REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

BECAUSE JUSTICE IS NEVER TOO LATE

Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > JFK > Backyard Photos

Paul Francisco Paso
Administrator
Posts: 729

I would like to know what other members think about the BYP's. I was going to ask this question on the Tippit thread but felt it may derail it and I felt it needed to probably exist on its own even though I'd like to relate it back to Tippit and the revolver supposedly belonging to Oswald

I know its going to lead to an authentication debate so I will go on record as stating I really don't know. I thought first they were fake, then not so much, now just plain suspicion. I still am not 100% convinced it is Oswald in the photo. He doesn't look the same to me. If they are original than I'd like to know why Oswald decided to lark and who put him up to it. I don't believe Marina took the photos and I am not sure if they  owned the Imperial Reflex either. I could be wrong on all counts and probably am but the revolver in the photos is what leads me back to the Tippit shooting. Is it the same one that I believed was planted on him at the theatre? If so it might indicate that the Tippit shooting is directly related to the Oswald frame up. I guess even if it is isn't the same revolver you could make a similar argument.

In other words the BYP's have me stumped whether they are real or fake.

December 22, 2014 at 2:32 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Hasan Yusuf
Moderator
Posts: 1411

I think they're fake, Paul. 

December 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

Paul,


I'm no photo analyst. I look at other evidence and I have to conclude they are fake. 


The only photo that Marina took of Oswald holding a weapon was taken in Minsk. If you look at the testimony of Marina and Marguerite you'll see that in the immediate aftermath of finding out Lee was arrested, Marina panicked about that photo being potentially damaging to her husband. She asked Marguerite what to do and Marguerite advised her to destroy it, which she duly did. 


If you think about this logically, it makes no sense that Marina would panick about a photo of Oswald taken in Minsk holding a shotgun he had sold before coming back to the US. If the BY photos existed at THAT time, those were the ones she needed to be concerned about. That she had no panic about them at all tells me that they just did not exist at that time. There was a third person involded in the discussion about the Minsk photo though. One Ruth Paine. And it was Ruth Paine's husband who told the cops that Oswald had lived at the Neely St apartment.


To me, the technicalities of the photos are a side show. The above proves beyond doubt to me that they are fake. And who was instrumental in having them made. 


It is also the original reason I doubted Lee ever lived at that address... and there is even less physical evidence that he did, then exists for N. Beckley. In this case, we don't even have a scrap of paper with OH Lee written on it. We have the say-so of Marina and the Paines, the BYP, a photo of a kid on a balcony, the American Bakery payslip and a hand-written notation saying "Oswald" in the margin of an electicity account for the property. 

December 22, 2014 at 3:06 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

The testimony that blows the BY photos out of the water. Have also included and highlighted some other stuff that shows what a complete bitch Ruth Paine really was.


MRS. OSWALD. I am worried because Lee hasn't had an attorney. And I am talking about that, and Mrs. Paine said, "Oh, don't worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union, and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you." I said to myself but when? Of course, I didn't want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a member of the Union, why didn't she see Lee had an attorney then. So I wasn't too happy about that. Now, gentlemen, this is some very important facts. My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian, "Mamma." she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, "Mamma, I show you." She opened the closet, and in the closet was a lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, "To my daughter June"-written in English. I said, "Oh, Marina, police." I didn't think anything of the picture. Now, you must understand that I don't know what is going on on television--I came from the jailhouse and everything, so I don't know all the circumstances, what evidence they had against my son by this time. I had no way of knowing. But I say to my daughter, "To my daughter. June." anybody can own a rifle, to go hunting. You yourself probably have a rifle. So I am not connecting this with the assassination--"To my daughter, June." Because I would immediately say, and I remember--I think my son is all agent all the time no one is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with that rifle, and leave that there for evidence. So, I didn't think a thing about it. And it says "To my daughter, June." I said, "The police," meaning that if the police got that, they would use that against my son, which would be a natural way to think. She says, "You take, Mamma."' "Yes, Mamma, you take." I said, "No, Marina. Put back in the book." So she put the picture back in the book. Which book it was, I do not know. So the next day, when we are at the courthouse this is on Saturday-she--we were sitting down, waiting to see Lee. She puts her shoe down, she says, "Mamma, picture." She had the picture folded up in her shoe. Now, I did not see that it was the picture. but I know that it was, because she told me it was, and I could see it was folded up. It wasn't open for me to see. I said, "Marina." Just like that. So Robert came along and he says, "Robert" I said, "No, no Marina." I didn't want her to tell Robert about the picture. Right there, you know. That was about the picture.


Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever tell her to destroy the picture?


Mrs. OSWALD. No. Now, I have to go into this. I want to tell you about destroying the picture. Now, that was in Mrs. Paine's home. I want to start to remember--because when we leave Mrs. Paine's home, we go into another phase, where the picture comes in again. So I have to tell the--unless you want to ask me specific questions.


Mr. RANKIN. No, you go right ahead.


Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Paine, in front of me, gave Marina $10. Now, Mrs. Paine, when I said, after the representatives left--I said, "You know, I do want to get paid for the story, because I am destitute, and here is a girl with--her husband is going to be in jail, we will need money for attorneys, with two babies." She said, "You don't have to worry about Marina. Marina will always have a home with me, because Marina helps." Now, Mrs. Paine speaks Russian fluently. "She helps me with my Russian language. She babysits for me and helps me with the housework, and you never have to worry about Marina. She will always have a home with me." Now, Mr. and Mrs. Paine are separated. Mr. Paine does not live here. So it is just the two women. So, Mrs. Paine didn't graciously do anything for Marina, as the paper stated--that Lee never did pay Mrs. Paine for room or board. Mrs. Paine owes them money. That is almost the kind of work that I do, or the airline stewardesses do, serve food and everything. Marina was earning her keep, and really should have had a salary for it--what I am trying to say, gentlemen, Mrs. Paine had Marina there to help babysit with the children, with her children-if she wanted to go running around and everything. So actually she wasn't doing my son or Marina the favor that she claims she was doing. But the point I am trying to stress is that she did tell me Marina would never have to worry, because Marina would have a home with her. At this particular moment, I cannot remember anything of importance in the house. Otherwise, about the picture I have stated. And Mrs. Paine with the Life representative, and her saying that Lee would have an attorney, and Mrs. Paine giving Marina a $10 bill. Oh, Marina told me, "Mamma, I have this money." It was money in an envelope--in the bedroom, when she showed me the picture. I said, "How much money, Marina." "About how much?" I asked her. "About $100 and some." Now, Mrs. Paine has stated to the Life representative that Lee and Marina were saving his pay in order to have a home for themselves for Christmas time, because they had never been in a home of their own at Christmas time in order to celebrate Christmas. So, the hundred and some odd dollars isn't a big sum, considering that Lee paid $8 a week room in Dallas--and it has been stated by the landlady that Lee ate lunchmeat or fruit. And Lee was very, very thin when I saw him. And Lee gave his salary to his wife in order to save to have this home for Christmas. So, that is not a lot of money to have in the house I would not think so, because I believe Lee was earning about $50 a week. And let's say he could live for about $10 or $12. And he gave the rest of the money to his wife. And so I reported this money to the Secret Service while we were in Six Flags--that Marina had the money. I wanted them to know. She showed me the money. I cannot think now-I did think of the money after going back--but I cannot think of anything at this particular moment that would be of any benefit that happened in this house. Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission's Exhibit 134.


Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture.


Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures.


Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, "To my daughter, June, with love." He was holding the rifle up.


Mr. RANKIN. By holding it up, you mean----


Mrs. OSWALD. Like this.


Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?


Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle.


Mr. RANKIN. Above his head?


Mrs. OSWALD. That is right.


Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see these pictures, Exhibits 133 and 134?


Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen those pictures.


Mr. RANKIN. Now, you were going to tell us about some further discussion of the picture you did see?


Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--all right. Now, so the next morning the two representatives of the Life Magazine, Mr. Allen Grant and Mr. Tommy Thompson come by at 9 o'clock with a woman, Russian interpreter, a doctor somebody. I have not been able to find this woman. I have called the universities, thinking that she was a language teacher, and I--maybe you have her name. But she is very, very important to our story. And I do want to locate her, if possible. During the night, I had decided I was going to take up their offer, because I would be besieged by reporters and everything. So why not go with the Life representatives, and let them pay my room and board and my daughter-in-law's. They came by at 9 o'clock, without calling, with this Russian interpreter. Marina was getting dressed and getting the children dressed. He was taking pictures all the time.


Mr. RANKIN. They came by where?


Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Paine's home. And there was no hurry, though, to leave the home, because Mrs. Paine was most anxious for the Life representatives to talk to her and get these pictures and everything--whether Marina has any part in this I don't know, because they spoke Russian, and she didn't tell me about it. But I know Mrs. Paine did. We left with the two Life representatives. They brought us to the Hotel Adolphus in Dallas. I immediately upon entering the hotel picked up the phone and called Captain Will Fritz, to see if Marina and I could see Lee at the jailhouse.

