Amazing! Level of Discourse Rises on Newsgroup

[Victor Bazarov]

"Caeruleo" <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote...

> [...] What I'd like to see specifically
> addressed are certain things seen in this photograph:
>
> [url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
>
> One can see that although the rifle is being held at what appears to be
> about an 11 o'clock angle from the front, the shadow of the rifle on the
> ground behind him appears to be pointing to about 9 o'clock.

What of it? Have you ever studied any geometry, projection,
drafting? If not, I cannot help. Yes, the relative positions
of the rifle and the sun and the ground are such that make the
rifle cast the shadow that appears "pointing to about 9 o'clock".

> Also the
> shadow of his elbow appears to point up,

No, the shadow of his elbow is right below the shadow of the
rifle. His forearm casts a very short shadow, being almost
directly pointing to the sun. What you see "point up" is the
shadow of the shoulder.

> while it's plainly a bit down
> in the image of him. My question is whether or not what we see is
> consistent with the rifle also being tilted in a direction which is
> commonly called in English "forward," i.e., the top of it being tilted
> toward the camera as well as to the person's right.

Yes, it is consistent.

> The butt of the
> rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip;

No, the butt of the rifle is stuck to his belly, directly under
the right side of the collar, approximately half-way between
the hip and the navel.

> note how there are
> "waves" on his shirt which suggest that it is being pulled down by the
> butt of the gun.

The shirt apparently is pulled down.

> For him to hold the rifle directly to his right
> without additionally tilting it forward,

How from this image can you tell he's not tilting it forward?

> he would rather obviously have
> to pull his right elbow back a good deal,

Have you ever held a rifle? Perhaps you need to find one and try...

> yet I see no shadow on his
> upper arm which indicates that it is tilted at that great an angle away
> from the light.

Away?

> The light on the upper arm instead indicates that from
> shoulder to elbow his upper arm is pointed much closer to straight
> toward the ground, which would automatically put his right hand well
> forward of his right hip, necessitating that the rifle MUST be tilted
> foward for it to still rest on his hip. This would of course also cause
> the shadow of the rifle to rotate forward. With the right elbow held up
> somewhat, & the sun coming down at a slant, the upward elbow shadow
> might also be consistent with the light source.

There is no "upward elbow shadow".

> Comments?

Your conclusions are a bunch of nonsense.

[url]www.bazarov.com/suggestions/133-b.jpg[/url]

(red is the outline of the body, brown - of the rifle, green
- of the handgun, yellow lines - light). Enjoy!

Victor

[Victor Bazarov]

"Caeruleo" <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote...

> [...] What I'd like to see specifically
> addressed are certain things seen in this photograph:
>
> [url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
>
> One can see that although the rifle is being held at what appears to be
> about an 11 o'clock angle from the front, the shadow of the rifle on the
> ground behind him appears to be pointing to about 9 o'clock.

What of it? Have you ever studied any geometry, projection,
drafting? If not, I cannot help. Yes, the relative positions
of the rifle and the sun and the ground are such that make the
rifle cast the shadow that appears "pointing to about 9 o'clock".

> Also the
> shadow of his elbow appears to point up,

No, the shadow of his elbow is right below the shadow of the
rifle. His forearm casts a very short shadow, being almost
directly pointing to the sun. What you see "point up" is the
shadow of the shoulder.

> while it's plainly a bit down
> in the image of him. My question is whether or not what we see is
> consistent with the rifle also being tilted in a direction which is
> commonly called in English "forward," i.e., the top of it being tilted
> toward the camera as well as to the person's right.

Yes, it is consistent.

> The butt of the
> rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip;

No, the butt of the rifle is stuck to his belly, directly under
the right side of the collar, approximately half-way between
the hip and the navel.

> note how there are
> "waves" on his shirt which suggest that it is being pulled down by the
> butt of the gun.

The shirt apparently is pulled down.

> For him to hold the rifle directly to his right
> without additionally tilting it forward,

How from this image can you tell he's not tilting it forward?

> he would rather obviously have
> to pull his right elbow back a good deal,

Have you ever held a rifle? Perhaps you need to find one and try...

> yet I see no shadow on his
> upper arm which indicates that it is tilted at that great an angle away
> from the light.

Away?

> The light on the upper arm instead indicates that from
> shoulder to elbow his upper arm is pointed much closer to straight
> toward the ground, which would automatically put his right hand well
> forward of his right hip, necessitating that the rifle MUST be tilted
> foward for it to still rest on his hip. This would of course also cause
> the shadow of the rifle to rotate forward. With the right elbow held up
> somewhat, & the sun coming down at a slant, the upward elbow shadow
> might also be consistent with the light source.

There is no "upward elbow shadow".

> Comments?

Your conclusions are a bunch of nonsense.

[url]www.bazarov.com/suggestions/133-b.jpg[/url]

(red is the outline of the body, brown - of the rifle, green
- of the handgun, yellow lines - light). Enjoy!

