Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 27, 2019 20:54:11 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
rense.com/general96/GrassyKnollSmoke.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) all by himself on November 22, 1963. They said he had NO assistance from anyone and that there was NO conspiracy involved in the murder of either victim.
If that is true, why did we see so many blatant lies to try and make LHO look guilty instead of the evidence showing he was guilty? These lies did NOT just come from the WC, but also from the media and other sources. This post will look at some examples of these lies.
*****************************************
The media was willing to lie about the puff of smoke seen in and round the areas of the Grassy Knoll (GK) area of Dealey Plaza (DP). We have covered this extensively in another post so I won’t go through it all again, but I will quote one witness who said they saw smoke for a frame of reference.
Mr. MORRISON - That is Elm Street. It would be behind the fence, wouldn't it?
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, I have got the fence running up here, and this car would be back in there [indicating]. This is the trees out here, which would--and that is approximately the same location as---the car and the trees that I saw the smokewould probably be the same location.
In reaction to witnesses saying they saw smoke we saw this in the U.S. News & World Report 30 year anniversary edition.
Quote on
Fresh air. Because modern ammunition is smokeless, it seldom creates even a wisp of smoke. (U.S. News & World Report, September 6, 1993 edition, p. 86)
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20JFK%2030th%20Anniversary%20US%20News%20&%20World%20Report/Item%2002.pdf
Quote off
This is a pure lie as even the panel of experts from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said so.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0318b.gif
Congressman Edgar also noted that Holland reported seeing “a puff of smoke” and questioned whether smoke could be seen when “smokeless” powder is used, as it is in modern firearms. As it was explained by the firearms panel, modern weapons DO IN FACT EMIT SMOKE when fired. (I HSCA—JFK Hearings, 485, September 8, 1978.) (HSCA Report, p. 606)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0318b.htm
Quote off
Here is the testimony cited above before the HSCA by the firearms panel.
Mr. EDGAR. When the assassination occurred, many people in Dealey said they saw puffs of smoke coming from the direction of the grassy knoll. Do rifles or handguns emit smoke that is discernable to the human eye?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, sir; they do.
Mr. EDGAR. Does that particular rifle emit any smoke when it is fired?
Mr. LUTZ. During the test firings, I did not make observations concerning this particular rifle. I believe Mr. Bates may have some data on that that he could give you, sir.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Bates.
Mr. BATES. During the test firing, even though we were firing at the cotton box and the water recovery tank from a very short distance, it was possible to observe some smoke emitting from the muzzle of the weapon.
Mr. EDGAR. This is going to be difficult. Can you describe what the smoke looked like? I mean it is not billowy smoke and---
Mr. BATES. No; it appeared as a very thin haze of a light or whitish type of smoke. It was very difficult to evaluate the quantity of smoke emitted during our firing, especially when using the cotton bullet-recovery box. This was due to the muzzle of the rifle being held in close proximity to the front of the box. As the rifle was fired, the expansion of the propellent gasses forced cotton to blow out of the box, partially obscuring some of the smoke.
Mr. EDGAR. From the experience of the panel members, if a gun similar to this particular weapon were fired out of doors, would the smoke emanating from this type of a rifle exhibit more or less smoke than a lighted cigarette?
Mr. BATES. Possibly similar.
Mr. LUTZ. Possibly I could assist somewhat in that. I have fired a rifle of the same dimensions as the ones that was in the photographic display that I had. I observed, or I had another person fire it while I was observing, in bright sunlight. I found not a puff of smoke but the gray smoke in an outdoor condition being expelled from the front of the muzzle during firing of the same type of ammunition, and then I used some Italian surplus ammunition and some Swedish commercial ammunition, each of them given a considerable amount of smoke. It could be readily detected as a result of being fired from a similar rifle.
This evidence shows the 30-year anniversary edition of the U.S. News & World Report magazine out and out lied to the reader. Of course that edition was busy paying homage to Gerald Posner’s Case Closed book that supposedly “solved the case” by blaming LHO all by himself again! IF LHO was really guilty and the evidence showed this, why would this type of lie be needed?
