspired to kill the President and make Oswald a "patsy." (HSCA VI, pp. 138-139)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0072b.htm
Quote off
The first paragraph states that the BYPs depict Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) in them, but when was this determined for sure? There are quite a few questions that have not been answered regarding whether or not that is LHO in the BYPs. The only evidence that the WC presented for showing that they were authentic was Marina Oswald’s testimony but given her track record that certainly is not enough.
The next paragraph states that if the BYPs are genuine then they are incriminating to LHO because they link LHO to the alleged murder weapon (CE 139). This is incorrect however as there is nothing but an opinion by one of the HSCA’s own experts, Sergeant Cecil Kirk, that the rifle seen in the BYPs is the same one that was discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD).
The WC’s expert, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt, told them in 1964 that he could not positively state that the rifle seen in the BYPs was the same one that was found in the TSBD.
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.
With all due respect I don’t believe that Sergeant Kirk was better qualified to make a positive identification than Shaneyfelt. The evidence didn’t change over the years so he would have been working with the same stuff Shaneyfelt utilized in 1964. So why was the HSCA claiming that it was the same rifle? Furthermore, when did either the WC or HSCA ever prove that CE 139 was the actual murder weapon? Never is the answer, therefore, even if the BYPs were authentic, and they are not, how would they link LHO (who was never proven to be in them) to the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD (CE 139 was never proven to be the rifle in the BYPs) and to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) (CE 139 was never proven to be the murder weapon)? These are false statements by the HSCA.
The HSCA then gives us the history of the BYPs.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0073a.gif
(350) In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas detectives obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. The search concentrated primarily on a garage in which possessions of the Oswalds were stored. Among the belongings, Dallas Police officials found a brown cardboard box containing personal papers and photographs, including two snapshot negatives of Oswald holding a rifle. (Only one negative was made available to the Warren Commission; the other has never been accounted for.) (HSCA VI, p. 139)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0073a.htm
Quote off
So according to this the negatives were found while the Dallas Police Department (DPD) and the county Sheriff personnel were executing a search warrant on November 23, 1963, according to the WC and HSCA. If this is so, how was the FBI able to exhibit a photograph that was a BYP to Michael Paine on the night of the assassination?
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.
This is a clear reference to a BYP as that is what appeared on the cover of Life magazine in February 1964. If these photographs were not found yet, how could they be displaying them to Michael Paine on Friday night?
Also, what happened to the second negative? What does it mean that only one negative was “presented” to the WC, and the second negative has never been “accounted” for? What kind of investigation was this? How does evidence go missing while in official custody?
This paragraph illustrates the ridiculousness of the whole issue to me.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0074a.gif
(361) Marina Oswald, in addition to giving two different versions as to where the backyard pictures were taken gave different versions (of) the number of pictures taken. At first, she testified she had taken one picture; later she said it was two. In addition, Marguerite Oswald testified that soon after the assassination she and Marina destroyed yet another picture in which Oswald was shown holding the rifle over his head with both hands. (HSCA VI, p. 141)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0074a.htm
Quote off
Marina Oswald testified initially that she only took one photograph, but later said she took two. Okay, but where did the version she and Marguerite Oswald burned in the hotel come from? Where did the copy George De Mohrenschildt found in 1967 come from? Where did the copy Geneva White found in Roscoe White’s possessions following his death in 1971 come from? (Interestingly the DPD recreation pose matched this photograph and not the poses seen in CE 133-A or CE 133-B, and the White photograph wasn’t found until 1971! How does that happen if we were told the truth?)
The official explanation just doesn’t make sense. The BYPs are not evidence of anything relating the JFK assassination. What do you think?
www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
merdist.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/FBI-1964-reenactment.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/-2fFUAbZdbfw/UpCJXeJmMFI/AAAAAAAALIg/ZBC9-ocIooM/s1600/Lee+Harvey+Oswald+13.jpg
The House Select Committee On Assassinations (HSCA) would look into the Backyard photograph (BYP) issue (Commission Exhibits 133-A and 133-B). The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that they were genuine, but failed to provide the reader with evidence that supported this claim.
The HSCA also put much worth in these photographs even though they proved nothing in regards to the assassination. Even if they were genuine, and I don’t think that they were, they would have been taken in late March 1963 and the assassination was not until November 22, 1963. Simply posing for photographs, even with weapons, doesn’t make someone an assassin.
