FARID'S PHOTO IS A REAL FAKE. AND SO IS HE.

FROM ALEX JONES' INFOWARS WEBSITE:

Farid’s photo is a real fake. And so is he.

Jerry Mazza

Infowars

February 22, 2010

Recently, Dartmouth Professor Hany Farid claimed in the Huffington Post that the famous (or infamous) backyard photo of Lee Harvey Oswald—the photo in which he holds a Communist newspaper in one hand and a rifle in the other—is not a fake. This implies that the photo was not patched together to set up Oswald as the Commie patsy and lone Kennedy gunman by the FBI, the same FBI which finances Farid’s laboratory and research. Smell a rat?

Farid chose to represent only one photo from a series of four faked photos and to deal only with the anomalies of its shadows and lighting. Oswald had said, when shown one of these photos, that it was his head pasted on someone else’s body. And the face has a square chin, not Oswald’s pointed chin; the finger tips of the right hand are cut off; and the figure is too short to be Oswald when the newspapers are used as an internal ruler. You can even see an insert line between the chin and the lower lip! But none of this impressed Professor Farid.

Farid purposely points to the fact that the lighting of the face in the photo would seem to be coming from overhead. Yet Oswald’s fairly long body shadow is cast to the right on the ground and seems to be coming from an afternoon sun. The fact that logic would indicate two sources of lighting is blown away by Farid himself, who claims we as human beings do very poorly at perceiving shadows and their sources.

He even claims he himself is not good at it, even though he is an expert working in an esteemed university, underwritten by the FBI. It’s this kind of doubletalk that makes me look through his argument like the Emperor’s Clothes and see that nothing is there.

Farid’s so called proof is explained to us in a video clip, Why JFK Assassin Photo wasn’t Faked, with Farid side by side with his computer, on which there is a “simulation” of Oswald’s head next to the supposedly “real-life” but already doctored head of Oswald with a square chin. So we are already in fantasyland.

But the mystification continues as Farid lauds the quality of the shadow Oswald’s nose casts under it as well as the shadows under the eyes and his lips.

Okay, so he already told us that’s the effect of top-lighting, a light source directly overhead. But what about the shadow that slants off on the ground to the far right? That is side-lighting, presumably by the sun. Top-light would make a thin rim of shadow around Oswald’s body, either front, back, or sides, depending on how accurately the light source lined up with the body.

Try, for instance, to move your desk-light over your phone or desk object. Notice, the rim of light varies slightly as you move the top light’s overhead angle. This same desk light though does not cast a large shadow of the phone unless it is moved considerably, i.e. to the side. Farid would tell us it’s our eyes that are not working right, including his.

I would claim the body shadow comes from that sinking sun and that those light sources exist because the photo was reconstructed on a “ghost mat” that came from the Dallas Police Department. It is a blank cut-out mat of Oswald’s body, in which pieces are reinserted. Sadly for the DPD those pieces were shot with the light at various angles. That’s what causes the conflicting shadows in the backyard photos, not my or his impairment.

Even this basic concept, that angles of shadows are created by the varying positions of light sources, is violated in Farid’s “modeling by computer,” in which everything is possible. Perhaps Farid must have Photoshop 2020, which provides a look into the future of bending light to create shadows wherever you wish to them to be. We really never are told what makes Farid’s “modeling” create this unreality. But we are told his findings will be published in a journal called Perception, which will explain it all. That wouldn’t be related to Huxley’s Doorways to Perception, his journey into the use of hallucinogenic drugs, would it? That might explain why the good professor is not seeing clearly.

In the landmark book on photo fakery in the JFK assassination, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, edited by Dr. James Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, with a half-dozen leading scientific and technical experts, you will find an abundance of photographic “representations” of Oswald’s face and body from before and after the Kennedy assassination for the purpose of disinformation and confusion, including a veritable Oswald stand-in, so that Lee/Harvey/Oswald could be in more than one place at the same time.

Fetzer, by the way, has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on the philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. He has also edited the highly acclaimed Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza, which include extensive discussion of the fabrication of evidence about the death of JFK.

