(PART 949)


He [DVP] says I am trying to say that JFK was shot with a handgun. Clearly anyone that read my statement knows that's not true.


Looks like Ken is suffering from another bout of his "false memory" again. He doesn't seem to recall much of anything he has written--even stuff he wrote yesterday. Just a little more than 24 hours ago, Kenneth Drew said the following in this Education Forum post....

"Certainly could have been with a handgun." -- K. Drew

My post in response to Ken's absurd "handgun" speculation is, therefore, a perfectly accurate summary of what Ken had said....

"To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at this forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that." -- DVP; June 2, 2015


My statement clearly said that "there is no proof that he was shot with a rifle".


And that statement--all by itself--ranks as one of the dumbest statements ever written on any JFK forum since the invention of this great thing called "The Internet". Congrats.


And, of course, there is no "proof" that he was shot with a "rifle".


Take another look at CE567 and CE569 again, Kenneth. How do you think those two bullet fragments from the C2766 rifle managed to get into the front seat of the President's limousine?

Just take a wild, off-the-wall guess.


Not one person has ever been linked, by evidence, to the shooting.


I think you just might have topped yourself in the "Dumbest Statements" category, Ken. Nice job.


No gun is associated with the shooting.


A hat trick! Three incredibly dumb statements in just one single post. Not easy to accomplish, but Ken makes it look easy.

Ken thinks the C2766 Carcano rifle can't be "associated" with the JFK shooting. Even though the following items exist in the evidence pile....

...Three bullet shells from the C2766 rifle.

...Two large bullet fragments from the C2766 rifle.

...The stretcher bullet (CE399) from the C2766 rifle. (And as much as Ken and all other conspiracy theorists hate that CE399 bullet, it's still there in the JFK assassination evidence pile nonetheless. And it always will be.)

...And then there's the C2766 rifle itself, which I guess Ken wants to pretend really WASN'T found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building at all.

Isn't it embarrassing to be THIS wrong about everything, Kenneth? I would think it would be.


Would you please produce any document or record that shows LEE HARVEY OSWALD ordered a rifle which is not based on the HSCA's tainted handwriting analysis on reproductions. If the only evidence related to these purchases are only Xerox copies of copies from microfilm, the conclusions based on these copies are worthless.


The C2766 rifle that Klein's mailed to Oswald/(Hidell) has LHO's prints on it, David. Three prints, in fact.

That's definitive proof that Oswald had the C2766 weapon in his possession at some point in time.

And since it's obvious that OSWALD had the C2766 weapon in his possession at some point in time, then why would you think that OSWALD did not ORDER the weapon himself from Klein's (especially in light of all that paperwork that proves he DID order it)?

Or are you going to argue that the three LHO prints were planted there too? (And, yes, I'm including the two trigger guard prints.)

Good luck in pretending those three LHO prints are "tainted" and "worthless" too.


If we look at the enlarged version [of this backyard photo], which DVP has been so gracious to provide us with, there is something very unnatural about the left hand, holding the rifle. Comparing the left hand with the right hand, we can see the entire length of the four fingers of the left hand. Looking at your own hand, you can see the thumb begins quite far back on the hand, and even when laid along the fore finger, does not even extend to the second knuckle of the fore finger.

In the photograph, you can see the thumb of the left hand in an impossible position on the opposite side of the rifle from where the thumb joins to the hand. The left thumb in this photo would have to be about 8 inches long to do what we are seeing.

Was LHO a circus freak, as well?


Perhaps DVP would be so good as to take a "selfie" of himself, holding a rifle, and recreate this impossible positioning of fingers and thumb.


Now wait a second, Bob. Isn't the most popular theory for the "fake backyard photos" the one that has a REAL PERSON standing in the Neely St. backyard holding a rifle and that only the HEAD of Oswald was pasted onto this "other person's" body?

So, if that's the theory, the Oswald stand-in would still have a THUMB on his left hand too. So the "stand-in" would be the "freak" with the weird thumb.

Just HOW MANY things can you guys come up with that "don't quite look right" in the backyard pictures? Is there any limit?