We see the HSCA puts stock in the photographs by this statement.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0072b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0073a.gif
(347) One of the most publicized questions to emerge in relation to the Kennedy assassination involves the authenticity of photographs showing Lee Harvey Oswald standing in his backyard, with a holstered pistol strapped to his waist, holding a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and two newspapers. These have become known as the backyard photographs.
(349) If the backyard photographs are valid, they are highly incriminating of Oswald because they apparently link him with the rifle. If they are fakes, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy. "Faked" backyard photographs indicate a degree of conspiratorial sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that a highly organized group had conspired to kill the President and make Oswald a "patsy." (HSCA VI, pp. 138-139)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0072b.htm
Quote off
The first paragraph states that the BYPs depict Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) in them, but when was this determined for sure? There are quite a few questions that have not been answered regarding whether or not that is LHO in the BYPs. The only evidence that the WC presented for showing that they were authentic was Marina Oswald’s testimony but given her track record that certainly is not enough.
The next paragraph states that if the BYPs are genuine then they are incriminating to LHO because they link LHO to the alleged murder weapon (CE 139). This is incorrect however as there is nothing but an opinion by one of the HSCA’s own experts, Sergeant Cecil Kirk, that the rifle seen in the BYPs is the same one that was discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD).
The WC’s expert, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt, told them in 1964 that he could not positively state that the rifle seen in the BYPs was the same one that was found in the TSBD.
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.
With all due respect I don’t believe that Sergeant Kirk was better qualified to make a positive identification than Shaneyfelt. The evidence didn’t change over the years so he would have been working with the same stuff Shaneyfelt utilized in 1964. So why was the HSCA claiming that it was the same rifle? Furthermore, when did either the WC or HSCA ever prove that CE 139 was the actual murder weapon? Never is the answer, therefore, even if the BYPs were authentic, and they are not, how would they link LHO (who was never proven to be in them) to the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD (CE 139 was never proven to be the rifle in the BYPs) and to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) (CE 139 was never proven to be the murder weapon)? These are false statements by the HSCA.
The HSCA then gives us the history of the BYPs.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0073a.gif
(350) In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas detectives obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. The search concentrated primarily on a garage in which possessions of the Oswalds were stored. Among the belongings, Dallas Police officials found a brown cardboard box containing personal papers and photographs, including two snapshot negatives of Oswald holding a rifle. (Only one negative was made available to the Warren Commission; the other has never been accounted for.) (HSCA VI, p. 139)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0073a.htm
Quote off
So according to this the negatives were found while the Dallas Police Department (DPD) and the county Sheriff personnel were executing a search warrant on November 23, 1963, according to the WC and HSCA. If this is so, how was the FBI able to exhibit a photograph that was a BYP to Michael Paine on the night of the assassination?
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.
This is a clear reference to a BYP as that is what appeared on the cover of Life magazine in February 1964. If these photographs were not found yet, how could they be displaying them to Michael Paine on Friday night?
Also, what happened to the second negative? What does it mean that only one negative was “presented” to the WC, and the second negative has never been “accounted” for? What kind of investigation was this? How does evidence go missing while in official custody?
This paragraph illustrates the ridiculousness of the whole issue to me.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0074a.gif
(361) Marina Oswald, in addition to giving two different versions as to where the backyard pictures were taken gave different versions (of) the number of pictures taken. At first, she testified she had taken one picture; later she said it was two. In addition, Marguerite Oswald testified that soon after the assassination she and Marina destroyed yet another picture in which Oswald was shown holding the rifle over his head with both hands. (HSCA VI, p. 141)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0074a.htm
Quote off
Marina Oswald testified initially that she only took one photograph, but later said she took two. Okay, but where did the version she and Marguerite Oswald burned in the hotel come from? Where did the copy George De Mohrenschildt found in 1967 come from? Where did the copy Geneva White found in Roscoe White’s possessions following his death in 1971 come from? (Interestingly the DPD recreation pose matched this photograph and not the poses seen in CE 133-A or CE 133-B, and the White photograph wasn’t found until 1971! How does that happen if we were told the truth?)
The official explanation just doesn’t make sense. The BYPs are not evidence of anything relating the JFK assassination. What do you think?