Victor

[Eric Miller]

The reminds me of the claims about the fake moon landing based upon the
supposedly fake photos made by people who don't understand the implications
of a lack of an atmosphere on the moon.

Many, many people 'believe' many very irrational things: Bigfoot, UFO's,
Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, demons, that the earth is flat, wheels in the
sky, etc. . . There's usually no reasoning with them because if they were
capable of reason, they wouldn't hold such silly beliefs to begin with.

Eric Miller

". . . a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. . .
mmmm" - Paul Simon


"Caeruleo" <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-DB31F5.12063408072003@news.fu-berlin.de...

> In article <3g3bgv8rumnne41ngsujp6n17vvpd5br77@4ax.com>,
> Robert Harris <reharris1nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > On 2 Jul 2003 16:25:58 -0500, "O.H. LEE" <gastk@aol.com> wrote:
> >

> > >debhart94103@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >>At long last, there is someone who can discuss evidence at the level
> > >>of a Robert Harris! Mr. Blenner has single-handedly accomplished
> > >>intelligent and knowledgeable discourse on the Backyard Photos. He
> > >>gets it, understanding that there is indisputable evidence of
> > >>fakery/compositry in the manufacture of "133-A".
> > >>
> > >>The HSCA boldly stated that faked backyard photos would be extremely
> > >>powerful evidence Oswald was framed. Well.....
> > >>
> > >>Naturally, he's sent the jackasses scurrying back to their holes.
> > >>Funny, isn't it, how a little evidence and expertise can blow the
> > >>"experts" and charlatans out of the water?
> > >
> > >Ms. Hart, I am hardly an expert in photography, but I am indeed very
> > >intrigued
> > >by Mr. Blenner's analysis here. I wish that other photography experts

can

> > >weigh in with their "take" on this vital issue, and either agree with

Mr.

> > >Blenner's analysis or offer something in rebuttal. Could it be that Mr.
> > >Blenner
> > >has discovered a true "smoking gun" in this case? One beyond dispute?

Very

> > >interesting indeed!

> >
> > Perhaps, we could forward some of these postings to alt.photography or
> > someplace like that.
> >
> > I would like to see some opinions from photo people who have to think
> > hard to remember that JFK was a president :-)

>
> Wonderful idea, Mr. Harris. I'll start it off. You are asked to note
> that I am x-posting this article not only to alt.photography, but to
> re.photo.equipment.35mm as well. What I'd like to see specifically
> addressed are certain things seen in this photograph:
>
> [url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
>
> One can see that although the rifle is being held at what appears to be
> about an 11 o'clock angle from the front, the shadow of the rifle on the
> ground behind him appears to be pointing to about 9 o'clock. Also the
> shadow of his elbow appears to point up, while it's plainly a bit down
> in the image of him. My question is whether or not what we see is
> consistent with the rifle also being tilted in a direction which is
> commonly called in English "forward," i.e., the top of it being tilted
> toward the camera as well as to the person's right. The butt of the
> rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip; note how there are
> "waves" on his shirt which suggest that it is being pulled down by the
> butt of the gun. For him to hold the rifle directly to his right
> without additionally tilting it forward, he would rather obviously have
> to pull his right elbow back a good deal, yet I see no shadow on his
> upper arm which indicates that it is tilted at that great an angle away
> from the light. The light on the upper arm instead indicates that from
> shoulder to elbow his upper arm is pointed much closer to straight
> toward the ground, which would automatically put his right hand well
> forward of his right hip, necessitating that the rifle MUST be tilted
> foward for it to still rest on his hip. This would of course also cause
> the shadow of the rifle to rotate forward. With the right elbow held up
> somewhat, & the sun coming down at a slant, the upward elbow shadow
> might also be consistent with the light source. Comments?
>
> --
> "During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
> operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

[Eric Miller]

The reminds me of the claims about the fake moon landing based upon the
supposedly fake photos made by people who don't understand the implications
of a lack of an atmosphere on the moon.

Many, many people 'believe' many very irrational things: Bigfoot, UFO's,
Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, demons, that the earth is flat, wheels in the
sky, etc. . . There's usually no reasoning with them because if they were
capable of reason, they wouldn't hold such silly beliefs to begin with.

Eric Miller

". . . a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. . .
mmmm" - Paul Simon


"Caeruleo" <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-DB31F5.12063408072003@news.fu-berlin.de...

