JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Axxman300]

Yeah, she said she took a photograph. Oh wait, two photographs! Sorry! NO WAIT I MEAN THREE PHOTOGRAPHS SORRY HONEST MISTAKE AFTER ALL ITS SO EASY TO OPERATE THAT CAMERA I PROLLY TOOK TWO MORE ACCIDENTALLY JUST POINT AND CLICK RITE?

Actually I'd rather not talk about the backyard photos here. I'm not letting the brain issue go.

Why not discuss incriminating evidence?

Oh...right...

 

[Axxman300]

He missed the first shot both times and had no second chance with Walker so whatever right.

Walker dropped his pen and bent down to retrieve it the instant the shot was fired.

Had he not - he dead.

 

[BStrong]

Yeah, she said she took a photograph. Oh wait, two photographs! Sorry! NO WAIT I MEAN THREE PHOTOGRAPHS SORRY HONEST MISTAKE AFTER ALL ITS SO EASY TO OPERATE THAT CAMERA I PROLLY TOOK TWO MORE ACCIDENTALLY JUST POINT AND CLICK RITE?

Actually I'd rather not talk about the backyard photos here. I'm not letting the brain issue go.

Then you should have no difficulty answering why "the brain issue" is important in the larger context of the hard evidence.

I gave you your stage. If you don't have the courage to stand on it, at least be honest enough to admit your limitations.

 

[BStrong]

Um, I think you're confused. The official story is that the brain was almost complete, like it shows on the photographs (or the sketch I linked). There are witnesses who said they thought the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 destroyed, but those witnesses go against the official story. It's your job to tell me how they got a nearly complete brain out of the skull cavity without disturbing the cowlick area of the skull. Let's try this thing while accepting the medical evidence as is.

Here is a video showing the consistency of an unfixed human brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxyP-nUhUY

If you want a grand theory on the shooting, help me create one. But It's pointless to respond to theories like "it happened like this because it makes more sense when a single sixth floor sniper did it".

Your slip is showing.

You want grand conspiracy? read James Ellroy's American Underworld trilogy -American Tabloid, The Cold Six Thousand and Blood's a Rover.

James believes that there was a conspiracy, and JFK got exactly what he deserved. We have spirited discussions. My copy of Blood's is engraved Carlos Marcello! with three underlines. He turned me on to Libra, and that's worth reading for the entertainment value too.

 

[HSienzant]

He was a Marine sharpshooter you'd have to be drunk as Joey Mcgee at 9 am on a monday to neglect to sight your rifle it's not possible.

...To me, the first thing that happens when an expert marksman buys a guy [sic - gun] is that he sights it in and then takes care of it after that. I am done here, thanks.

Let's skip the theatrics and bloviation, maybe he liked to clean his gun before he shot it and being disassembled was part of that process? What's so wrong about a blanket? You have to qualify statements. I don't understand what him storing like this has to do with the gun being in average condition. It's beyond stretching really.

So disassembling it and storing it for months unattended in a garage in a blanket on the floor where it was in the way and underneath a bandsaw casting dust on it is one of the appropriate ways to "take care of it" after "he sights it in"?

Is that your argument here?

Michael Paine Testimony:
Mr. PAINE - That is right. I unpacked whatever was remaining in the station wagon to the garage.
So sometime later, I do remember moving about this package which, let's say, was a rifle, anyway it was a package wrapped in a blanket. The garage was kind of crowded and I did have my tools in there and I had to move this package several times in order to make space to work, and the final time I put it on the floor underneath the saw where the bandsaw would be casting dust on it and I was a little embarrassed to be putting his goods on the floor, but I didn't suppose, the first time I picked it up I thought it was camping equipment.

Quit pretending you understand Oswald's motivations. You clearly don't, as your explanations of what he would do with his weapon conflict entirely with what he did do with his weapon.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

That's a complete irrelevancy because no autopsy photo unquestionably shows where the small head wound was located, unless in the future more work is done on the skull photos.

Your grasp of logic is breathtaking.