In the same issue U.S. News & World Report claimed James Simmons said “he thought the shots came from the School Book Depository and that he thought he saw ‘exhaust fumes’ from the embankment. (Ibid) The problem with this statement is it relied on the FBI who were also NOT above lying to make LHO look guilty. Here is what the FBI wrote in a report they did regarding their interview of James Simmons.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0432a.gif
Simmons said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 1416, p. 833)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432a.htm
The problem with relying on this report by the FBI is it is NOT what Simmons actually saw. He told researcher and attorney Mark Lane this in a March 1966 filmed interview.
Quote on
In filmed interviews, both James L. Simmons and Richard C Dodd told me that they had seen smoke NEAR THE BUSHES AND TREES at the corner of the WOODEN FENCE. Simmons said the sound of the shots “came from the left and in front of us, toward the WOODEN FENCE, and there was a PUFF OF SMOKE that came underneath the trees at the embankment.” (Mark Lane, Rush To Judgment, p. 40) (Emphasis mine)
Quote off
As we saw from the earlier post on this topic Mark Lane’s version of events proved to be the correct one as Simmons would say this before the HSCA.
Q: Now at the time you heard the second and third shot did you notice anything unusual in the area of the grassy knoll?
A: Well, after I heard the shots I looked to see if I could see where they were coming from and underneath the trees up on the grassy knoll by the fence I detected what appeared to be a puff of smoke or wisp of smoke.
Q: From which direction did these noises appear to come from?
A: In front and the left.
At the time of the shots the Texas School Book Depository Building (TSBD) was NOT to the “front and left” of the presidential limousine, thus, the statements the FBI, and by extension the U.S. News & World Report, attributed to him were lies. Again, IF LHO was really guilty based on the evidence, why would this kind of lie be needed?
This same small segment of the magazine continued to misrepresent this issue as it claimed that Austin Miller “thought the smoke he saw was steam.” They then went on to posit that “It is likely that any smoke seen was in fact steam. A steam pipe ran along the wooden fence near the edge of the triple underpass.” (Ibid)
The problem with this statement is that Austin Miller told the Sheriff’s Department on November 22, 1963, something else in his affidavit as he said he saw “smoke OR steam”, and not that he thought he saw steam as the U.S. News & World Report claimed.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0252a.gif
I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the Railroad tracks. (Austin Miller Affidavit, Decker Exhibit No. 5323, p. 485)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0252a.htm
Quote off
When Austin Miller was called before the WC later in 1964 he was NOT asked one question about smoke or steam so the WC did NOTHING to clear this up for us. Also, as researcher Stewart Galanor said his book Cover-Up, in the film Rush To Judgment something interesting is seen.
Quote on
The steam pipe referred to in U.S. News & World Report can be seen in the film Rush To Judgment. It is OVER 100 FEET AWAY from the point on the knoll where smoke was observed by the six railroad workers. No one reported smoke or steam at the location of the steam pipe. If a steam pipe had been the cause of smoke at the site of the steam pipe or on the grassy knoll, one would expect the steam or smoke to have been seen again. No such sightings occurred. (Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up, p. 62)
Quote off
We simply see another lie by U.S. News & World Report on this issue, but they were NOT done just yet. In the same small boxed article they too misrepresented what Clemon Johnson said too. They wrote the following.
Quote on
Clemon Johnson saw white smoke but told the FBI that it “came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman.” (Ibid.)
Quote off
As we have seen before there is nothing to compare this statement with since Mr. Johnson was NOT called before the WC and Mark Lane did NOT interview him for his movie/book. What we do have though is a photograph taken by Wilma Bond that shows us that right after the third shot (the time the railroad workers saw the smoke) there is NO motorcycle near the GK area as claimed. Here is Bond No. 4 and it shows NO motorcycle near the GK to confuse anyone regarding smoke.
Bond No. 4:
3.bp.blogspot.com/-Aat39mfI6W0/TZOWNzeqK8I/AAAAAAAATlw/X-YTzxmw8nY/s1600/ZZZ.%2BBond%2BPhoto%2B%2528Large%2BVersion%2529.jpg
You clearly see there is NO motorcycle at the bottom of the GK as claimed, thus, we were told another lie via the FBI and U.S. News & World Report. Why are lies needed IF the evidence shows LHO was guilty as claimed?
