From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams) Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: La Fontaines' Use of Evidence - III (revised) Approved: jmcadams@execpc.com Organization: PrimeNet Lines: 37 Where on many issues, the La Fontaines at least offer a novel or innovative theory, on the issue of CE 133-C they show all the worst characteristics of conspiracy writers. CE 133-C was the "third" or "missing" backyard photo, which the Warren Commission never saw, and which turned up in the possession of Roscoe White's widow in the 1970s. The HSCA analyzed it in excruciating detail. See HSCA Volume 6. The La Fontaines huff and puff about this, asking "What was it about the picture that made *it* the one chosen for 'reenactment' and not the other two supposedly available photos, 133-A and 133-B? Why did 133-C then disappear between late 1963 and 1975?" The sample fact is that this huffing and puffing substitutes for the lack of *any* hypothesis about how the loss of CE 133-C might be sinister. It is true that the LaFontaines *quote* a theory of why the photo might have been withheld. It revolves around a "ghost photo" of the Oswald backyard with a cutout in the shape of Oswald in the 133-C pose. The photo was found in the files of the Dallas Police. ----------------------------------------- Even so, "the fog in the backyard photo mystery may be lifting somewhat with the discovery of 'Oswald's ghost'--the silhouette print," Hershel Womack, a photo expert and major researcher of the Waggoner Carr Collection of Kennedy materials at Texas Tech University, told Mary in a 1992 interview for the HOUSTON POST. "The fact that the matte photograph was worked up from the precise backyard photo that was withheld from the Warren Commission makes me suspect that the 'ghost' photo, the withheld 133-C photo, and Brown's demonstration photo may all have been part of the same trial series. Once the 'practice' was over and the actual forgery completed, the incriminating materials were discarded -- or so they thought." (p. 387) ------------------------------------------ The LaFontaines quote this with apparent approval, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY KNOW IT TO BE UNTRUE. On the preceeding page (386) they point out that "The matte print . . . shows the backyard photographed in the Secret Service-sponsored re-enactment on November 29, not the seasonally different background of the 'true' Oswald backyard photos (shot eight months earlier, on March 31, 1963) . . . " Indeed, the "Oswald ghost" photo that the LaFontaines print shows important seasonal differences. The bush in the background has grown much larger than it is in the background of the Oswald photos, and leaves in the background of the Oswald photos have shriveled and fallen. So the "reenactment" photos that Womack says were part of the process of faking 133-A and 133-B were in fact shot months later! Remember, the HSCA analyzed 133-C up the wazoo. It shows exactly what the other two do -- Oswald in his silly "hunter of facists" outfit with his pistol, his rifle, and his two left-wing newspapers. "Ready for anything." The photographic quality of 133-C is inferior to the other two. It was the first one that Marina shot. It could genuinely have "fallen through the cracks." It could have also been swiped by someone who though it would later have monetary value. Anybody who doesn't like these two theories, and wants to posit another one, has to face the fact that it shows nothing not shown by 133-A and 133-B. .John