Given that wealth of information, Farid references none of it, or that of any other authority. He does tell us that he works with law enforcement, which the New York Times verified as the FBI. Farid claims he has shied away from “conspiracy theorists” over the years, who have sought information from him. But this means that he comes to the table of objectivity with a bias against independent thinkers, whether they are authors, journalists, scientists or technicians.

So how objective is Farid, really? Dare I say he’s a “photo patsy”? If he had considered more than one photo in the set, it would have been obvious they are faked, because they have the same face with the same expression and the same shadows across all four, which is a photographic impossibility. So Oswald had it right!

Remember, in the making of patsies, we need some kind of verifying information from so-called experts, even if they are on the government payroll, for instance NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who have their very own opinion of what made the Twin Trade Towers fall, which conflicts with some 1,000 architects and engineers, who submitted a petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation Friday, February 19, 2010, from three different cities, including New York City, where they met with press at Ground Zero at 10 A.M., the site of the 21st Century’s major crime on American soil.

Returning to the JFK Assassination, the major crime on American soil of the 20th Century, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax scrupulously documents how photographs and the entire film has been manipulated to support the government’s lone-gunman claim, according to which Oswald alone managed to kill Kennedy and seriously wound the then Governor of Texas Connally with three shots fired in about six seconds into the limousine, which witnesses reported was actually brought to a halt. The Lincoln was sent to Ford for a complete refurbishing, including a new windshield to remove a hole near its center, where one of the first shots transited en route to JFK’s throat, which otherwise would have falsified the official account.

What’s more, despite the handicap of a bolt-action, WW II Italian Army, Mannlicher-Carcano mail-order rifle, and despite the fact that another bullet hit a sidewalk and that a piece of cement rebounded, slightly wounding a bystander in the cheek, we are supposed to award our complete credence to Arlen Specter’s “Magic Bullet” theory, which has one slug passing through Kennedy’s neck from the rear to enter and exit Connelly as well. My god! How low an opinion of our intelligence do our intelligence agencies have?

This brings me back to Farid and his “modeled-shadow-theory” that the backyard photo of Oswald is not a fake, a fraud, a hybrid of intelligence hacks. In fact, Farid, as a scientist, has violated the most basic scientific requirement of all: to present all available relevant evidence. I mean, we are not talking here about some triviality not worth the effort, but the purported assassination and proof of the “lone gunman” of President John F. Kennedy.

Are we to take Farid and his computer-simulated “model” on faith or as a single source flash of government-sponsored truth? Where is the proof that he bothered to read any of the research that established the photos were faked? There is no indication that the professor even conducted a search of the literature about his latest subject, including Jim Marrs’ Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, another standard text, which Oliver Stone used as a major source for his landmark film, JFK.

Fetzer and Marrs were so concerned they co-authored "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco," published it and sent it to the President of Dartmouth. But his representative has washed his hands clean of the whole matter by claiming that this “is a disagreement among scholars, and must be settled by them.” How many professors of late have been tossed off campuses for contrarian beliefs? How many should be sacked for research as sloppy as this?

The backyard photos were and continue to be the province of noted scholars and authors. And the victim was a major political figure, whose death changed the course of national policy and perhaps of world history.

How does one man, using one photo, one anomaly (shadows), one bit of computer modeling and one unsupported theory, i.e. people don’t see shadows [correctly], get away with this hoax with such faint resistance? Has Dartmouth been compromised? Is it also working for the FBI?

These questions pass through your mind when resistance folds so quickly. This is the signature of being bought and not of thought—conscious, conscionable thought. Farid found the one questionable feature of a set of faked photographs that he thought he could plausibly “explain away,” hoping that no one would catch his sleight-of-hand.

The authenticity of the photographs was also addressed by Robert Blakey, who chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). He acknowledged then that if the photos had been faked, it would not only imply that Oswald had been framed but, because of the technical sophistication involved, it would also indicate the existence of a larger conspiracy to cover up the crime, and to support the “lone gunman” scenario.