So, Bob, I guess you think that NOBODY was really standing in the Neely backyard at all, is that right? And pretty much everything except the background was added into the picture artificially? Including the freakish left thumb that apparently belonged to NO flesh-and-blood person? Is that correct?

And don't forget the alleged "impossible" leaning posture being exhibited by the "person" (or the drawn-in person) in the picture too.

And the stubby fingers on the "person's" right hand too. Don't forget that.

Plus the "impossible" shadows.

And the cropped chin.

Did I leave anything out?

Keep looking at the picture below. I'm sure before the end of the day, you can add a dozen more things that you see in the photo that are "impossible".

And keep ignoring Marina whatever you do. She has always said she took the backyard pictures. But she was probably just dreaming the whole thing. Right, Bob?


Smoke and mirrors, Dave, and then distraction. You have been well trained for your job.

If you believe the freakish left hand holding the rifle with the impossibly long thumb is real, put your money where your big mouth is and re-create this photo. We all know it can't be done.

Know why they did such a sloppy job faking this photo? Simple, no one in 1963 ever thought every home would have a computer capable of analyzing things such as this.



I'm not entirely sure that the "left thumb" is really a thumb at all in the backyard photo. It could be a situation similar in some respects to the alleged "sling mount" -- i.e., perhaps it's part of the lighter-colored background being seen through Oswald's left armpit.

I'll perform one of my patented ~shrugs~ here, because I really can't tell what the "thumb" is.

But let me add this.....

If it IS the "left thumb" of a person (and it might very well be), then it is unquestionably (at least IMO) the left thumb of Lee Harvey Oswald. And, therefore, Oswald must be holding the rifle in such a manner that has enabled his left thumb to wrap itself around the barrel of the gun in just the manner seen in the photograph.

This could be another situation when examining photographs when something just doesn't look quite right due to the angles involved or the quality of the photo itself, etc. It seems to me that a whole array of legitimate possibilities could conceivably exist to logically explain what appears to be an "eight-inch thumb" on the left hand of Lee Harvey Oswald in that picture without having to resort to the CTers' favorite alternative of "photo fakery".

And I'll remind everyone here, that neither I nor Robert Prudhomme are "photo experts". (Are you qualified to be labelled as such, Bob? I know I am not. And I'm doubting you qualify either.)

And I'll also remind everyone reading this of what the HSCA determined in 1978 (and they were looking at the ORIGINAL photographs, which had even better resolution and clarity than the pictures we have seen on the Internet)....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Vol. 6, Page 146

And, for good measure, I'll add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book....

"[Fort Worth lawyer and friend of Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken "the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History"


What about this re-creation photo below? Looks like that just might be a thumb being wrapped pretty far around the gun barrel here too. And, btw, this is the re-creation photo that proves the conspiracy theorists are all wet when it comes to the alleged "fake shadows" seen in the backyard photos of Oswald. The shadows seen in this re-creation picture are identical to the shadows Oswald was casting when he posed for the backyard pics in 1963....


A careful look at your photo indicates that even the thumb in this photo is unnaturally long and, try as I might, I cannot reproduce this pose myself.


Well, Bob, shouldn't that tell you something right there?

Or do you now want to say that the CBS/Schiller re-creation photo is a fake too?


Where did you find this photo, Dave?


Via just a regular ol' "Google Image" search. Here are the search results.

BTW, the man in the re-creation picture can also be seen in the 1967 CBS video linked HERE (in Part 1 of the 4-part series). However, it appears that the picture used in the CBS video is slightly different than the re-creation photo I posted above.


I seriously doubt the people behind the cover up are not above supplying a re-touched photo to CBS/Schiller. Of course there is a possibility this photo is faked! Everything else in this case has been a lie, why would one more re-touched photo matter?


Why did I even bother to ask? I knew what Bob's ridiculous answer was going to be.

So now let's heap on still more plotters and cover-up operatives, Bob.

What's the number up to nowadays? Has it reached 5 digits yet? Must be pert-near that.


Instead of your usual drivel, Dave, explain to us how LHO's thumb can be in such an impossible position.