Another lie we have seen in the media came from LIFE magazine when they wrote the following in their December 6, 1963 edition.
Quote on
LIFE reported that " the 8 mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed - toward the sniper's nest - just before he clutches it." (Paul Mandel, "End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds," LIFE, December 6, 1963 edition, , p. 52F, col. 2.)
Quote off
All one has to do is view the Zapruder film to see JFK was NOT turned far to the right to wave to someone in the crowd as LIFE claimed. We also see his throat is NOT exposed to the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) as claimed either, thus, in this short sentence LIFE reported TWO LIES to the American people in an effort to make it seem as IF the official conclusion was correct. Why is this needed IF what the Dallas Police Department (DPD), FBI and the WC said was true?
Let’s look a some lies the WC told us in their Report (I will limit it to a few otherwise I would be writing this post for a long time). They are lies because their OWN evidence does NOT support their claim.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0076a.gif
He [Shaneyfelt] concluded that the negative of Exhibit No. 133-B was exposed in Oswald’s Imperial Reflex Camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. (WCR, p. 127)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0076a.htm
Quote off
As we have seen in a recent post in this series there was NO chain of custody for the Imperial Reflex (CE 750) camera and it was NEVER shown LHO even owned this camera. So if CE 133-B was taken with it, so what? Also, the WC wanted us to believe that the ONLY two photographs Marina Oswald had taken in her life up to that point were of LHO holding a rifle and wearing a pistol. Please. Also, they wanted you to believe the ONLY photographs ever taken with the Imperial Reflex camera were of the incriminating kind against LHO (two BYPs and the photographs of Walker’s house).
Marina Oswald told the FBI that LHO left his American camera with his brother while he was in the Marine Corps, but Robert Oswald did NOT recognize CE 750.
Another lie comes in the next sentence.
Quote on
He could not test Exhibit No. 133-A in the same way because the negative was NEVER recovered. (Ibid) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
This is a lie because their OWN evidence showed that the negative for CE 133A was found by the DPD on November 23, 1963.
Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
And:
Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.
Detective Gus Rose says here he found TWO NEGATIVES so if the other one was NOT CE 133-A as claimed by the WC, what was it of? Their failure to tell us this leads one to believe it was of CE 133-A and for some reason this negative “disappeared” while in official custody.
The WCR would write this about the two Backyard photographs (BYPs) in regards to their authenticity.
Quote on
Moreover, Shaneyfelt testified that in his opinion the photographs were not composites of two different photographs and that Oswald’s face had not been superimposed on another body. (Ibid)
Quote off
The one way to prove once for all these photographs are authentic would be show it was possible to take two pictures within seconds of each other and have the shadows seen in them show DIFFERENT angles like we see in CE 133-A and CE 133-B. The FBI claimed to do this, but if they did, why did they black out the head of the agent, thus, wiping out the shadow under the nose?
CE 748: [http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0274b.htm
Further proof that the FBI did NOT match the shadows seen in the BYPs comes from the London Times who conducted their own recreation of the BYPs in 1966. Stewart Galanor wrote this about it in his book Cover-Up.
Quote on
The London Times’s test shows that when the shadow of the nose falls straight down, the shadow of the body is behind. When the shadow of the nose veers off to the right, so does the shadow of the body. (Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up, p. 81)
Quote off
Thus, it is impossible for two DIFFERENT TYPES of shadows to appear in one photograph as they represent the sun’s position which means they show DIFFERENT times of the day. Also, it has been shown by Syliva Meagher (she did the hard task of contacting the Dallas office of the U.S. Weather Bureau) that on March 31, 1963, the sun was not even out as the day is listed as “a cloudy day with traces of rain.” The day portrayed in the BYPs is one of full, bright sunshine so this too shows they are NOT authentic as claimed by the FBI and the WC.