> In article <3g3bgv8rumnne41ngsujp6n17vvpd5br77@4ax.com>,
> Robert Harris <reharris1nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > On 2 Jul 2003 16:25:58 -0500, "O.H. LEE" <gastk@aol.com> wrote:
> >

> > >debhart94103@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >>At long last, there is someone who can discuss evidence at the level
> > >>of a Robert Harris! Mr. Blenner has single-handedly accomplished
> > >>intelligent and knowledgeable discourse on the Backyard Photos. He
> > >>gets it, understanding that there is indisputable evidence of
> > >>fakery/compositry in the manufacture of "133-A".
> > >>
> > >>The HSCA boldly stated that faked backyard photos would be extremely
> > >>powerful evidence Oswald was framed. Well.....
> > >>
> > >>Naturally, he's sent the jackasses scurrying back to their holes.
> > >>Funny, isn't it, how a little evidence and expertise can blow the
> > >>"experts" and charlatans out of the water?
> > >
> > >Ms. Hart, I am hardly an expert in photography, but I am indeed very
> > >intrigued
> > >by Mr. Blenner's analysis here. I wish that other photography experts

can

> > >weigh in with their "take" on this vital issue, and either agree with

Mr.

> > >Blenner's analysis or offer something in rebuttal. Could it be that Mr.
> > >Blenner
> > >has discovered a true "smoking gun" in this case? One beyond dispute?

Very

> > >interesting indeed!

> >
> > Perhaps, we could forward some of these postings to alt.photography or
> > someplace like that.
> >
> > I would like to see some opinions from photo people who have to think
> > hard to remember that JFK was a president :-)

>
> Wonderful idea, Mr. Harris. I'll start it off. You are asked to note
> that I am x-posting this article not only to alt.photography, but to
> re.photo.equipment.35mm as well. What I'd like to see specifically
> addressed are certain things seen in this photograph:
>
> [url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
>
> One can see that although the rifle is being held at what appears to be
> about an 11 o'clock angle from the front, the shadow of the rifle on the
> ground behind him appears to be pointing to about 9 o'clock. Also the
> shadow of his elbow appears to point up, while it's plainly a bit down
> in the image of him. My question is whether or not what we see is
> consistent with the rifle also being tilted in a direction which is
> commonly called in English "forward," i.e., the top of it being tilted
> toward the camera as well as to the person's right. The butt of the
> rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip; note how there are
> "waves" on his shirt which suggest that it is being pulled down by the
> butt of the gun. For him to hold the rifle directly to his right
> without additionally tilting it forward, he would rather obviously have
> to pull his right elbow back a good deal, yet I see no shadow on his
> upper arm which indicates that it is tilted at that great an angle away
> from the light. The light on the upper arm instead indicates that from
> shoulder to elbow his upper arm is pointed much closer to straight
> toward the ground, which would automatically put his right hand well
> forward of his right hip, necessitating that the rifle MUST be tilted
> foward for it to still rest on his hip. This would of course also cause
> the shadow of the rifle to rotate forward. With the right elbow held up
> somewhat, & the sun coming down at a slant, the upward elbow shadow
> might also be consistent with the light source. Comments?
>
> --
> "During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
> operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

[Caeruleo]

In article <3f0bc3b0$1_3@news5.uncensored-news.com>,
"Jim Phelps" <Jim.Phelps@MI.com> wrote:

> So, who gives a damn if the shadow falls correctly or not? By the way, no
> one considered the distortion of the shadow caused by the stairs behind LHO.

Um, could it be because the gate is partly open?

--
"During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

[Caeruleo]

In article <3f0bc3b0$1_3@news5.uncensored-news.com>,
"Jim Phelps" <Jim.Phelps@MI.com> wrote:

> So, who gives a damn if the shadow falls correctly or not? By the way, no
> one considered the distortion of the shadow caused by the stairs behind LHO.

Um, could it be because the gate is partly open?

--
"During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

[Caeruleo]

In article <vgm2lmju5n29b6@corp.supernews.com>,
"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@attAbi.com> wrote:

> "Caeruleo" <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote...

> > [...] What I'd like to see specifically
> > addressed are certain things seen in this photograph:
> >
> > [url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
> >
> > One can see that although the rifle is being held at what appears to be
> > about an 11 o'clock angle from the front, the shadow of the rifle on the
> > ground behind him appears to be pointing to about 9 o'clock.

>
> What of it? Have you ever studied any geometry, projection,
> drafting? If not, I cannot help. Yes, the relative positions
> of the rifle and the sun and the ground are such that make the
> rifle cast the shadow that appears "pointing to about 9 o'clock".

Yep.

> > Also the
> > shadow of his elbow appears to point up,

>
> No, the shadow of his elbow is right below the shadow of the
> rifle. His forearm casts a very short shadow, being almost
> directly pointing to the sun. What you see "point up" is the
> shadow of the shoulder.

I think we're talking about 2 different things. The shadow of his elbow
appears to show his elbow pointing upward. But you do understand that
I'm not finding this inconsistent with natural shadow patterns, correct?
I've done this myself standing in the sun & seen the shadow of my elbow
do this very thing.

> > while it's plainly a bit down
> > in the image of him. My question is whether or not what we see is
> > consistent with the rifle also being tilted in a direction which is
> > commonly called in English "forward," i.e., the top of it being tilted
> > toward the camera as well as to the person's right.

>
> Yes, it is consistent.

Agreed.