------------------------------

MRS. OSWALD.  While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with hits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely.


Mr. RANKIN. Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?


Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet.


Mr. RANKIN. And what time was this?


Mrs. OSWALD. This--now, just a minute, gentlemen, because this I know is very important to me and to you, too. We had been in the jail. This was an evening. Well, this, then, would be approximately 5:30 or 6 in the evening.


Mr. RANKIN. What day?


Mrs. OSWALD. On Saturday, November 23. Now, I flushed the torn bits and the half-burned thing down the commode. And nothing was said. There was nothing said.


Mr. RANKIN. That was at the Executive Inn?


Mrs. OSWALD. At the Executive Inn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

When did the BYP make their debut? Straight after the Minsk photo was safely destroyed (I previously said it was destroyed at Marguerite's suggestion - I should have said at (most likely) Ruth's/Life's suggestion.


 

6:00 - 6:30 P.M. Interrogation, Captain Fritz's Office

 

"In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don't want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Life magazine] without advice of an attorney. . . . There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . . That picture is not mine, but the face is mine. The picture has been made by superimposing my face. The other part of the picture is not me at all, and I have never seen this picture before. I understand photography real well, and that, in time, I will be able to show you that is not my picture and that it has been made by someone else. . . . It was entirely possible that the Police Dept. has superimposed this part of the photograph over the body of someone else. . .

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html


I know nowhere does Marguerite say the photo she saw was taken in Minsk, but Sylvia Meagher believed it was and it makes sense that it was inscribed to June with the raised arms in celebration of her birth. Marina initially only admitted taking one photo of Lee holding a rifle (it was actually a shotgun, but she also admitted not knowing the difference). The Minsk photo was that photo.


December 22, 2014 at 5:03 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Goban Saor
Member
Posts: 333

Greg at December 22, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Paul,


I'm no photo analyst. I look at other evidence and I have to conclude they are fake. 


The only photo that Marina took of Oswald holding a weapon was taken in Minsk. If you look at the testimony of Marina and Marguerite you'll see that in the immediate aftermath of finding out Lee was arrested, Marina panicked about that photo being potentially damaging to her husband. She asked Marguerite what to do and Marguerite advised her to destroy it, which she duly did. 


If you think about this logically, it makes no sense that Marina would panick about a photo of Oswald taken in Minsk holding a shotgun he had sold before coming back to the US. If the BY photos existed at THAT time, those were the ones she needed to be concerned about. That she had no panic about them at all tells me that they just did not exist at that time. There was a third person involded in the discussion about the Minsk photo though. One Ruth Paine. And it was Ruth Paine's husband who told the cops that Oswald had lived at the Neely St apartment.


To me, the technicalities of the photos are a side show. The above proves beyond doubt to me that they are fake. And who was instrumental in having them made. 


It is also the original reason I doubted Lee ever lived at that address... and there is even less physical evidence that he did, then exists for N. Beckley. In this case, we don't even have a scrap of paper with OH Lee written on it. We have the say-so of Marina and the Paines, the BYP, a photo of a kid on a balcony, the American Bakery payslip and a hand-written notation saying "Oswald" in the margin of an electicity account for the property. 

Ever since reading the first edition of Anthony Summers’ book which my parents had decades ago I thought that the backyard photos were fake but the means of proving it remained annoyingly elusive.


Many thanks for that beautifully simple and lucid argument, Greg, which renders a lot of head wrecking photo analysis redundant and which provides the proof that has long eluded me and many others that those photos are fake.

 

December 22, 2014 at 5:56 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

They're fakes. Oswald's mouth, nose and possibly the rest of his head has been pasted onto the body of someone else. You can see the join.

There are discrepancies in the size of the head in relation to the body in different photographs and the posture of the body itself is all wrong.

The rifle sling-mount is missing and the fingers are far too fat and stubby.

Most noticeable of all is the chin. Michael Paine's?

December 22, 2014 at 6:08 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Paul Francisco Paso
Administrator
Posts: 729

If we agree that the BYP's are fake then do we also have to agree that the revolver used as a prop in the photos links the Tippit shooting directly to the assassination and cover up? Especially if we also agree the DPD were trying to plant the revolver on Oswald at the theatre.


December 22, 2014 at 6:19 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

Gobam - thanks!