Thus, I would seriously suggest that you, dear Professor Farid, go back to your modeling board and read at least the Fetzer and Marrs books. Of course, take a look at the canon of other outstanding studies of the JFK assassination, as if you were writing a thesis for an advanced degree.

Photographic fakery undermines serious, independent scholarship. That should be one lesson you learn not to do. That’s n-o-t to do. As for the FIB—excuse me, the FBI—its business should be stopping frauds not creating them. Caveat emptor!

Oswald Framed: Dallas Police and the Killer Rifle

GREETINGS TO EVERY ONE OF YOU GREAT PATRIOTS WHO ARE STANDING UP FOR LEE OSWALD. AS YOU KNOW, THE INTERNET IS HELPING PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. THAT MEANS THE 'GUILTY MEN' MUST BE EXPOSED. THE ARTICLE BELOW FOCUSES ON THE DALLAS POLICE AND HOW THEY COOPERATED WITH THE 'GUILTY MEN'--

NOTE THAT WIKI ANSWERS, WHERE DISINFO ABOUT OSWALD HAS BEEN RAMPANT, HAS BEEN CHANGED TO THE TRUTH BY MY FRIEND J FITZ.
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!

==LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND THE ITALIAN RIFLE==
WIKI Answers has been pervaded by official version propaganda, and one recent example was a question worded: What rifle did Lee Harvey oswald Use to Kill President Kennedy? The answer stated the usual--the talian rifle. It was twi sentences long. By singing up through ba friend, the two of us 'improved' the answer. I urge you to check WIKI Questions and Answers, and if you see a lie about Oswald there, as occurred in this case, that you write to me at voice4vindication@yahoo.com. You may also visit http://www.judythvarybaker.com if you'd like to help support the fACEBOOK cause! Below is the answer we gave to the public to the Wiki Question.
We hope to provide THE TRUTH to the people. WE NEED ONLY 3 MORE MEMBERS TO REACH 100! SPREAD THE WORD AND PASS THE INFORMATION BELOW ON TO YOUR FRIENDS. IF ANYONE WRITES ME, I PROMISE TO ANSWER THEM, UNLESS I GET HACKED AGAIN...!
JVB (SEE BELOW)

Controversy in the case resides in the fact that Oswald, and the rifle associated with the murder of JFK, cannot be decisively linked to each other. Lee Harvey Oswald indeed was accused of using a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle, serial number C2766. And it is true that the rifle was sold as military surplus through Klein's Sporting Goods Company. However, records indicate that Oswald was at work at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall at the time he supposedly mailed a money order and order form to obtain the rifle. Oswald kept a meticulous work sheet, accounting for what he was doing every fifteen mnutes or so. The order for the rifle was sent from a post office over 6 miles distant. Oswald's lunch period was too short to have made the trip there and back, as he had no car and bus service to there did not exist. Further, Oswald never left his workplace with others. The order was sent from Dallas to Chicago, IL but arrived, somehow, the very next day, even though it was not sent air mail. Atop that, the order was filled that same day and the rifle was shipped the same day --we are talking about some 24 hours of elapsed time between Dallas and the rifle getting shipped out-- a physical impossibility at the time.
The serial number of the money order form used shows it was issued late in 1963, not in 1962. The order form was also sloppily written, when Oswald, in fact, due to problems with dyslexia, always carefully printed out such forms. A second order form, for a revolver 'discovered' later, is carefully printed, as if forgers finally learned how to create a better forgery. Belief that the order form was manufactured to frame Oswald is also based on the fact that no box of cartridges was ever found in Oswald's possessions, and that only four bullets could be found. It implies that Oswald never fired the rifle before Nov. 22nd because he had no ammunition. Complicating the matter is the fact that several Dallas police officers originally found a MAUSER, not an Italian rifle, on the 6th floor. See the Youtube videos below: as so many others, the man who made this video "committed suicide." He was honored as Officer of the Year before he got in trouble for testifying, after which he found himself treated badly, and finally, out of a job with the Dallas police.

Roger Craig is attacked on the Internet by official version defenders, but look at the man and decide for yourself. Documents signed by the other officers present who saw the Mauser substantiate the truthfulness of Craig's testimony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPIo8B...
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AqqNK...

