Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Andrew Mason]

This is true .....Marina did tell the cover up committee that she took CE 133A and CE 133B BUT....  I don't believe she did...I do believe she took CE 133A...But she did NOT take CE 133B and most definitely did not take 133c .

There were only two backyard photos. There was no 133c.

[Jerry Freeman]

There were only two backyard photos. There was no 133c.

 
HSCA Exhibit 133-C

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/6IV36p171.jpg

[Andrew Mason]

 
HSCA Exhibit 133-C

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/6IV36p171.jpg

Right.  I stand corrected. 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA.  It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC.  Unlike the other two photos (CE133A and CE133B) no negative for this photo was found among Oswald's possessions, which may be the reason they did not try to use it as evidence.

133C appears to have been taken at the same time of day and in the same general location as the other two.  Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures?   That makes no sense.  She didn't remember taking two pictures, but she said that she obviously did because she was presented with the two pictures.  What makes you think that she would not have said something similar if she had been presented with all three?  It is not as if she said there was someone other than her in the back yard taking pictures.

[Ray Mitcham]

Right.  I stand corrected. 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA.  It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC.  Unlike the other two photos (CE133A and CE133B) no negative for this photo was found among Oswald's possessions, which may be the reason they did not try to use it as evidence.

133C appears to have been taken at the same time of day and in the same general location as the other two.  Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures?   That makes no sense.  She didn't remember taking two pictures, but she said that she obviously did because she was presented with the two pictures.  What makes you think that she would not have said something similar if she had been presented with all three?  It is not as if she said there was someone other than her in the back yard taking pictures.

Andrew, how would she forget that she held the camera at waist level? The Imperial reflex is operated like a Hasselblad, not like a 35mm eye level camera, and unlike the Hasselblad doessnot have an eye view finder. She said she held it to up her eyes. She should also have remembered that the image in the camera was upside down, which it is in a reflex camera. Both very hard to forget.

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew, how would she forget that she held the camera at waist level?

Are you assuming that this was a moment in time for which every detail would be permanently seared in Marina's memory?   I take pictures with my camera, with cameras belonging to others. I don't necessarily remember what camera I used let alone how many photos I took.   She remembered taking a photo of her husband with his guns and that there was no one else in the backyard taking photos.  When shown that there was more than one photo that appeared to be at a very similar time and in the same location with the same conditions, she agreed that she must have taken more than one.  She still couldn't remember taking more than one but she agreed she did only because the photo was shown to her.  133A is very similar to 133C.  What makes you think she would not have said the same thing if shown 133C?

The Imperial reflex is operated like a Hasselblad, not like a 35mm eye level camera, and unlike the Hasselblad does not have an eye view finder. She said she held it to up her eyes. She should also have remembered that the image in the camera was upside down, which it is in a reflex camera.

Was the image reversed left to right or upside down?  Wikipedia says that TLR cameras with the waist-level finder reversed left and right.  That makes sense, because you are looking at the upside-down reflection from the mirror and the mirror is reflecting the focused image from the viewing lens which is inverted (i.e upside down and reversed left-right)

Both very hard to forget.

But easy to not remember in the first place. Our brain does not store details that are unimportant so that it has room to store the important things. At the time, the detail of where she held the camera was of no importance to her. Why would she remember?  She admitted she took at least one of the photos. They were all taken with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera so it is apparent that she was wrong on thinking it was taken with a camera that had an eye-level viewfinder. 

[Walt Cakebread]

Right.  I stand corrected. 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA.  It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC.  Unlike the other two photos (CE133A and CE133B) no negative for this photo was found among Oswald's possessions, which may be the reason they did not try to use it as evidence.

133C appears to have been taken at the same time of day and in the same general location as the other two.  Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures?   That makes no sense.  She didn't remember taking two pictures, but she said that she obviously did because she was presented with the two pictures.  What makes you think that she would not have said something similar if she had been presented with all three?  It is not as if she said there was someone other than her in the back yard taking pictures.

 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA.  It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC.

So what you're saying is The DPD had the evidence (133c)  and withheld it from a legal investigation....  That my friend is FELONY.....  So the DPD were felons.

[Martin Weidmann]

Right.  I stand corrected. 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA.  It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC.  Unlike the other two photos (CE133A and CE133B) no negative for this photo was found among Oswald's possessions, which may be the reason they did not try to use it as evidence.

133C appears to have been taken at the same time of day and in the same general location as the other two.  Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures?   That makes no sense.  She didn't remember taking two pictures, but she said that she obviously did because she was presented with the two pictures.  What makes you think that she would not have said something similar if she had been presented with all three?  It is not as if she said there was someone other than her in the back yard taking pictures.

Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures?   That makes no sense.  She didn't remember taking two pictures,

How does Marina not remembering she took two photos relate to the fact that she did remember having one of the pictures (which turned out to be the fourth) in her possession and destroying it to keep it from law enforcement? Does that make any sense to you?