These lies by the Media, FBI, and the WC show LHO was NOT guilty as if he was and there was evidence for it there would have been NO reason to lie at all about anything. These lies show us the official conclusion is false, thus, the WC and its conclusion are sunk.
rense.com/general96/GrassyKnollSmoke.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) all by himself on November 22, 1963. They said he had NO assistance from anyone and that there was NO conspiracy involved in the murder of either victim.
If that is true, why did we see so many blatant lies to try and make LHO look guilty instead of the evidence showing he was guilty? These lies did NOT just come from the WC, but also from the media and other sources. This post will look at some examples of these lies.
*****************************************
The media was willing to lie about the puff of smoke seen in and round the areas of the Grassy Knoll (GK) area of Dealey Plaza (DP). We have covered this extensively in another post so I won’t go through it all again, but I will quote one witness who said they saw smoke for a frame of reference.
Mr. MORRISON - That is Elm Street. It would be behind the fence, wouldn't it?
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, I have got the fence running up here, and this car would be back in there [indicating]. This is the trees out here, which would--and that is approximately the same location as---the car and the trees that I saw the smokewould probably be the same location.
In reaction to witnesses saying they saw smoke we saw this in the U.S. News & World Report 30 year anniversary edition.
Quote on
Fresh air. Because modern ammunition is smokeless, it seldom creates even a wisp of smoke. (U.S. News & World Report, September 6, 1993 edition, p. 86)
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20JFK%2030th%20Anniversary%20US%20News%20&%20World%20Report/Item%2002.pdf
Quote off
This is a pure lie as even the panel of experts from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said so.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0318b.gif
Congressman Edgar also noted that Holland reported seeing “a puff of smoke” and questioned whether smoke could be seen when “smokeless” powder is used, as it is in modern firearms. As it was explained by the firearms panel, modern weapons DO IN FACT EMIT SMOKE when fired. (I HSCA—JFK Hearings, 485, September 8, 1978.) (HSCA Report, p. 606)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0318b.htm
Quote off
Here is the testimony cited above before the HSCA by the firearms panel.
Mr. EDGAR. When the assassination occurred, many people in Dealey said they saw puffs of smoke coming from the direction of the grassy knoll. Do rifles or handguns emit smoke that is discernable to the human eye?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, sir; they do.
Mr. EDGAR. Does that particular rifle emit any smoke when it is fired?
Mr. LUTZ. During the test firings, I did not make observations concerning this particular rifle. I believe Mr. Bates may have some data on that that he could give you, sir.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Bates.
Mr. BATES. During the test firing, even though we were firing at the cotton box and the water recovery tank from a very short distance, it was possible to observe some smoke emitting from the muzzle of the weapon.
Mr. EDGAR. This is going to be difficult. Can you describe what the smoke looked like? I mean it is not billowy smoke and---
Mr. BATES. No; it appeared as a very thin haze of a light or whitish type of smoke. It was very difficult to evaluate the quantity of smoke emitted during our firing, especially when using the cotton bullet-recovery box. This was due to the muzzle of the rifle being held in close proximity to the front of the box. As the rifle was fired, the expansion of the propellent gasses forced cotton to blow out of the box, partially obscuring some of the smoke.
Mr. EDGAR. From the experience of the panel members, if a gun similar to this particular weapon were fired out of doors, would the smoke emanating from this type of a rifle exhibit more or less smoke than a lighted cigarette?
Mr. BATES. Possibly similar.
Mr. LUTZ. Possibly I could assist somewhat in that. I have fired a rifle of the same dimensions as the ones that was in the photographic display that I had. I observed, or I had another person fire it while I was observing, in bright sunlight. I found not a puff of smoke but the gray smoke in an outdoor condition being expelled from the front of the muzzle during firing of the same type of ammunition, and then I used some Italian surplus ammunition and some Swedish commercial ammunition, each of them given a considerable amount of smoke. It could be readily detected as a result of being fired from a similar rifle.
This evidence shows the 30-year anniversary edition of the U.S. News & World Report magazine out and out lied to the reader. Of course that edition was busy paying homage to Gerald Posner’s Case Closed book that supposedly “solved the case” by blaming LHO all by himself again! IF LHO was really guilty and the evidence showed this, why would this type of lie be needed?