The Mauser vanished. Why? Was it because the casings found in "the sniper's nest" were from an Italian rifle and did not match the Mauser's bullets? You can see another rifle outlined in the video taken when the Mauser was photographed in the video.

Researcher Gil Jesus posted the following information at The Education Forum on Jan. 20,2010 listing reasons why the rifle attributed to Oswald was, in fact, a frame-up:

By Gil Jesus ( 2010 )


Reason #1: MORE THAN ONE 6.5 MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE EXISTED WITH THE
SERIAL NUMBER C2766

The 40" rifle currently in evidence is not the only 6.5 Mannlicher-
Carcano with the serial number of C2766. On page 250 of his book,
Kennedy and Lincoln, the late Dr. John K. Lattimer said the following:

"In l974 and l975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments
using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine,
model 91-38, serial number C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics
Company four power telescope exactly like Oswald's."

http://i45.tinypic.com/2hmingh.jpg

But Lattimer's wasn't the only 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano with serial
number C2766.

Reason #2. KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS BOUGHT MORE THAN ONE 6.5 ITALIAN
RIFLE WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766

In volume 11, page 205 of the Warren Commission Hearings, Louis
Feldsott, president of Crescent Firearms, in a sworn affidavit to the
Commission, claimed that he was contacted by the FBI on the evening of
November 22, 1963. They requested that he check his files to see if he
had any records concerning the sale of an Italian-made 6.5 mm. rifle
with the serial number C2766. When he checked, he found that he had
records indicating the rifle was sold to Klein's Sporting Goods on
June 18, 1962. This information of the 6.5 rifle with the serial
number C2766, he said, was conveyed to the FBI on the evening of
November 22, 1963 and all records of the purchase, sale and
transportation of the weapon were given to the FBI.

http://www.history-matters.com/archiv......Vol11_0108a.htm

In their tracing of the shipping records of the C 2766 rifle, however,
the FBI makes no mention of the June 1962 sale. They cite, instead,
the February, 1963 sale of 100 rifles from the same dealer, Crescent
Firearms, to Klein's. In that shipment is a list of the rifles' serial
numbers. Included in the list is a 6.5 rifle serial number C 2766.

http://www.history-matters.com/archiv......Vol21_0361b.htm

But thanks to the affidavit of Louis Feldsott, we have evidence that
Klein's bought two C 2766 rifles from Crescent Firearms: one in June
1962 and the other in February 1963.

I'll get back to the June 1962 rifle later. Right now I'd like to
concentrate on the February, 1963 rifle.



Reason #3. THE FEBRUARY 1963 RIFLE SHIPMENT WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE, NOT
THE 40" RIFLE.

The FBI traced the sale of the 40" C2766 rifle backward and claimed
that it was a part of a shipment of 100 rifles weighing 750 lbs. that
was sent to Klein's from Crescent Firearms in February, 1963.

But one researcher found evidence that the shipment was for 36" rifles
ONLY.

In researching for her excellent article on the Oswald rifle, JFK
assassination researcher Martha Moyer checked on wooden shipping
containers used in transporting weapons, and found that all the
containers weighed between 16 and 20 pounds. The 36-inch weapon
allegedly ordered by "Hidell" was advertised as weighing 5 1/2 pounds.
The total weight of 100 such weapons would be 550 pounds. Added to the
weight range of ten wooden shipping containers the result would be a
total of between 710 and 750 pounds.

The delivery receipt from Lifschultz Fast Freight listed the freight
as 10 crates/cartons of guns/rifles and listed the weight at 750 lbs.

http://www.history-matters.com/archiv......Vol21_0359a.htm

Had the shipment been of the 40" rifles, at 7 lbs. each, the total
weight including 160-200 lbs. for the crates would have been in the
860-900 lb. range.