If you have not seen ALL of the autopsy photographs then HOW can you say what they show or don't show?

How is this even rational?

If you think the red spot is an entry, you must feel it's somehow appropriate to contradict the statements of Humes, Boswell, Finck and Stirnger who specifically said the red spot was not the wound. If you want to believe that the red spot on the scalp corresponded to the depressed cowlick fracture on he skull, you must believe that they were pulling the scalp back which gave a misleading view of where the red spot was located.

First, don't assume to know what I think.

Second, I don't care. There are not enough photographs of the body for me -or anyone else - to even begin to make an layman's evaluation, and thus a waste of time.

Nobody who has ever seen the official autopsy photos at the National Archives has ever said the bootleg versions are any different, besides maybe being of lesser quality.

What you just wrote was that the bootleg versions are the same, but not the same. And if you take their word for it you're the fool.

You have a hollywood idea of what a bullet going into a head looks like.

Nope. I have the Zapruder Film

A bullet entering a head doesn't always create a large noticeable backspatter.

So what you're saying is that bullets don't always do the same thing every time they strike a similar target...which undermines your total argument here...

You must beat yourself at chess a lot.

Also, you fail to provide any experimental evidence that a high-velocity 6.5x55mm bullet entering the cowlick area of a human head would even leave an intact entry wound like that. In this experiment, a bullet entering the back of this dummy's head leaves something more like a tangential wound:

Small hole in, big hole out. It's a signature.

Obviously this is a dummy, and experts like Sherry Fiester have been very critical of how this experiment was done and presented, but where's your evidence that we would even expect an intact entry wound?

If it's obvious that this is a dummy, and not an actual human head, then why would I expect to see anything other than what is shown? (Which duplicates the shot nicely BTW)

It's all meaningless trivialities for the sake of discussion only.

Sure, this is just a parlor game to you. It was for me too back in the day.

We know that the cowlick fracture almost certainly is not the small head wound described in the records and experts and witnesses who were there.

"We" who were NOT there know MORE than those experts who WERE there with HANDS on the body.

Based on four or five photographs, and not the dozens never seen but by a few experts.

It's like debating creationism at this point

Except you don't realize which side of that debate you're standing on at the moment.

 

[HSienzant]

Um, I think you're confused.

I think you are.

The official story is that the brain was almost complete, like it shows on the photographs (or the sketch I linked).

What photos of the brain you got? The only ones I know about show the brain inside the skull. You have yet to quote one official source that the brain was intact, or as you back-peddle now, "almost complete".

There are witnesses who said they thought the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 destroyed, but those witnesses go against the official story.

You brought up these witnesses. You have yet to quote from the "official story" anywhere that the brain was intact.

It's your job to tell me how they got a nearly complete brain out of the skull cavity without disturbing the cowlick area of the skull.

No, it's not. That's a shifting of the burden of proof. We already went through this - multiple times, extensively. I need not follow you around with a pooper scooper and clean up after you. You want to claim the cowlick area of the skull was disturbed during the removal of the brain, it's your job to prove it. I need not disprove it, which is what you're asking me to do above, and what you have been asking me to do.

Stop attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Let's try this thing while accepting the medical evidence as is.

I would love for you to do that. But "the medical evidence as it is" doesn't ever, ever, not ever, consist of you sharing your uneducated opinions about what the medical evidence shows. And unfortunately, that's about the sum and substance of what you've cited thus far. For example, you again reference the "official story" without once citing for it.

Could you do that now? Where did the "official story" say the brain was intact?

If you want a grand theory on the shooting, help me create one.

Hilarious. Another attempt to shift the burden of proof. I'm not a conspiracist, so my theory of the shooting you already know. I need to know what yours is, so as to draw a fair comparison between the two theories, and which one better fits more of the evidence. Got one?

But It's pointless to respond to theories like "it happened like this because it makes more sense when a single sixth floor sniper did it".

Another straw man argument. The argument you're attempting to rebut is actually this one: "it happened like this because the evidence points to it happening that way".

