Come on, now you're haggling over the memory of an old lady who could've been [seen] a picture of Lee holding any rifle at any time like the 1958 picture below?
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Unst7zZ.jpg[/qimg]
HILARIOUS!
I'm not haggling, you are. I remind you you've quoted testimony from 33 years after the assassination given in 1996 to the ARRB, and found nothing wrong with it, when the witnesses had to be in their fifties, sixties, seventies, or even older.
I was the one reminding you that recollections that far out of date had to be taken with a grain of salt. You never bothered to even acknowledge the point.
And now, to question Marguerite's testimony, you refer to her as an "old lady".
Okay, let's compare and contrast what you accept versus what you question:
Marguerite Oswald was born July 19, 1907, and her testimony on this photograph came on February 10, 1964.
That means she was 56 years old when she testified, and when her recollection of the events of the preceding November was just two and a half months old. You reject her recollection because she was an "old lady".
Compare that to the testimonies you accept: Recollections to the HSCA in 1978 (15 years after the event) and recollections to the ARRB in 1996 (33 years after the event), when some, most, or all of these witnesses were in their sixties, seventies, and eighties.
But Marguerite's testimony came too long after the event (2.5 months after) and she was too old (at 56)?
Give it a rest. Your arguments taken together make no sense. You question the contemporaneous recollection and accept the decades later recollections. We both know why you do this. The contemporaneous recollection points to Oswald owning a rifle and the backyard photos being legitimate, and that means Oswald lied in custody when he claimed the backyard photos were fakes. The faulty recollections for 15 or 33 years after the assassination you accept, because the witnesses recalled things that can be utilized to question the official story. Quite simply, your bias for a conspiratorial resolution is showing.
She said she remembered the photo (she said Oswald was holding the rifle over his head), so WE BOTH KNOW it wasn't the photo you provided above. And Marina offered further details, saying the photo in question was one of the backyard photos. She referred to this photo inscribed by Lee "To my daughter June" when asked by Rankin if she had anything to do with the photos she took after they were developed:
Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with the prints of the photograph after the prints were made? That is, did you put them in a photographic album yourself?
Mrs. OSWALD. Lee gave me one photograph and asked me to keep it for June somewhere. Of course June doesn't need photographs like that.
So this photo, seen by both woman and testified to by both women, was one of the backyard photos Marina took. And none of the conspiracy authors you can cite will tell you that.
As I said above, "Unless you read all the testimony, you won't know how much the conspiracy advocates are hiding from you."
This is another example of just that.
Hank