Instead, the 750 lbs. consisted of 10 crates at 20 lbs each ( 200 )
and 100 rifles at 5.5 lbs. each ( 550 ) In other words, the shipment
received by Klein's in February, 1963 was indeed a shipment of 36-inch
weapons.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf

Reason #4. THE RIFLE "HIDELL" ORDERED WAS THE 36" RIFLE
Waldman Exhibit 8 is a copy of the order blank used by "A.Hidell " to
order the rifle from Klein's. On that order form, taken from the
February, 1963 edition of American Rifleman, one can see that Oswald
ordered catalog # C20-T750,

http://www.history-matters.com/archiv......Vol21_0364b.htm

which is the 36" rifle as advertised.

http://i46.tinypic.com/15p0k7k.jpg

One can also see that the 40" rifle had a different catalog number,
C20-750.

http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg


Reason #5. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE RIFLE THAT WAS
SHIPPED TO "HIDELL" WAS THE 36" RIFLE

Waldman Exhibit 7 is the copy of the shipping manifest that
accompanies the rifle when shipped. It clearly states that the catalog
number of the shipped item is C20-T750 and not C20-750.

http://www.history-matters.com/archiv......Vol21_0364a.htm

The ONLY difference in the catalog numbers is the difference between
the 36" rifle and the 40" rifle.

http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg

How important was the catalog number to the folks doing the shipping ?
William Waldman, VP of Klein's Sporting Goods, told the WC that the
catalog numbers for rifles ordered with scopes were different than for
the same rifle without a scope and that the different number described
"the rifle, scope and mount". ( 7 H 362-363 )


Reason #6. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE COST FOR SHIPPING
WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE.

The shipping cost is noted in two places, where it says "PP=1.50" for
the cost of Parcel Post, and again in the handwritten column where it
says 150. This is exactly the amount sent by "Hidell" to ship the 36 "
rifle.

http://www.history-matters.com/archiv......Vol21_0364a.htm


Reason #7. KLEIN'S DIDN'T RUN OUT OF THE 36" RIFLE UNTIL NOVEMBER,
1963

Klein's 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream
from January, 1962 through November, 1963.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf

Which means, folks, that Klein's hadn't run out of them at the time of
the "Hidell" order.


Reason # 8. KLEIN'S DIDN'T START SELLING THE 40" RIFLE UNTIL APRIL,
1963

No 40" Italian rifle was advertised by Klein's in The American
Rifleman magazine from October 1962 through February 1963. According
to assassination researcher/author and former detective Ian Griggs,
the 40" "carbine" began to be advertised in The American Rifleman in
April, 1963. Field and Stream did not begin advertising the 40-inch
Italian weapon until September, 1963. It was from the November issue
that Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes submitted his exhibit # 2 as
a "duplicate" to the ad "Hidell" ordered from . ( 20 H 174 )

Many of the Warren Commission apologists contend that Klein's shipped
a 40" rifle in lieu of the advertised rifle because they had run out
of the 36's. But the evidence so far indicates otherwise. In order to
believe that the 40" rifle was shipped to "A. Hidell", you must
believe ALL of the following:

a.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle without notifying the
customer that the rifle he ordered was out of stock.
b.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered without giving
the customer the option of a refund.
c.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered and used the
wrong catalog number.
d.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that was 40% heavier for the same
price as the rifle ordered and absorbed any additional shipping
charges and
e.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that had not yet been advertised yet
for sale and continued to advertise a rifle that they no longer had.

In my opinion, that's quite a stretch.


Reason #9. KLEIN'S NEVER MOUNTED SCOPES ON THE 40 " RIFLE

The Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on
the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA) that Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36
inch MC. (HSCA interview of Westra 2/20/78)

The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was William Sharp,
their in-house gunsmith. He confirmed what Westra testified to: the
package deal with the scope and MC rifle was used by Klein's to market
the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Sharp, 2/21/78)

http://www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html

In addition, FBI expert Robert Frazier testified to the WC that in
order to ascertain whether or not Klein's mounted the scope on the
rifle, the FBI asked them to supply a duplicate rifle with a scope and
then had to tell Klein's where on the frame to mount the scope.

Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago,
and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar
rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this
type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination. In
this connection, WE DID INFORM THEM THAT THE SCOPE SHOULD BE IN
APPROXIMATELY THIS POSITION ON THE FRAME OF THE WEAPON.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position,"
so that the record is clear could you--

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is,
approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver
ring.
( 3 H 396 )

So the FBI told Klein's what "position on the frame" "the scope should
be in". Information that Klein's would not have needed had they
normally mounted "scopes of this type on these rifles".

It's clear from their ads that Klein's was offering the 40" rifle with
a scope. But the evidence indicates that the scopes were not mounted
"in-house".


Reason #10. THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE "BACKYARD" RIFLE ARE NOT THE SAME
AS THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE DEPOSITORY CARCANO

If the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard photographs" is the
rifle that "A.Hidell" ordered, then the rifle removed from the Texas
School Book Depository is not. The reason is that the rifle in CE 134
( an enlargement of CE 133-A ) shows a rifle with a front bottom sling
mount, whereas the rifle removed from the Depository is a rifle with
side sling mounts.

This list of evidentiary comments by Gil Jesus was Posted at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=7014426ac28cba9212a766f803318374&showtopic=15318&pid=181317&start=0&#entry181317


Marina Oswald, Oswald's wife, at first denied that Oswald owned a rifle. Sequestered and kept incommunicado from the public by the Secret Service, this Russian citizen feared deportation and had a new baby only six weeks old, plus a little toddler born in Russia. If deported, the American-born baby might well have remained behind in the USA. Marina, alone and isolated, soon said Oswald owned a rifle. Later, she said she saw him firing it at leaves. At one point, she said he buried it in the ground to hide it on two occasions. Next, she said he fired at general Walker in Dallas, though the bullet found there was steel-jacketed. Though it could fit the 'killer rifle' it was incorrect ammo and might have jammed in the rifle. te bullet did not match any of the casings found in the TSBD. Though some seven months had passed with no leads in the case, Oswald was charged within a day of is arrest of also attempting to kill Walker. He denied all charges. despite Oswald's denials, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald sought fame as the reason for killing Kennedy. Interestingly, Walker and Kennedy were ideological enemies, poar opposites politically. Marina oswald's testimony regarding the walker incident had to be discarded because she also mentioned that she locked Oswald in the bathroom to try to stop him from going out to try to kill a non-present Richard Nixon, who was not in dallas that day. Also, bathroom doors do not lock from the outside. Only portions of Marina Oswald's story that the Warren Commission found believable to them -- concerning Walker-- were therefore used, even though a witness tstified that he saw more thanone person at the Walker crime scene that night.

Still later, Marina said Oswald sat on a porch in full view of Magazine Street, New Orleans, dry-firing the rifle for hours. She said he cleaned it with "pipe cleaners." In the end, when shown the rifle, she said she could not identify it. Witness Judyth Vary Baker stated Oswald knew enough about rifles that he would never have ordered a cheap rifle, sight unseen, that had the reputation the Carcano had. Oswald was linked to the rifle by a fake ID card with the name A Hidell. But we now know that other persons also used this fake name. They were all associated with the CIA.
Oswald's links to the CIA are now well-known, since the ARRB forced the release of thousands of new pages of evidence. However, many hundreds of thousands of documents remain censored and hidden. The official versions as supported on some websites focus on the evidence provided by the Warren Commission and are rarely updated to include evidence released since that casts doubts on the conclusion reached by the Warren Commisson, which based its conclusions largely on information collected by the FBI, CIA and Dallas police, though witnesses also gave information and evidence in abundance to te Cmmission.
Interestingly, the Italian rifle was supposed to have been kept in Ruth Paine's garage for several months wrapped in a blanket on a concrete floor where there was a lot of sawdust. No sawdust can be seen on the blanket, however, that was photographed. Ruth Paine's home is where Marina Oswald stayed -- her husband, Lee Oswald, lived in a boarding house much closer to Dallas. How the rifle got into the garage can only be imagined, as Oswald was known not to have it on his peson when he arrived, by himself, later, after a trip to Mexico City involving only two suitcases and a small bag, none large enough to hold the rifle even if disassembled.