I cautioned you multiple times about being able to accurately summarize your opponents arguments. You will not win any arguments if all you can do is introduce straw man logical fallacies into the thread.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

A bullet entering a head doesn't always create a large noticeable backspatter.

Can you expand on your argument here? Where do you see large noticeable backspatter in the Zapruder film?

For example, in the below, the backspatter is NOT the large amount of material ejected at about the one o'clock position (if you only have familiarity with digital clocks, it would be 15 degrees to the right of vertical) in the below:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/9esxsUf.gif[/qimg]

The backspatter is the stuff ejected at the nine or ten o'clock position (horizontally to the left, within a 15 degree arc above that).

Now compare what you see above with the ejecta from the Zapruder film in frame Z313 being forced out of JFK's head at the one o'clock position (including the piece of skull later found in Dealey Plaza known as the Harper fragment rotating out from the head at the one o'clock position).

Obviously this is a dummy, and experts like Sherry Fiester have been very critical of how this experiment was done and presented

Of course she has been. That's what conspiracy theorists do - criticize everything pointing to Oswald. Where's her competing experiments, done the right way (according to her) and showing something different?

Oh, she never conducted any? Color me not surprised.

...but where's your evidence that we would even expect an intact entry wound?

On the skull as examined after the assassination in Bethesda Naval Hospital. That's the evidence you're ignoring and discounting. Remember?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

One funny thing is, people who tend to think there was an entry in the cowlick also tend to think the open-cranium photo shows frontal bone.

NSFW - autopsy photo

I don't think anybody is disputing that the open-cranium photos show the skull cavity after the brain had been removed. So I would really like to see somebody argue that the autopsy doctors could've gotten a good sized brain out of a skull cavity which has both the intact cowlick fracture for Dr. Finck to see and the small beveled exit hole in the frontal bone that literally nobody who was there said they saw.

 

[HSienzant]

Yeah, she said she took a photograph. Oh wait, two photographs! Sorry! NO WAIT I MEAN THREE PHOTOGRAPHS SORRY HONEST MISTAKE AFTER ALL ITS SO EASY TO OPERATE THAT CAMERA I PROLLY TOOK TWO MORE ACCIDENTALLY JUST POINT AND CLICK RITE?

Actually I'd rather not talk about the backyard photos here. I'm not letting the brain issue go.

Too late. So let me show you why you're wrong.

If you took some photos of something in March (let's say the Statue of Liberty on your last visit to New York) would you remember precisely how many times you clicked the shutter?

I doubt it highly.

That's the circumstance Marina was in. Shown some photos of Oswald with his weapons taken at the Neely Street address, she remembered taking them, but didn't remember how many. Eventually she 'fessed up to three, as I recall, in her testimony to the HSCA (because three different photos of Oswald in slightly different poses were found). The last photo to be discovered was among the possessions of Roscoe White, a Dallas police officer. It showed Oswald holding the rifle over his head with both hands.

But we know for a fact she took those photos, because Oswald's own mother tells us about what happened to one of the copies of that third photo:

What Marguerite testified to:
Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission's Exhibit 134.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture.
Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, "To my daughter, June, with love." He was holding the rifle up.
Mr. RANKIN. By holding it up, you mean----
Mrs. OSWALD. Like this.
Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. Above his head?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see these pictures, Exhibits 133 and 134?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen those pictures.
. . .
Mrs. OSWALD. ...So this is where the picture comes in.
While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with hits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it.
Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely.
Mr. RANKIN. Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture."
And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture.
She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet.
Mr. RANKIN. And what time was this?
Mrs. OSWALD. This--now, just a minute, gentlemen, because this I know is very important to me and to you, too.
We had been in the jail. This was an evening. Well, this, then, would be approximately 5:30 or 6 in the evening.
Mr. RANKIN. What day?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Saturday, November 23. Now, I flushed the torn bits and the half-burned thing down the commode. And nothing was said. There was nothing said.