Can't do it, right? I thought so.


I'm not convinced it is Oswald's thumb. But it might be (as I said before).

But the things that CTers believe to be "impossible" are of no consequence whatsoever. And particularly when it comes to ANYTHING they declare as "impossible" regarding the JFK case. Because they are ALWAYS wrong about everything.

It was impossible for Oswald to fire the rifle in XXX seconds... (Wrong.)

It was impossible for Oswald to make it to the second floor in XXX seconds... (Wrong.)

It was impossible for Oswald to have gotten to 10th St. in time... (Wrong.)

It was impossible for a rear shot to result in JFK's head moving to the rear... (Wrong.)

The Single-Bullet Theory is impossible... (Wrong.)

The shadows in the BY photos are impossible... (Wrong. As I just proved above with the re-creation photo.)

And on and on to "impossible" infinity.

So when the all-knowing Bob Prudhomme tells me something is "impossible", forgive me for not bowing down and taking his word as Gospel.


Face it, Dave, the picture is a phoney. No one can re-create the impossible angle LHO is standing at, especially if the fence is put on the level.


What in the world is so impossible about the way Oswald is standing? I see nothing all that unusual about his pose here at all. Just because he's not standing rigid or ramrod straight up and down, you think his posture is physically impossible for a member of the human race? Silly.

So, once again, we're treated to CTers seeing "impossible" things that are far from impossible.

[For more about "The Leaning Tower Of Oswald", CLICK HERE.]


My son, a child of the Computer Age, looked at the BYP for about 30 seconds and pronounced, "Photoshopped!". :)


Well, that does it for me then. I'm throwing in the towel right now. Bob Prudhomme Jr. has declared one of the backyard photos to be fake, so nothing more needs to be said about it. Robert Jr. has the final word. Let's stamp it "MARK VII" right now. Thanks so much, Bob. (And Bob Jr.)


The CBS Schillerman pose is nothing like the supposed pose of Oswald.


Yes, it is. The two poses are nearly identical. CBS/Schiller did an excellent job of mimicking Oswald's stance and everything else associated with the famous backyard photo. The re-creation even nails the angled body shadow perfectly---right down to the exact slat on the back fence where the shadow of each man's head falls. The fourth slat from the left. Absolutely perfect....


During interrogations, wasn't Oswald speaking freely on any number of things, with the notable exception of when he would be asked about the rifle, at which point he would refuse to respond, or brush the question aside, entirely?


Bingo, Curtis. You are 100% correct.


"Oswald consciously tried to distance himself from the murder weapon so much that he apparently even went to the following extreme: He and Marina and their daughter June lived at the apartment on Elsbeth Street in Dallas for exactly four months (November 3, 1962, to March 3, 1963), and then moved to the apartment on Neely Street for close to two months (March 3, 1963, to April 24, 1963). However, when he was asked to furnish all of his previous residences since his return from Russia, and the approximate time he lived at each, he gave all of them (including his residences in Fort Worth and New Orleans) with one notable exception. He omitted any reference to the Neely residence, the residence, of course, where he knew his wife had photographed him with the murder weapon in the backyard. He cleverly accounted for the close to two months at Neely by saying he lived seven months (not the actual four) at Elsbeth. And when Captain Fritz, during his interrogation of Oswald, asked Oswald about the Neely address, Oswald flat-out denied ever living there. All of this, of course, shows a consciousness of guilt on Oswald's part." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 966 of "Reclaiming History"



David J.,

As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about.

But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6


"Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007)

And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978.

In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle....

Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?"

Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that."

Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once."

Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours."


An audio version of the above testimony by Marina Oswald can be found HERE.

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2.


Date: 6/5/2015 (3:57:47 P.M. EDT)
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Hey Dave,

Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense?

For example, [David] Josephs misrepresents when the third pose was found by saying "NYE 1976". I guess that's code for New Year's Eve? Anyway, that third pose was known to exist in November 1963. Det. Bobby Brown was interviewed for local TV back in the early 90s and described how and why Fritz sent him out to duplicate the poses (plural) to look into Oswald's claim that CE134 (the blowup) was fake.