Redfern - agree from eyeballing the photos with everything you say. Real photo analysts have even made similar observations - but those arguments have gotten us no where in 50 years. It comes down to duelling experts and ends in deadlock.


My aim with every aspect of the case is to find new paths where old ones have failed. This does away with photo experts butting heads and getting us nowhere.


Marguerite may be dead, but her testimony is still with us - as is Marina and RP - who both should be questioned under oath about these events Marguerite described. Such questioning (unfortunately unsurprisingly) never happened when it should have.

December 22, 2014 at 6:28 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

Paul Francisco Paso at December 22, 2014 at 6:19 PM

If we agree that the BYP's are fake then do we also have to agree that the revolver used as a prop in the photos links the Tippit shooting directly to the assassination and cover up? Especially if we also agree the DPD were trying to plant the revolver on Oswald at the theatre.


Paul, that sounds good on the face of it, though what i get from Marguerite's testimony on the faked photos is that there was no pre-planning of them. It was inspired by Marina producing the minsk photo. Since they were trying to pin Tippit on him as well as JFK, it made sense to include a pistol.

December 22, 2014 at 6:36 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Paul Francisco Paso
Administrator
Posts: 729

Thanks for your efforts, Greg. I just got to reading it all. As you know I've had issues getting past the homepage. I really didn't want to get into the technicalities and analysis of photography. I was more interested in how the photographs were staged and what they were meant to portray. It does make sense to include the pistol given the timetable you mentioned. That was the sense I was after in my OP so thanks again, mate.

December 22, 2014 at 7:03 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

Thanks Paul.


On the access issue, is anyone else having any problems? Shoot me a PM or email.

December 22, 2014 at 7:10 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

Also note that nowhere does Marguerite describe any newspapers -- or a pistol.

December 22, 2014 at 7:52 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

This is fascinating to me in that, as Greg said, the experts arguing over authentication for fifty years has not proved worthwhile so a different approach solved the question once and for all.


I think this is similar to what we saw with Sean's dismantling of the opposition to PM.


And IIRC it is the same sort of approach used by Lee Farley on a couple of different issues.


Fifty years of experts battling experts on the technical issues can ALL be wiped away by the simple application of logistics.


Is that totally brilliant or what!!?


Perhaps every aspect of the case should be re-examined in this light.

December 22, 2014 at 8:34 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--all right. Now, so the next morning the two representatives of the Life Magazine, Mr. Allen Grant and Mr. Tommy Thompson come by at 9 o'clock with a woman, Russian interpreter, a doctor somebody. I have not been able to find this woman. I have called the universities, thinking that she was a language teacher, and I--maybe you have her name. But she is very, very important to our story. And I do want to locate her, if possible.

In 1965, Marguerite named Thompson and others as being part of the conspiracy.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60399&relPageId=70

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60399&relPageId=71


I think Marguerite was on to something...

December 22, 2014 at 8:52 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

For what it's worth, I say fake! Have waxed and waned on this for several years. And I really don't see an issue either way, fake or not. They are damming and extremely incriminating. And used oh so effectively by Time life magazine. For me it was the cincher. The world took one look at that photo and Oswald was as good as dead. But I am convinced they're fake not so much by the photo's themselves but swayed by the evidence Greg alludes to. Having said all that, I believe also, that the shadows in the photographs show quite clearly signs of forgery. Not the obvious ones, not the shadows on the face or the chin or the nose, the ones studied for over 50 years, but shadows on the ground from inanimate objects which do not relate in any way to the torso shadow. I am using my own photgraphic skill set to determine this, as I have filmed for over 37 years, and this plus the testimony of Marina and Mrs Oswald cries out FAKE!

December 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

Mick, I'll take your knowledge and opinion over just about all the experts in the past. Those on both sides of the argument were simple defending agendas, imo. 


With this, it goes beyond Marguerite's testimony (though I'd call that sufficient on its own). It is also the timing. A question that no one could really adequately address in the past was why it took until the evening of Saturday the 23rd for Fritz to confront Oswald with those photos. This explains it.  First, Ruth and/or Life got the inspiration Friday evening from Marina's original (non-incriminating) photo. Then they had to make them. But ultimately, they couldn't be produced until Marina's photo was destroyed. While it was around, the whole thing could unravel. The one witness they could never tame, quiet, or intimidate was Marguerite. So they destroyed her credibility. She made it easy, because there was a touch of truth to some of the epithets.  