Marguerite and Marina destroyed one of the photos that Oswald had given to Marina to pass on to his daughter June to remember him by. It was the third pose, a copy of which was only discovered years later, and which was provided to Marina herself by Oswald.

Here's Marina's testimony about that:
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures.
I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it on a day off that you took the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was on a Sunday.
Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.
Mr. RANKIN. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with the prints of the photograph after the prints were made? That is, did you put them in a photographic album yourself?
Mrs. OSWALD. Lee gave me one photograph and asked me to keep it for June somewhere. Of course June doesn't need photographs like that.
...
Mrs. OSWALD. I went to my room. But then I showed Lee's mother the photograph, where he is photographed with a rifle, and told her he had shot at Walker and it appeared he might have been shooting at the President. She said that I should hide that photograph and not show it to anyone.
On the next day I destroyed one photograph which I had. I think I had two small ones [two wallet sized and one larger one would make three in total of the same pose - Hank]. When we were in the hotel I burned it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to her about the destruction of the photographs when she suggested that?
Mrs. OSWALD. She saw it, while I was destroying them.

So the two women who were party to the destruction of three copies of one of the backyard photos both affirm that destruction. There is no question that is Oswald in the backyard photos. Both his mother and his wife testified to seeing a backyard photo on the weekend of the assassination, and Marina not only testified to taking the photos, she testified to receiving her copy from her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald, to the exclusion of all other persons in the world.

Her failure to recall precisely how many photos she took months earlier is meaningless next to this event. Deal with that minutia. Overlook the big picture some more.

Unless you read all the testimony, you won't know how much the conspiracy advocates are hiding from you.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

snipped...

Now What.

 

[MicahJava]

To Hank on the backyard photos: Yes, yes, I'm aware of all of that. That's not new information that conspiracy theorists are hiding. I think you have a very outdated perspective on what "conspiracy theorists" talk about. Just look at your circular logic on Sherry Fiester, she has every qualification to give an opinion on what she talks about, yet you dismiss her because of her conclusions of a shot from the front and assume she's just saying that because of her and her sister's association with JFK lancer, etc. Is that the attitude of a wise man or a fool?

Here are two pieces on the backyard photos on CTKA/KennedysAndKing.com, and they talk about everything you think they don't talk about:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-backyard-photographs

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

 

[HSienzant]

To Hank on the backyard photos: Yes, yes, I'm aware of all of that. That's not new information that conspiracy theorists are hiding.

No, it's old information that conspiracy theorists have been hiding. Marguerite and Marina's cited testimony was from 1964. I don't recall Mark Lane or Harold Weisberg or Sylvia Meagher or Josiah Thompson or Jim Marrs or Robert Groden or Peter Dale Scott or any of a hundred other conspiracy writers ever pointing out that Marguerite Oswald saw the supposed mysterious backyard pose and saw Marina burn it and flush it down the toilet.

I think you have a very outdated perspective on what "conspiracy theorists" talk about.

I'm sure when you guys get together over coffee, you skip right over the evidence for conspiracy and don't bother to give that a second glance and delve instead into who is behind the assassination. Of course, after 53+ years of discussion, you'd think you guys would be able to name one living human being who you'd accuse in print of being a party to conspiracy. But libel laws being what they are, we get the names of a bunch of dead people only and that's all we've been getting for five decades. And certainly no overarching competing theory of conspiracy that we could compare side by side with the established theory.

Just look at your circular logic on Sherry Fiester, she has every qualification to give an opinion on what she talks about, yet you dismiss her because of her conclusions of a shot from the front and assume she's just saying that because of her and her sister's association with JFK lancer, etc.

I didn't dismiss her opinion. First off, I didn't even know her sister was associated with the conspiracy site JFK LANCER, nor would it have been worth mentioning if I had. You just go for the straw man argument once again. I pointed out she's doing exact what critics have been doing for five-plus decades -- criticizing others work and saying it's not good enough. But I cannot recall the last time a critic actually did any of the work on a competing model and offered that up for study and discussion. Can you? Sherri Fiester certainly didn't provide a better model. And that's what I said. Your straw man arguments expose your lack of rebuttal.