We do know that Ruth Paine drove the car containing Oswald famly belongings from New Orleans, along with Marina and her baughter June, to the Paine house in irving, Texas in early September, 1963, supposedly also including the rifle, but the Paines and Marina claimed they never saw it. This is the rifle that was supposed to have been brought by Oswald into the TSBD the day of the assassination, Nov. 22, 1963, but nobody saw it brought in, and a witness, Wesley B. Frazier, stated that a small package too short to hold a rifle was the only one he saw with Oswald that day. He had driven Oswald to work that morning.

A large paper bag that was described as the bag that held the rifle was never photographed at the crime scene. It was indicated with dotted lines on photos later. This paper bag, supposedly 'found' at the sniper's nest (though never photographed there, despite dozens of photos taken that day by officer Studebaker) was analyzed as having come from paper cut from a roll at the TSBD, but no gun pressure marks were on the bag, nor were there proper fold marks, though the bag was far too large to have been sneaked out to take to the Paine garage without being otherwise noticed. The bag was almost pristine, as if it had never had the rifle carried inside it. Also, no gun oil was found inside the bag, although the rifle was described as "well oiled." A few fibers of blanket were supposedly found inside the bag, that could have proven the rifle had been wrapped in the blanket, but the rifle itself did not have a single blanket fibre on its surface. If the blanket had held the rifle, as claimed, the rifle would have had hundreds of blanket fibres sticking to its varous surfaces. There were none.
A palmprint was announced publically as found inside a part of the unassembled rifle by the Dallas police ONLY AFTER it was returned to them by the FBI, which had found NO fingerprints or palmprints on the rifle whatsoever, though there is no doubt that the FBI had the best forensic crime laboratory in the nation at the time. The Dallas police were better: they now said they had formerly found a partial palmprint, and also a partial print on the trigger guard. They said they knew of this before the rfle went to the FBI, and that their scotch tape had removed the latent prints. However, they did not announce any of these prints as in existence until after Oswald was shot and killed, even though much other false information was released to the public, such as a statement that a map showing Oswald's plans to murder Kennedy had been found. This turned out to be a lie, which has now been all but forgotten.
Another lie involved telling the public that Oswald, the purported killer, coldly and evilly ate a chicken dinner and drank a soft drink whle waiting for the motorcade. People wanted Oswald's stomach pumped to prove he had done this, but this lie, too, faded away when it was found that a black man had eaten the meal there only fifteen minutes before Kennedy was shot, leaving the bag at the so-called sniper's nest.
Since there was then not enough time for Oswald to have eaten any lunch, as the black man would have seen him there, the chicken lunch story vanished. but between selecting ugly photos of Oswald for newspapers (he looks much better on film), and telling these stories that had to enrage the public, Oswald was immediately considered guilty by the public--it was set in their heads from all that they had been told, true or not.
Concerning the fingerprints, it was later learned that a funeral director stated that the FBI came to the mortuary and took palmprints and fingerprints from Oswald's dead body, and that he had to clean up after them. He said the FBI were there for hours. Only after that were the prints announced to the public and described as having been found on the rifle.
As for the paper sack that supposedly held the rifle when it was 'sneaked' into the TSBD bulding, the employee in charge of the rolls of paper --used to wrap book cartons--that supposedly supplied the material for the bag, said he never left his area and denied that Oswald ever took any of the paper. However, we have a second bag, as Dallas police ARE on record as having made a 'duplicate' of the bag, as the 'original' was messed up with fingerprint detecting solution. In other words, the only people to have certainly obtained such paper from the paper roll were the Dallas police.
The blanket that supposedly held this rifle was found to have "Oswald's pubic hairs" on it. When examined, the pubic hairs shown in official photos have no bulbs. That is, they are 'cut' hairs. We have to imagine Oswald sitting on the blanket and shaving or cutting with scissors at his pubic area to get the hairs on the blanket! For some time, Oswald was covertly accused of perhaps being a homosexual because autopsy photos showed that his public area was entirely shaved off, but records have now been made public showing the Dallas police shaved his entire pubic area (how humiliating). The police record shows that Oswald's pubic area, chest, and arms were shaved by police to get 'samples.' These 'samples' existed BEFORE the blanket's "Oswald pubic hairs" were 'found.'
Troubling is the fact that a paraffin test for nitrates was also administered to Oswald, with distressing results for a case against him. Those who say paraffin tests are 'no good' for 'proving' that somebody fired a gun or rifle must ask also, "Why, then, did the Dallas police use the test on Oswald?"
The paraffin test, still used today all over the world, showed nitrates on Oswald's hands. This was reported to the public, and the public was told that Oswald had 'fired a gun' without explaining that there were no traces of nitrates on Oswald's cheeks. A rifle such as the Carcano must be held close to the cheek to line it properly for aiming and firing. The rifle was notorious for emitting a lot of nitrates that would have plastered Oswald's face with the residue. The fact is that the public was not told that the paraffin test was negative on Oswald's cheeks and that it was positive that he 'fired a gun' because of residues on his hands (which also can come from handling books -- Oswald's job at the Book Depository). These misleading statements were unconscionable. Boxes stacked at the "sniper's nest" were found to have Oswald's palmprints on several, but he moved boxes there as part of his work. Interestingly, the only unidentified fingerprint was identified only in this century by a certified and experienced fingerprint expert as belonging to Malcolm Wallace, a friend of Vice President Lyndon Johnson who had been charged and found guilty of murder (but Lyndon's influence resulted in a suspended sentence for Wallace-- this was the state of affairs in a corrupt Texas in the mid-20th century). Fingerprints last only a very sort time on cardboard boxes such as were in the sniper's nest, s we must ask ourselves what was Wallace doing there?