In the same issue U.S. News & World Report claimed James Simmons said “he thought the shots came from the School Book Depository and that he thought he saw ‘exhaust fumes’ from the embankment. (Ibid) The problem with this statement is it relied on the FBI who were also NOT above lying to make LHO look guilty. Here is what the FBI wrote in a report they did regarding their interview of James Simmons.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0432a.gif
Simmons said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 1416, p. 833)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432a.htm
The problem with relying on this report by the FBI is it is NOT what Simmons actually saw. He told researcher and attorney Mark Lane this in a March 1966 filmed interview.
Quote on
In filmed interviews, both James L. Simmons and Richard C Dodd told me that they had seen smoke NEAR THE BUSHES AND TREES at the corner of the WOODEN FENCE. Simmons said the sound of the shots “came from the left and in front of us, toward the WOODEN FENCE, and there was a PUFF OF SMOKE that came underneath the trees at the embankment.” (Mark Lane, Rush To Judgment, p. 40) (Emphasis mine)
Quote off
As we saw from the earlier post on this topic Mark Lane’s version of events proved to be the correct one as Simmons would say this before the HSCA.
Q: Now at the time you heard the second and third shot did you notice anything unusual in the area of the grassy knoll?
A: Well, after I heard the shots I looked to see if I could see where they were coming from and underneath the trees up on the grassy knoll by the fence I detected what appeared to be a puff of smoke or wisp of smoke.
Q: From which direction did these noises appear to come from?
A: In front and the left.
At the time of the shots the Texas School Book Depository Building (TSBD) was NOT to the “front and left” of the presidential limousine, thus, the statements the FBI, and by extension the U.S. News & World Report, attributed to him were lies. Again, IF LHO was really guilty based on the evidence, why would this kind of lie be needed?
This same small segment of the magazine continued to misrepresent this issue as it claimed that Austin Miller “thought the smoke he saw was steam.” They then went on to posit that “It is likely that any smoke seen was in fact steam. A steam pipe ran along the wooden fence near the edge of the triple underpass.” (Ibid)
The problem with this statement is that Austin Miller told the Sheriff’s Department on November 22, 1963, something else in his affidavit as he said he saw “smoke OR steam”, and not that he thought he saw steam as the U.S. News & World Report claimed.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0252a.gif
I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the Railroad tracks. (Austin Miller Affidavit, Decker Exhibit No. 5323, p. 485)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0252a.htm
Quote off
When Austin Miller was called before the WC later in 1964 he was NOT asked one question about smoke or steam so the WC did NOTHING to clear this up for us. Also, as researcher Stewart Galanor said his book Cover-Up, in the film Rush To Judgment something interesting is seen.
Quote on
The steam pipe referred to in U.S. News & World Report can be seen in the film Rush To Judgment. It is OVER 100 FEET AWAY from the point on the knoll where smoke was observed by the six railroad workers. No one reported smoke or steam at the location of the steam pipe. If a steam pipe had been the cause of smoke at the site of the steam pipe or on the grassy knoll, one would expect the steam or smoke to have been seen again. No such sightings occurred. (Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up, p. 62)
Quote off
We simply see another lie by U.S. News & World Report on this issue, but they were NOT done just yet. In the same small boxed article they too misrepresented what Clemon Johnson said too. They wrote the following.
Quote on
Clemon Johnson saw white smoke but told the FBI that it “came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman.” (Ibid.)
Quote off
As we have seen before there is nothing to compare this statement with since Mr. Johnson was NOT called before the WC and Mark Lane did NOT interview him for his movie/book. What we do have though is a photograph taken by Wilma Bond that shows us that right after the third shot (the time the railroad workers saw the smoke) there is NO motorcycle near the GK area as claimed. Here is Bond No. 4 and it shows NO motorcycle near the GK to confuse anyone regarding smoke.
Bond No. 4:
3.bp.blogspot.com/-Aat39mfI6W0/TZOWNzeqK8I/AAAAAAAATlw/X-YTzxmw8nY/s1600/ZZZ.%2BBond%2BPhoto%2B%2528Large%2BVersion%2529.jpg
You clearly see there is NO motorcycle at the bottom of the GK as claimed, thus, we were told another lie via the FBI and U.S. News & World Report. Why are lies needed IF the evidence shows LHO was guilty as claimed?