Is that the attitude of a wise man or a fool?

It's not for me to say. I'll leave it for others to determine whether you or I are fools or wise. A wise man knows his limitations.

Here are two pieces on the backyard photos on CTKA/KennedysAndKing.com, and they talk about everything you think they don't talk about:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-backyard-photographs

No, that's all old news that's been covered for decades. As a relative newcomer to this, you probably don't know this. Where does he point out that Marguerite seeing a backyard photo of Oswald with the rifle shown to her by Marina is proof positive that the photos are legit? He doesn't. Instead, he ignores that point entirely and mentions a speculation by Meagher and argues that, yeah, maybe the photo Marguerite saw was one of Oswald in Russia. He doesn't even entertain the possibility that the photo Marguerite saw was a back yard photo taken by Marina with the rifle held over Oswald's head.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

More of the same... ignore the big picture, focus on the minutia. Marguerite saw a picture of Lee Oswald with a rifle on 11/23/63 that was in the possession of Marina Oswald, and given to her by her own husband, and inscribed by him "To my daughter June". That establishes the backyard photos are legit.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

To Hank on the backyard photos: Yes, yes, I'm aware of all of that. That's not new information that conspiracy theorists are hiding. I think you have a very outdated perspective on what "conspiracy theorists" talk about. Just look at your circular logic on Sherry Fiester, she has every qualification to give an opinion on what she talks about, yet you dismiss her because of her conclusions of a shot from the front and assume she's just saying that because of her and her sister's association with JFK lancer, etc. Is that the attitude of a wise man or a fool?

Here are two pieces on the backyard photos on CTKA/KennedysAndKing.com, and they talk about everything you think they don't talk about:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-backyard-photographs

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

OK, Now what?

 

[BStrong]

No, it's old information that conspiracy theorists have been hiding. Marguerite and Marina's cited testimony was from 1964. I don't recall Mark Lane or Harold Weisberg or Sylvia Meagher or Josiah Thompson or Jim Marrs or Robert Groden or Peter Dale Scott or any of a hundred other conspiracy writers ever pointing out that Marguerite Oswald saw the supposed mysterious backyard pose and saw Marina burn it and flush it down the toilet.




I'm sure when you guys get together over coffee, you skip right over the evidence for conspiracy and don't bother to give that a second glance and delve instead into who is behind the assassination. Of course, after 53+ years of discussion, you'd think you guys would be able to name one living human being who you'd accuse in print of being a party to conspiracy. But libel laws being what they are, we get the names of a bunch of dead people only and that's all we've been getting for five decades. And certainly no overarching competing theory of conspiracy that we could compare side by side with the established theory.




I didn't dismiss her opinion. First off, I didn't even know her sister was associated with the conspiracy site JFK LANCER, nor would it have been worth mentioning if I had. You just go for the straw man argument once again. I pointed out she's doing exact what critics have been doing for five-plus decades -- criticizing others work and saying it's not good enough. But I cannot recall the last time a critic actually did any of the work on a competing model and offered that up for study and discussion. Can you? Sherri Fiester certainly didn't provide a better model. And that's what I said. Your straw man arguments expose your lack of rebuttal.




It's not for me to say. I'll leave it for others to determine whether you or I are fools or wise. A wise man knows his limitations.




No, that's all old news that's been covered for decades. As a relative newcomer to this, you probably don't know this. Where does he point out that Marguerite seeing a backyard photo of Oswald with the rifle shown to her by Marina is proof positive that the photos are legit? He doesn't. Instead, he ignores that point entirely and mentions a speculation by Meagher and argues that, yeah, maybe the photo Marguerite saw was one of Oswald in Russia. He doesn't even entertain the possibility that the photo Marguerite saw was a back yard photo taken by Marina with the rifle held over Oswald's head.