> > The butt of the
> > rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip;

>
> No, the butt of the rifle is stuck to his belly, directly under
> the right side of the collar, approximately half-way between
> the hip and the navel.

Yes, you are correct, as I see now. Sorry.

> > note how there are
> > "waves" on his shirt which suggest that it is being pulled down by the
> > butt of the gun.

>
> The shirt apparently is pulled down.

Yep.

> > For him to hold the rifle directly to his right
> > without additionally tilting it forward,

>
> How from this image can you tell he's not tilting it forward?

Lol! I'm the one who's saying it IS tilted forward. ;-)

> > he would rather obviously have
> > to pull his right elbow back a good deal,

>
> Have you ever held a rifle? Perhaps you need to find one and try...

That I have done. The most natural way to hold it when resting it on
one's hip or stomach is for the elbow not to be pulled back too far,
which will automatically cause the top of the rifle to tilt forward when
held in the manner we see in that photo.

You do realize that I'm AGREEING with you that the rifle is tilted
forward in that photo, correct? ;-)

> > yet I see no shadow on his
> > upper arm which indicates that it is tilted at that great an angle away
> > from the light.

>
> Away?

I was having some trouble thinking of an accurate way of expressing that
in printed text. Had he held the rifle in this way & NOT tilted it
forward, it would require his hand on the rifle to be to the right of
the point on which the butt rested against his body, & not forward of
that point at all, which would put his elbow back more, causing the
front of his upper arm to be facing more downward, & thus more on the
"underside" of the sunlight, causing more shadow to appear on his upper
arm. But we see no shadow on his upper arm, indicating that from
shoulder to elbow his upper arm is closer to perpendicular to the
ground. This would of course also cause his elbow & hand to be more
forward, further indicating a forward tilt to the rifle.

> > The light on the upper arm instead indicates that from
> > shoulder to elbow his upper arm is pointed much closer to straight
> > toward the ground, which would automatically put his right hand well
> > forward of his right hip, necessitating that the rifle MUST be tilted
> > foward for it to still rest on his hip. This would of course also cause
> > the shadow of the rifle to rotate forward. With the right elbow held up
> > somewhat, & the sun coming down at a slant, the upward elbow shadow
> > might also be consistent with the light source.

>
> There is no "upward elbow shadow".

Sorry, I see it quite plainly. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what I'm
talking about.

> > Comments?

>
> Your conclusions are a bunch of nonsense.

Rofl! When they essentially agree with yours? It is some other posters
in a.c.j. who are the naysayers regarding these shadows, not me, & my
article was posted partially for their benefit. ;-)

> [url]www.bazarov.com/suggestions/133-b.jpg[/url]
>
> (red is the outline of the body, brown - of the rifle, green
> - of the handgun, yellow lines - light). Enjoy!

Thanks, good graphics.

--
"During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

[Caeruleo]

In article <vgm2lmju5n29b6@corp.supernews.com>,
"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@attAbi.com> wrote:

> "Caeruleo" <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote...

> > [...] What I'd like to see specifically
> > addressed are certain things seen in this photograph:
> >
> > [url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
> >
> > One can see that although the rifle is being held at what appears to be
> > about an 11 o'clock angle from the front, the shadow of the rifle on the
> > ground behind him appears to be pointing to about 9 o'clock.

>
> What of it? Have you ever studied any geometry, projection,
> drafting? If not, I cannot help. Yes, the relative positions
> of the rifle and the sun and the ground are such that make the
> rifle cast the shadow that appears "pointing to about 9 o'clock".

Yep.

> > Also the
> > shadow of his elbow appears to point up,

>
> No, the shadow of his elbow is right below the shadow of the
> rifle. His forearm casts a very short shadow, being almost
> directly pointing to the sun. What you see "point up" is the
> shadow of the shoulder.

I think we're talking about 2 different things. The shadow of his elbow
appears to show his elbow pointing upward. But you do understand that
I'm not finding this inconsistent with natural shadow patterns, correct?
I've done this myself standing in the sun & seen the shadow of my elbow
do this very thing.

> > while it's plainly a bit down
> > in the image of him. My question is whether or not what we see is
> > consistent with the rifle also being tilted in a direction which is
> > commonly called in English "forward," i.e., the top of it being tilted
> > toward the camera as well as to the person's right.

>
> Yes, it is consistent.

Agreed.

> > The butt of the
> > rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip;

>
> No, the butt of the rifle is stuck to his belly, directly under
> the right side of the collar, approximately half-way between
> the hip and the navel.

Yes, you are correct, as I see now. Sorry.

> > note how there are
> > "waves" on his shirt which suggest that it is being pulled down by the
> > butt of the gun.

>
> The shirt apparently is pulled down.

Yep.

> > For him to hold the rifle directly to his right
> > without additionally tilting it forward,

>
> How from this image can you tell he's not tilting it forward?