Another lie we have seen in the media came from LIFE magazine when they wrote the following in their December 6, 1963 edition.
Quote on
LIFE reported that " the 8 mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed - toward the sniper's nest - just before he clutches it." (Paul Mandel, "End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds," LIFE, December 6, 1963 edition, , p. 52F, col. 2.)
Quote off
All one has to do is view the Zapruder film to see JFK was NOT turned far to the right to wave to someone in the crowd as LIFE claimed. We also see his throat is NOT exposed to the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) as claimed either, thus, in this short sentence LIFE reported TWO LIES to the American people in an effort to make it seem as IF the official conclusion was correct. Why is this needed IF what the Dallas Police Department (DPD), FBI and the WC said was true?
Let’s look a some lies the WC told us in their Report (I will limit it to a few otherwise I would be writing this post for a long time). They are lies because their OWN evidence does NOT support their claim.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0076a.gif
He [Shaneyfelt] concluded that the negative of Exhibit No. 133-B was exposed in Oswald’s Imperial Reflex Camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. (WCR, p. 127)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0076a.htm
Quote off
As we have seen in a recent post in this series there was NO chain of custody for the Imperial Reflex (CE 750) camera and it was NEVER shown LHO even owned this camera. So if CE 133-B was taken with it, so what? Also, the WC wanted us to believe that the ONLY two photographs Marina Oswald had taken in her life up to that point were of LHO holding a rifle and wearing a pistol. Please. Also, they wanted you to believe the ONLY photographs ever taken with the Imperial Reflex camera were of the incriminating kind against LHO (two BYPs and the photographs of Walker’s house).
Marina Oswald told the FBI that LHO left his American camera with his brother while he was in the Marine Corps, but Robert Oswald did NOT recognize CE 750.
Another lie comes in the next sentence.
Quote on
He could not test Exhibit No. 133-A in the same way because the negative was NEVER recovered. (Ibid) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
This is a lie because their OWN evidence showed that the negative for CE 133A was found by the DPD on November 23, 1963.
Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
And:
Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.
Detective Gus Rose says here he found TWO NEGATIVES so if the other one was NOT CE 133-A as claimed by the WC, what was it of? Their failure to tell us this leads one to believe it was of CE 133-A and for some reason this negative “disappeared” while in official custody.
The WCR would write this about the two Backyard photographs (BYPs) in regards to their authenticity.
Quote on
Moreover, Shaneyfelt testified that in his opinion the photographs were not composites of two different photographs and that Oswald’s face had not been superimposed on another body. (Ibid)
Quote off
The one way to prove once for all these photographs are authentic would be show it was possible to take two pictures within seconds of each other and have the shadows seen in them show DIFFERENT angles like we see in CE 133-A and CE 133-B. The FBI claimed to do this, but if they did, why did they black out the head of the agent, thus, wiping out the shadow under the nose?
CE 748: [http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0274b.htm
Further proof that the FBI did NOT match the shadows seen in the BYPs comes from the London Times who conducted their own recreation of the BYPs in 1966. Stewart Galanor wrote this about it in his book Cover-Up.
Quote on
The London Times’s test shows that when the shadow of the nose falls straight down, the shadow of the body is behind. When the shadow of the nose veers off to the right, so does the shadow of the body. (Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up, p. 81)
Quote off
Thus, it is impossible for two DIFFERENT TYPES of shadows to appear in one photograph as they represent the sun’s position which means they show DIFFERENT times of the day. Also, it has been shown by Syliva Meagher (she did the hard task of contacting the Dallas office of the U.S. Weather Bureau) that on March 31, 1963, the sun was not even out as the day is listed as “a cloudy day with traces of rain.” The day portrayed in the BYPs is one of full, bright sunshine so this too shows they are NOT authentic as claimed by the FBI and the WC.
These lies by the Media, FBI, and the WC show LHO was NOT guilty as if he was and there was evidence for it there would have been NO reason to lie at all about anything. These lies show us the official conclusion is false, thus, the WC and its conclusion are sunk.