More of the same... ignore the big picture, focus on the minutia. Marguerite saw a picture of Lee Oswald with a rifle on 11/23/63 that was in the possession of Marina Oswald, and given to her by her own husband, and inscribed by him "To my daughter June". That establishes the backyard photos are legit.

Hank

Hell, MJ himself discovered the ventriloquist suppressor and sub-sonic sabot bullet.

Unfortunately he was unable to articulate what the hell good they would be in the real world where ear-witnesses get it wrong more often than not, but any arguing point is better than no arguing point in Conspiracylandia.

 

[MicahJava]

Come on, now you're haggling over the memory of an old lady who could've seen a picture of Lee holding any rifle at any time like the 1958 picture below?

Why not respond to the last more scientific post above? Do you orient the open-cranium photograph like the HSCA did, showing frontal bone? If so, that's yet another huge problem with how they managed to remove the brain with Dr. Fick still being able to see the undisturbed small head wound.

 

[HSienzant]

Come on, now you're haggling over the memory of an old lady who could've been [seen] a picture of Lee holding any rifle at any time like the 1958 picture below?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Unst7zZ.jpg[/qimg]

HILARIOUS!

I'm not haggling, you are. I remind you you've quoted testimony from 33 years after the assassination given in 1996 to the ARRB, and found nothing wrong with it, when the witnesses had to be in their fifties, sixties, seventies, or even older.

I was the one reminding you that recollections that far out of date had to be taken with a grain of salt. You never bothered to even acknowledge the point.

And now, to question Marguerite's testimony, you refer to her as an "old lady".

Okay, let's compare and contrast what you accept versus what you question:

Marguerite Oswald was born July 19, 1907, and her testimony on this photograph came on February 10, 1964.

That means she was 56 years old when she testified, and when her recollection of the events of the preceding November was just two and a half months old. You reject her recollection because she was an "old lady".

Compare that to the testimonies you accept: Recollections to the HSCA in 1978 (15 years after the event) and recollections to the ARRB in 1996 (33 years after the event), when some, most, or all of these witnesses were in their sixties, seventies, and eighties.

But Marguerite's testimony came too long after the event (2.5 months after) and she was too old (at 56)?

Give it a rest. Your arguments taken together make no sense. You question the contemporaneous recollection and accept the decades later recollections. We both know why you do this. The contemporaneous recollection points to Oswald owning a rifle and the backyard photos being legitimate, and that means Oswald lied in custody when he claimed the backyard photos were fakes. The faulty recollections for 15 or 33 years after the assassination you accept, because the witnesses recalled things that can be utilized to question the official story. Quite simply, your bias for a conspiratorial resolution is showing.

She said she remembered the photo (she said Oswald was holding the rifle over his head), so WE BOTH KNOW it wasn't the photo you provided above. And Marina offered further details, saying the photo in question was one of the backyard photos. She referred to this photo inscribed by Lee "To my daughter June" when asked by Rankin if she had anything to do with the photos she took after they were developed:


Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with the prints of the photograph after the prints were made? That is, did you put them in a photographic album yourself?
Mrs. OSWALD. Lee gave me one photograph and asked me to keep it for June somewhere. Of course June doesn't need photographs like that.


So this photo, seen by both woman and testified to by both women, was one of the backyard photos Marina took. And none of the conspiracy authors you can cite will tell you that.

As I said above, "Unless you read all the testimony, you won't know how much the conspiracy advocates are hiding from you."

This is another example of just that.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Okay, now on to the facts.

 

[HSienzant]

Okay, now on to the facts.

Well, it's about time you moved in that direction. I've only been pushing you that way for the last year or so.

We are all relieved you won't be treating us to your interpretations as evidence, your opinions as evidence, and you won't be using recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact as if they are evidence.

On to the facts!

Go ahead, we're waiting.

Hank

By the way, we're also well aware you ignored my rebuttal post entirely, pretending it wasn't factual. That's just a dismissal of the facts I provided (some people call it 'hand-waving the evidence away').

 

[MicahJava]

Can you respond to this one?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11807332&postcount=3109