Lol! I'm the one who's saying it IS tilted forward. ;-)

> > he would rather obviously have
> > to pull his right elbow back a good deal,

>
> Have you ever held a rifle? Perhaps you need to find one and try...

That I have done. The most natural way to hold it when resting it on
one's hip or stomach is for the elbow not to be pulled back too far,
which will automatically cause the top of the rifle to tilt forward when
held in the manner we see in that photo.

You do realize that I'm AGREEING with you that the rifle is tilted
forward in that photo, correct? ;-)

> > yet I see no shadow on his
> > upper arm which indicates that it is tilted at that great an angle away
> > from the light.

>
> Away?

I was having some trouble thinking of an accurate way of expressing that
in printed text. Had he held the rifle in this way & NOT tilted it
forward, it would require his hand on the rifle to be to the right of
the point on which the butt rested against his body, & not forward of
that point at all, which would put his elbow back more, causing the
front of his upper arm to be facing more downward, & thus more on the
"underside" of the sunlight, causing more shadow to appear on his upper
arm. But we see no shadow on his upper arm, indicating that from
shoulder to elbow his upper arm is closer to perpendicular to the
ground. This would of course also cause his elbow & hand to be more
forward, further indicating a forward tilt to the rifle.

> > The light on the upper arm instead indicates that from
> > shoulder to elbow his upper arm is pointed much closer to straight
> > toward the ground, which would automatically put his right hand well
> > forward of his right hip, necessitating that the rifle MUST be tilted
> > foward for it to still rest on his hip. This would of course also cause
> > the shadow of the rifle to rotate forward. With the right elbow held up
> > somewhat, & the sun coming down at a slant, the upward elbow shadow
> > might also be consistent with the light source.

>
> There is no "upward elbow shadow".

Sorry, I see it quite plainly. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what I'm
talking about.

> > Comments?

>
> Your conclusions are a bunch of nonsense.

Rofl! When they essentially agree with yours? It is some other posters
in a.c.j. who are the naysayers regarding these shadows, not me, & my
article was posted partially for their benefit. ;-)

> [url]www.bazarov.com/suggestions/133-b.jpg[/url]
>
> (red is the outline of the body, brown - of the rifle, green
> - of the handgun, yellow lines - light). Enjoy!

Thanks, good graphics.

--
"During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

[Beta Max]

;-)

Al, really, no dissrespect intended, I do feel that if there indeed was a conspiracy,
Oswald was at least a willing, if gullible and missled, part of it. The whole issue
is probably forever clouded by the fact that there were likely some personal
relationships and actions of J.F.K. and his family that the administration/secret
service/F.B.I. etc. were concerned with quieting.

Did he (Oswald) own a 6.5 carcano, very possibly, I myself owned one in the 70's,
they were very common at the time, and even more so in the sixties. Did he get his
picture taken with it? Again possible, although I wouldn't, the rifle was a hunk of
garbage as far as long range rifles go. And ugly to boot. Point being, lots of people
owned one and I'm sure some had their pictures taken with them.They didn't all,
however, shoot the president.(Likely, *more* than one did though)

Gun people are a lot like many photographers in that they love their favorite piece
of equipment and tend to show it to the world.

I don't remember exactly what the mail order company that he allegedly bought it from
charged for the rifles, but it was a good bit of money to the average "working stiff"
of the time? Might be something a man would be proud of and want to show off.
--
_______________________

-Keith



________________________
"Al Denelsbeck" <news@wadingin.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93B2EFA63C928sandalsatwadinginnet@65.32.1. 8...

> "Beta Max" <noneya@binnis.com> wrote in news:bef4e4$9gs$1@ins22.netins.net:

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 7/8/2003

[Beta Max]

;-)

Al, really, no dissrespect intended, I do feel that if there indeed was a conspiracy,
Oswald was at least a willing, if gullible and missled, part of it. The whole issue
is probably forever clouded by the fact that there were likely some personal
relationships and actions of J.F.K. and his family that the administration/secret
service/F.B.I. etc. were concerned with quieting.

Did he (Oswald) own a 6.5 carcano, very possibly, I myself owned one in the 70's,
they were very common at the time, and even more so in the sixties. Did he get his
picture taken with it? Again possible, although I wouldn't, the rifle was a hunk of
garbage as far as long range rifles go. And ugly to boot. Point being, lots of people
owned one and I'm sure some had their pictures taken with them.They didn't all,
however, shoot the president.(Likely, *more* than one did though)

Gun people are a lot like many photographers in that they love their favorite piece
of equipment and tend to show it to the world.

I don't remember exactly what the mail order company that he allegedly bought it from
charged for the rifles, but it was a good bit of money to the average "working stiff"
of the time? Might be something a man would be proud of and want to show off.
--
_______________________

-Keith



________________________
"Al Denelsbeck" <news@wadingin.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93B2EFA63C928sandalsatwadinginnet@65.32.1. 8...

