LOL. So we can only address the parts of your silly posts that are highlighted? It has never been "determined beyond doubt that it wasn't Marina" who wrote the Russian text. That is simply a lie. It has been determined that Oswald inscribed it to DeM and signed his name on the picture. The one he later claimed was faked. Oswald and George DeM were long standing acquaintances. One of the few, if not only, that Oswald had. Thus, no great surprise that he would have given him such a picture. Again, though, you are trying to take us down the rabbit hole game asking someone to explain Oswald's motivations to your subjective satisfaction so that you can play the contrarian and say it isn't so. Only Oswald can know for sure why he took these pictures, why he gave one to DeM etc. You are asking for speculation on Oswald's motive to deflect from the important point. For whatever reason he did it, we know Oswald must have given DeM the picture because that is what the evidence confirms beyond any doubt. The photo exists. It was in DeM's possession. Oswald even inscribed it to him and signed it. There is absolutely no doubt of the issue under those circumstances.
Another incoherent rant by "Richard" who, as usual, is all over the place.
It has never been "determined beyond doubt that it wasn't Marina" who wrote the Russian text. That is simply a lie.No it isn't a lie. That the handwriting was Marina's, as you falsely claimed, is the actual lie. If there was even the remotest possibility that Marina had written the text, the HSCA would most certainly have made that determination. They didn't!
It seems you'd rather make up a blatant lie than to deal honestly with the evidence. Marina did not write the Russian text, which means somebody else, who has remained unidentified for 58 years, was involved in the making of the high quality BY photo that ended up in DeMohrenschildt's storage unit.
It has been determined that Oswald inscribed it to DeM and signed his name on the picture. The one he later claimed was faked. BS. Oswald never made any claim about the DeMohrenschildt copy, as it wasn't "discovered" until several years after Oswald's death. And since when does somebody receiving a picture, write a copy-right notice on the back?
Oswald and George DeM were long standing acquaintances. One of the few, if not only, that Oswald had.Another lie. DeMohrenschildt and Oswald only knew eachother for a couple of months. DeMohrenschildt heard about Oswald in the late summer of 1962 after he and Marina had returned from Russia.
Thus, no great surprise that he would have given him such a picture. Again, though, you are trying to take us down the rabbit hole game asking someone to explain Oswald's motivations to your subjective satisfaction so that you can play the contrarian and say it isn't so. Hilarious. You are the one who is constantly telling is what Oswald thought, what he knew, what his motivations are and so on, but now suddenly you can't explain Oswald's motivation for giving a copy of the photograph to a man he barely knew.
Instead you simply claim - without a shred of evidence - that Oswald and DeMohrenschildt were so friendly with eachother that it was no surprise that he gave him a picture showing him holding a rifle around the same time that he is supposed to have used that same rifle in an attempt to kill General Walker. You are truly completely full of it.
Only Oswald can know for sure why he took these pictures, why he gave one to DeM etc.Indeed. So why are you constantly telling us what Oswald was thinking and why he did things?
You are asking for speculation on Oswald's motive to deflect from the important point. For whatever reason he did it, we know Oswald must have given DeM the picture because that is what the evidence confirms beyond any doubt. The photo exists. It was in DeM's possession. Oswald even inscribed it to him and signed it. There is absolutely no doubt of the issue under those circumstances. Indeed, the photo does exist, but there is nothing to support your claim that Oswald "must have given DeM the picture". As per usual you confuse your assumptions with actual evidence.
It is no wonder why you fail to explain why DeMohrenschildt, who according to you received a copy from Oswald, and thus should be fully aware he has a copy, did not mention or show the photo to anybody, during the WC investigation. He does not talk about it in his WC testimony and the photo is only "discovered" among his stored papers, in 1967. None of this is even the slightest bit odd to you, right?