Wallace has been linked to several assassinations for corrupt friends of Johnson. He was indicated as having murdered at least one other person who was a threat to Johnson. You can access The Men Who Killed Kennedy series (TMWKK) numbers 7-8-9 (The Smoking Guns, The Love Affair-Baker, and The Guilty Men) to see the banned History Channel documentaries that show the viewer Malcolm Wallace's murderous role, and other unsettling facts, that have been banned by the US media since 2003.
GO to YouTube and view:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search...

Place TMWKK into the search line and then plug in one of the three titles above. Each title is available in 5 segments. They are scattered, but can be found by searching. You can also access them together, in one place, at http://www.doctormarysmonkey.com and at http://www.judythvarybaker.com, as well as at other sites, such as at AOL Video, Filestube.com, etc.

Oswald, also accused of killing Officer Tippit withthe other firearm he supposedly ordered from Kleins later (tough both wepaons supposedly arrived in Ossald's post office box THE SAME DAY-- and by the way, the post office 'lost' the pickup receipt that wuld prove it was Oswald who picked up the packages--though they were supposed to hold on to them for some two years.)...You can view eye-opening information about Oswald's ablity to reach Tippit's location in time to kill Tippit HERE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8D6N...

on YouTube to see "


"Did Oswald have time to make it to the Tippit murder scene ?"
Thanks to the Internet, we have information available that casts doubt on Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's killer. There is every indication that the question, as worded,
"What kind of rifle did Lee Harvey Oswald use to kill President Kennedy?"
is yet another way to influence readers to assume that Oswald killed Kennedy, when in fact, we cannot link the rifle directly to Oswald due to evidence that cannot stand the scrutiny of time with the information we now have. And we have not even mentioned "the Magic Bullet" or the fact the the Zapruder film has been substantially altered. We now know, thanks to the research of Doug Horne, who was an appointed member of the ARRB created by Congress, that the Zapruder film, when blown up to high pixel counts, shows that the back of Kennedy's head was painted in black. Yes, painted in black! Right on the film! This hides the explosion of blood and brains that came from the back of Kennedy's head when he was struck by a bullet from the Grassy Knoll. Oswald's building was located behind Kennedy's car, not in front of it. Horne's testimony and much more information about how oswald was framed for this murder can be found at Black Op radio in a broadcast available for free on the Internet in late 2009.