> "Beta Max" <noneya@binnis.com> wrote in news:bef4e4$9gs$1@ins22.netins.net:

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 7/8/2003

[Phil Stripling]

Caeruleo <caeruleo@yahoo.com> writes:

>SNIPs of other stuff and attributes<

> > > The butt of the
> > > rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip;

> >
> > No, the butt of the rifle is stuck to his belly, directly under
> > the right side of the collar, approximately half-way between
> > the hip and the navel.

>
> Yes, you are correct, as I see now. Sorry.

The butt of the rifle appears to be where it is so that it clears the
revolver in the holster. Ordinarily I would expect the butt to rest on the
iliac crest, but the revolver makes that impossible in this instance.

This is a horrible scan of a bad print, and I'm not willing to make any
conclusions based on this image. My preference is to use the one at
[url]http://www.disinfotainmenttoday.com/darenet/oswald.htm[/url]

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
[url]http://www.PhilipStripling.com/[/url] | my domain is read daily.

[Phil Stripling]

Caeruleo <caeruleo@yahoo.com> writes:

>SNIPs of other stuff and attributes<

> > > The butt of the
> > > rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip;

> >
> > No, the butt of the rifle is stuck to his belly, directly under
> > the right side of the collar, approximately half-way between
> > the hip and the navel.

>
> Yes, you are correct, as I see now. Sorry.

The butt of the rifle appears to be where it is so that it clears the
revolver in the holster. Ordinarily I would expect the butt to rest on the
iliac crest, but the revolver makes that impossible in this instance.

This is a horrible scan of a bad print, and I'm not willing to make any
conclusions based on this image. My preference is to use the one at
[url]http://www.disinfotainmenttoday.com/darenet/oswald.htm[/url]

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
[url]http://www.PhilipStripling.com/[/url] | my domain is read daily.

[AnthonyMarsh]

Eric Miller wrote:

>
> The reminds me of the claims about the fake moon landing based upon the
> supposedly fake photos made by people who don't understand the implications
> of a lack of an atmosphere on the moon.
>
> Many, many people 'believe' many very irrational things: Bigfoot, UFO's,
> Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, demons, that the earth is flat, wheels in the
> sky, etc. . . There's usually no reasoning with them because if they were
> capable of reason, they wouldn't hold such silly beliefs to begin with.
>

That is somewhat of a myth. There are only many because there are so
many billions of people. As a percentage, those who believe those ideas
represent only a very small fraction. Whereas 90% of the public do not
believe the Warren Commission. Within that there are indeed some wacko
conspiracy theorists, just as there are some wacky WC defenders. What
about the guy who so desperately wants to deny any conspiracy that he
claims that two gunmen does not necessarily mean a conspiracy?

> Eric Miller
>
> ". . . a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. . .
> mmmm" - Paul Simon
>
> "Caeruleo" <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-DB31F5.12063408072003@news.fu-berlin.de...

> > In article <3g3bgv8rumnne41ngsujp6n17vvpd5br77@4ax.com>,
> > Robert Harris <reharris1nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >

> > > On 2 Jul 2003 16:25:58 -0500, "O.H. LEE" <gastk@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >debhart94103@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>At long last, there is someone who can discuss evidence at the level
> > > >>of a Robert Harris! Mr. Blenner has single-handedly accomplished
> > > >>intelligent and knowledgeable discourse on the Backyard Photos. He
> > > >>gets it, understanding that there is indisputable evidence of
> > > >>fakery/compositry in the manufacture of "133-A".
> > > >>
> > > >>The HSCA boldly stated that faked backyard photos would be extremely
> > > >>powerful evidence Oswald was framed. Well.....
> > > >>
> > > >>Naturally, he's sent the jackasses scurrying back to their holes.
> > > >>Funny, isn't it, how a little evidence and expertise can blow the
> > > >>"experts" and charlatans out of the water?
> > > >
> > > >Ms. Hart, I am hardly an expert in photography, but I am indeed very
> > > >intrigued
> > > >by Mr. Blenner's analysis here. I wish that other photography experts

> can

> > > >weigh in with their "take" on this vital issue, and either agree with

> Mr.

> > > >Blenner's analysis or offer something in rebuttal. Could it be that Mr.
> > > >Blenner
> > > >has discovered a true "smoking gun" in this case? One beyond dispute?