December 22, 2014 at 10:39 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Hasan Yusuf
Moderator
Posts: 1411

I haven't had time to read the entire thread yet, but I wanted to voice a suspicion I have concerning the Neely Street address. I think most people here know my feelings about Gerald Hill. As I have explained in my essays on Hill and Crafard, there is good reason to believe that Hill most likely was the unidentified cop who told Fritz about the 1026 North Beckley address. I think there is also good reason to believe that he was the DPD's source for the Neely Street address. Here's why:


 

Mr. BELIN. At any time up to the time you left, did you ever get any address on the suspect as to where he lived other than the statement of Captain Fritz that he had this address on Fifth Street somewhere in Irving?


 

Mr. HILL. Paul Bentley called off two addresses. One, as I recall, in Irving, and another one in Oak Cliff, when he was reading from information inside the suspect's billfold. But neither of these addresses was an address on 10th or on Beckley. As to exactly what they were, I don't recall, as I didn't see the identification.


 

Mr. BELIN. Would one of them have been an address on Neely Street?


 

Mr. HILL. It very possibly could be. In fact I believe it was.


 

December 23, 2014 at 8:38 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Hasan Yusuf
Moderator
Posts: 1411

Hasan Yusuf at December 23, 2014 at 8:38 AM

I haven't had time to read the entire thread yet, but I wanted to voice a suspicion I have concerning the Neely Street address. I think most people here know my feelings about Gerald Hill. As I have explained in my essays on Hill and Crafard, there is good reason to believe that Hill most likely was the unidentified cop who told Fritz about the 1026 North Beckley address. I think there is also good reason to believe that he was the DPD's source for the Neely Street address. Here's why:


 

Mr. BELIN. At any time up to the time you left, did you ever get any address on the suspect as to where he lived other than the statement of Captain Fritz that he had this address on Fifth Street somewhere in Irving?


 

Mr. HILL. Paul Bentley called off two addresses. One, as I recall, in Irving, and another one in Oak Cliff, when he was reading from information inside the suspect's billfold. But neither of these addresses was an address on 10th or on Beckley. As to exactly what they were, I don't recall, as I didn't see the identification.


 

Mr. BELIN. Would one of them have been an address on Neely Street?


 

Mr. HILL. It very possibly could be. In fact I believe it was.


 

To clarify; I don't believe the fat cunt was being honest here. I think he only said this as a way of explaining how he allegedly learned about the address. 

December 23, 2014 at 10:44 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ray Mitcham
Member
Posts: 44

Having studied the photos for years and been involved in numerous arguments with Warrenistas, I believe the photos are complete fakes.

Marina said that she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos, It was a camera that was held at waist level.

First she said she only took one photo, which became two, which then became three.

She said that she didn't know how to wind the film on, so after each photo Oswald had to wind the film on, yet the three photos show that they were taken exactly from the same position,  as the posts to the left and right rear of Oswald show.




p.s. Congratulations on the layout of the new site.

December 24, 2014 at 7:56 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049
p.s. Congratulations on the layout of the new site.

Thanks Ray!


Just found this from Ian Griggs:

 

It is simple to assume automatically that this photograph was another part of the series taken in the backyard of the Oswalds' Neely Street address in early 1963. That Mr. Rankin showed the other two "backyard photographs" to Mrs. Oswald tends, by association, to re-inforce this possibility, but that was never actually said, and was not even indicated by his questions. As respected researcher, Sylvia Meagher, observed, the weapon being held over his head by Oswald could well have been the shotgun he owned in Russia and the photograph could well have been taken in that country (40).

 

We were unwilling to leave this matter unresolved, and in October 1994, Ian Griggs had the opportunity to put this point directly to Mrs. Marina Oswald Porter. Without hesitation, she confirmed that this photograph was indeed a 'backyard photograph.' As she stressed, had it been an innocent picture taken in Russia, why would it have been necessary to destroy it? It would not have mattered! (41). There, this matter stands.

 http://www.jfklancer.com/bymain.html

I'm sorry -  but she's a fuckin' lying bitch. if it was one of a series of BY photos taken in Neely St, why destroy only one?  and that one being the LEAST incriminating since it was only the "rifle" being held up - no pistol - no commie papers,  And why was this one inscribed to June? Why were the others produced only after this one was destroyed?


How much of a numbat do you have to be to believe Marina?

an actual numbat. Renowned as the dumbest marsupial not yet extinct.

 

December 24, 2014 at 4:52 PM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.