So yes, DPD had at least three poses and it's fair to wonder what the heck happened to the missing negative. But the poses were evidence when Brown made his test studies.

As for the copies, as we know from DPD reports and later interviews, Det. Studebaker made souvenir copies of them for many officers, including Rusty Livingstone and, apparently, Roscoe White. Of course, anyone could have acquired copies from other officers in later weeks and months and there's just no way to know now who did what and when.

What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures.

I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard.

What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight. :)



Date: 6/5/2015 (9:50:14 P.M. EDT)
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack


Thanks so much, Gary. Your vast knowledge about this case continues to be amazing and almost beyond belief.

I love it so much that you feel comfortable writing to me all the time (and unsolicited too!) about everything under the sun which is "JFK"-related.

I'm so pleased to be able to have many of the crazy conspiracy myths so thoroughly debunked via your wealth of knowledge regarding this case.

And your messages to me also add a huge element of credibility and detailed info to my articles when I add them to my own website/blog (which as you probably know, I often do), such as your mail today regarding the backyard photos.

Many thanks.

David Von Pein


The pose of Oswald holding the rifle above his head was taken in Russia, when he was hunting. His hosts said he was a lousy shot.


Subject: B.G. "Bobby" Brown
Date: 6/6/2015 (11:31:45 A.M. EDT)
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Ha-Ha, now Mitcham makes up a story that the BY photo of Oswald holding his rifle over his head was taken in Russia! Based on what or who?

If he'd bothered to speak with the only two people on the planet who both saw and destroyed the picture, as I did decades ago, he'd know that the picture was definitely one of the BY photos we're all familiar with.

Marguerite, especially, was very knowledgeable about the BY photos and wanted desperately to find some proof her son was innocent. But as she explained to me in the late 70s, the picture location was the same as the other BY poses. Unless, of course, Marguerite and Marina were part of the dastardly evil plotters' cabal. :)

Here is Oswald's 201 file [and also see the photo below] with a report mentioning Brown, Fritz and others taking the re-creation pictures at 214 Neely and there's a 1992 Now It Can Be Told show in which Brown appears on camera telling what he did and why. I've got a tape of it somewhere, but maybe you have it too. Brown is the person IN the picture re-creating 133-C, so obviously he and perhaps other DPD people knew about it in 1963.

And it seems to me, in addition to a report on KDFW-TV here [in Dallas], there was a newspaper story about Brown and the photos, for they were a news item in the JFK movie days and the release of Dallas Police docs by the city. At the time, Brown was living in Oklahoma but he's since passed away.




In connection with what Gary Mack said in the e-mail above, here are some 1992 videos from the KDFW-TV archives regarding the backyard photos, including an interview with Dallas Detective Bobby Brown:

PART 1 --- PART 2 --- PART 3 --- PART 4

Also see:
JFK Video: The Dallas Tapes
Bobby Brown Re-Creation Photo
Various Backyard Photos From The Dallas Municipal Archives



David J.,

The main point regarding the backyard photos, which you will forever ignore, is that Marina Oswald Porter has always and forever said that she took SOME PICTURES of Lee Oswald in the Neely backyard.

What difference does it make HOW MANY she took? Or if she remembers exactly how many she took? The key is --- she remembers taking pictures in the Neely backyard of Lee wearing all black and holding guns.

Why do you insist on calling this woman named Marina a bald-faced liar, David? Why?

And Marguerite Oswald must have been a liar too, right David? Because Marguerite told the Warren Commission that she flushed one of the backyard pictures down the toilet in her hotel room on Nov. 23rd....

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?"

MARGUERITE 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."


Face it, fellows, those backyard pictures are real and genuine and they were taken in the Neely Street backyard in the spring of 1963, just exactly as Marina Oswald has always maintained.

Conspiracy theorists should (once again) make at least a tiny effort to discard some of the perpetual myths that have surrounded the JFK case for five decades now. And the notion that the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald are fake photos (regardless of how many photos Marina took) is one of those myths.

David Von Pein
June 3-6, 2015