> Very

> > > >interesting indeed!
> > >
> > > Perhaps, we could forward some of these postings to alt.photography or
> > > someplace like that.
> > >
> > > I would like to see some opinions from photo people who have to think
> > > hard to remember that JFK was a president :-)

> >
> > Wonderful idea, Mr. Harris. I'll start it off. You are asked to note
> > that I am x-posting this article not only to alt.photography, but to
> > re.photo.equipment.35mm as well. What I'd like to see specifically
> > addressed are certain things seen in this photograph:
> >
> > [url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
> >
> > One can see that although the rifle is being held at what appears to be
> > about an 11 o'clock angle from the front, the shadow of the rifle on the
> > ground behind him appears to be pointing to about 9 o'clock. Also the
> > shadow of his elbow appears to point up, while it's plainly a bit down
> > in the image of him. My question is whether or not what we see is
> > consistent with the rifle also being tilted in a direction which is
> > commonly called in English "forward," i.e., the top of it being tilted
> > toward the camera as well as to the person's right. The butt of the
> > rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip; note how there are
> > "waves" on his shirt which suggest that it is being pulled down by the
> > butt of the gun. For him to hold the rifle directly to his right
> > without additionally tilting it forward, he would rather obviously have
> > to pull his right elbow back a good deal, yet I see no shadow on his
> > upper arm which indicates that it is tilted at that great an angle away
> > from the light. The light on the upper arm instead indicates that from
> > shoulder to elbow his upper arm is pointed much closer to straight
> > toward the ground, which would automatically put his right hand well
> > forward of his right hip, necessitating that the rifle MUST be tilted
> > foward for it to still rest on his hip. This would of course also cause
> > the shadow of the rifle to rotate forward. With the right elbow held up
> > somewhat, & the sun coming down at a slant, the upward elbow shadow
> > might also be consistent with the light source. Comments?
> >
> > --
> > "During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
> > operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace [url]http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh[/url]

[AnthonyMarsh]

Eric Miller wrote:

>
> The reminds me of the claims about the fake moon landing based upon the
> supposedly fake photos made by people who don't understand the implications
> of a lack of an atmosphere on the moon.
>
> Many, many people 'believe' many very irrational things: Bigfoot, UFO's,
> Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, demons, that the earth is flat, wheels in the
> sky, etc. . . There's usually no reasoning with them because if they were
> capable of reason, they wouldn't hold such silly beliefs to begin with.
>

That is somewhat of a myth. There are only many because there are so
many billions of people. As a percentage, those who believe those ideas
represent only a very small fraction. Whereas 90% of the public do not
believe the Warren Commission. Within that there are indeed some wacko
conspiracy theorists, just as there are some wacky WC defenders. What
about the guy who so desperately wants to deny any conspiracy that he
claims that two gunmen does not necessarily mean a conspiracy?

> Eric Miller
>
> ". . . a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. . .
> mmmm" - Paul Simon
>
> "Caeruleo" <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-DB31F5.12063408072003@news.fu-berlin.de...

> > In article <3g3bgv8rumnne41ngsujp6n17vvpd5br77@4ax.com>,
> > Robert Harris <reharris1nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >

> > > On 2 Jul 2003 16:25:58 -0500, "O.H. LEE" <gastk@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >debhart94103@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>At long last, there is someone who can discuss evidence at the level
> > > >>of a Robert Harris! Mr. Blenner has single-handedly accomplished
> > > >>intelligent and knowledgeable discourse on the Backyard Photos. He
> > > >>gets it, understanding that there is indisputable evidence of
> > > >>fakery/compositry in the manufacture of "133-A".
> > > >>
> > > >>The HSCA boldly stated that faked backyard photos would be extremely
> > > >>powerful evidence Oswald was framed. Well.....
> > > >>
> > > >>Naturally, he's sent the jackasses scurrying back to their holes.
> > > >>Funny, isn't it, how a little evidence and expertise can blow the
> > > >>"experts" and charlatans out of the water?
> > > >
> > > >Ms. Hart, I am hardly an expert in photography, but I am indeed very
> > > >intrigued
> > > >by Mr. Blenner's analysis here. I wish that other photography experts

> can

> > > >weigh in with their "take" on this vital issue, and either agree with

> Mr.

> > > >Blenner's analysis or offer something in rebuttal. Could it be that Mr.
> > > >Blenner
> > > >has discovered a true "smoking gun" in this case? One beyond dispute?

> Very

> > > >interesting indeed!
> > >
> > > Perhaps, we could forward some of these postings to alt.photography or
> > > someplace like that.
> > >
> > > I would like to see some opinions from photo people who have to think
> > > hard to remember that JFK was a president :-)

> >
> > Wonderful idea, Mr. Harris. I'll start it off. You are asked to note
> > that I am x-posting this article not only to alt.photography, but to
> > re.photo.equipment.35mm as well. What I'd like to see specifically
> > addressed are certain things seen in this photograph:
> >
> > [url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
> >
> > One can see that although the rifle is being held at what appears to be
> > about an 11 o'clock angle from the front, the shadow of the rifle on the
> > ground behind him appears to be pointing to about 9 o'clock. Also the
> > shadow of his elbow appears to point up, while it's plainly a bit down
> > in the image of him. My question is whether or not what we see is
> > consistent with the rifle also being tilted in a direction which is
> > commonly called in English "forward," i.e., the top of it being tilted
> > toward the camera as well as to the person's right. The butt of the
> > rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip; note how there are
> > "waves" on his shirt which suggest that it is being pulled down by the
> > butt of the gun. For him to hold the rifle directly to his right
> > without additionally tilting it forward, he would rather obviously have
> > to pull his right elbow back a good deal, yet I see no shadow on his
> > upper arm which indicates that it is tilted at that great an angle away
> > from the light. The light on the upper arm instead indicates that from
> > shoulder to elbow his upper arm is pointed much closer to straight
> > toward the ground, which would automatically put his right hand well
> > forward of his right hip, necessitating that the rifle MUST be tilted
> > foward for it to still rest on his hip. This would of course also cause
> > the shadow of the rifle to rotate forward. With the right elbow held up
> > somewhat, & the sun coming down at a slant, the upward elbow shadow
> > might also be consistent with the light source. Comments?
> >
> > --
> > "During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
> > operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace [url]http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh[/url]

[Nuttshaw]

Philip Stripling Wrote:
"This is a horrible scan of a bad print, and I'm not willing to make any
conclusions based on this image. My preference is to use the one at
http://www.disinfotainmenttoday.com/darenet/oswald.htm"



PPPPFFFFFFFFFTT!!!! <drink flying out of my mouth hitting screen>
ROFLMAO!!!
Good One,
Thanks!

Sarah

[Nuttshaw]

Philip Stripling Wrote:
"This is a horrible scan of a bad print, and I'm not willing to make any
conclusions based on this image. My preference is to use the one at
http://www.disinfotainmenttoday.com/darenet/oswald.htm"



PPPPFFFFFFFFFTT!!!! <drink flying out of my mouth hitting screen>
ROFLMAO!!!
Good One,
Thanks!

Sarah

[Caeruleo]

In article <3qhe5va9zc.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

> Caeruleo <caeruleo@yahoo.com> writes:
>

> >SNIPs of other stuff and attributes<

> > > > The butt of the
> > > > rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip;
> > >
> > > No, the butt of the rifle is stuck to his belly, directly under
> > > the right side of the collar, approximately half-way between
> > > the hip and the navel.

> >
> > Yes, you are correct, as I see now. Sorry.

>
> The butt of the rifle appears to be where it is so that it clears the
> revolver in the holster. Ordinarily I would expect the butt to rest on the
> iliac crest, but the revolver makes that impossible in this instance.
>
> This is a horrible scan of a bad print, and I'm not willing to make any
> conclusions based on this image. My preference is to use the one at
> [url]http://www.disinfotainmenttoday.com/darenet/oswald.htm[/url]

So THAT'S what really happened down in that basement! It was a
CONSPIRACY!! Oswald is really still ALIVE!!! He changed his name & has
lived in Huntsville, Tx. since...

....1967!!!!

Ok, ok, Deb, I confess...ya caught me...I should have been posting with
my real name all this time but...well, you know, her & the 2 girls, I
really couldn't take it anymore, & a Communist? ROFL!! Naw, I was
foolin' everyone, Green Party all the way here, save those trees & all
that, cut that Aspen down over my dead body!










As if.

--
"During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

[Caeruleo]

In article <3qhe5va9zc.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

> Caeruleo <caeruleo@yahoo.com> writes:
>

> >SNIPs of other stuff and attributes<

> > > > The butt of the
> > > > rifle seems plainly to be resting on his right hip;
> > >
> > > No, the butt of the rifle is stuck to his belly, directly under
> > > the right side of the collar, approximately half-way between
> > > the hip and the navel.

> >
> > Yes, you are correct, as I see now. Sorry.

>
> The butt of the rifle appears to be where it is so that it clears the
> revolver in the holster. Ordinarily I would expect the butt to rest on the
> iliac crest, but the revolver makes that impossible in this instance.
>
> This is a horrible scan of a bad print, and I'm not willing to make any
> conclusions based on this image. My preference is to use the one at
> [url]http://www.disinfotainmenttoday.com/darenet/oswald.htm[/url]

So THAT'S what really happened down in that basement! It was a
CONSPIRACY!! Oswald is really still ALIVE!!! He changed his name & has
lived in Huntsville, Tx. since...

....1967!!!!

Ok, ok, Deb, I confess...ya caught me...I should have been posting with
my real name all this time but...well, you know, her & the 2 girls, I
really couldn't take it anymore, & a Communist? ROFL!! Naw, I was
foolin' everyone, Green Party all the way here, save those trees & all
that, cut that Aspen down over my dead body!










As if.

--
"During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
operative." - me, on 6-11-03.

[drsmith]

In article <caeruleo-DB31F5.12063408072003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
Caeruleo <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>[url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
>

I see a grainy photo of a geek with a gun. Nothing more, nothing less.
It certainly isn't proof that anyone shot anyone else as far as I can see.

--drsmith

[drsmith]

In article <caeruleo-DB31F5.12063408072003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
Caeruleo <caeruleo@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>[url]http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/133-b.jpg[/url]
>

I see a grainy photo of a geek with a gun. Nothing more, nothing less.
It certainly isn't proof that anyone shot anyone else as far as I can see.

--drsmith