Jump to content
The Education Forum

More on the BYP: Jeff Carter Pours it on


Recommended Posts

I didn't think Jeff's work on this could get any better. But it has.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JeffCarterBYP4.html

I really give Jeff a lot of credit here for closely reading what Kirk wrote in the HSCA report. And exposing just how dishonest that was in a lawyerly way. He has given us a whole new way to look at this so-called evidence.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not necessarily disputing various conclusions but this paragraph :

"If Oswald’s Marxist tendencies had been more informed, his subscription and party membership activity should have been limited to one or other of Communist Party USA or the Socialist Worker’s Party. Factional splits and philosophical differences had led to bitter divisions between the two organizations. Oswald’s correspondence through 1962 and 1963 with various left-wing outfits shows him apparently unaware or unconcerned with these splits. Oswald assumed a personal stance, articulated during social occasions at the time, that he disliked both the Soviet and American political systems and instead endorsed Marxist analysis and ideals. Yet in Texas and Louisiana, in 1962 and 1963, he worked and socialized with, for the most part, persons of the right. 8 Oswald’s Marxist identity should be considered a front, and his communications with left-wing organizations insincerely motivated."

needs a look at.

"Factional splits and philosophical differences had led to bitter divisions between the two organizations." - is right but during this time frame there were indications that the two were moving closer again. Particularly regarding Cuba. Superficially one might say that there is a conflict in trying to join both, a deeper analysis may give reasons to support rapproachment.

"he disliked both the Soviet and American political systems and instead endorsed Marxist analysis and ideals" - in his diary he endorsed the Minutemen as a way to resolve and use the tensions between the two political systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily disputing various conclusions but this paragraph :

"If Oswald’s Marxist tendencies had been more informed, his subscription and party membership activity should have been limited to one or other of Communist Party USA or the Socialist Worker’s Party. Factional splits and philosophical differences had led to bitter divisions between the two organizations. Oswald’s correspondence through 1962 and 1963 with various left-wing outfits shows him apparently unaware or unconcerned with these splits. Oswald assumed a personal stance, articulated during social occasions at the time, that he disliked both the Soviet and American political systems and instead endorsed Marxist analysis and ideals. Yet in Texas and Louisiana, in 1962 and 1963, he worked and socialized with, for the most part, persons of the right. 8 Oswald’s Marxist identity should be considered a front, and his communications with left-wing organizations insincerely motivated."

needs a look at.

"Factional splits and philosophical differences had led to bitter divisions between the two organizations." - is right but during this time frame there were indications that the two were moving closer again. Particularly regarding Cuba. Superficially one might say that there is a conflict in trying to join both, a deeper analysis may give reasons to support rapproachment.

"he disliked both the Soviet and American political systems and instead endorsed Marxist analysis and ideals" - in his diary he endorsed the Minutemen as a way to resolve and use the tensions between the two political systems.

It could have been Oswald's clever way of complying with his handler's request (having some incriminating-looking photos of him taken) but making sure he could say later, if necessary, "Look, I'm not really a Communist. I'm was just joking! And not only am I holding two incompatible newspapers, but look! -- I ... , uhh, I mean somebody pasted my head on somebody else's body!""

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, this is now the number one rated article at CTKA.

And the series, parts 1-3, is number two.

The appeal of these photos as a subject for debate and controversy never fails to amaze me. It is eternal.

And since Jeff took a different track toward the material, I think that sealed the deal.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two comments:

[1] Jim Di writes here about so-called evidence. Why? Because the BYP have been called effectively into question. Why then is anything in this matter "evidence"? All arrows pointing toward Oswald as a killer can be and have been called into question. The same can be said of the arrows pointing towards Oswald's being a CIA agent, an FBI agent, whatever.

[2] The BYP never get admitted into evidence in a trial of Oswald as JFK's killer. Or if the trial judge does admit the BYP into evidence, Oswald's attorney effectively attacks their weight. What kind of attack?

"Mrs Oswald, please tell the jury how you held the camera when you took these photos."

"Mrs. Oswald, how many photos did you take?"

"Mrs. Oswald, what became of the clothes your husband wore in those photos?"

"Mrs. Oswald, do you know where those photos were developed?"

"Mrs. Oswald, did anyone from the government talk to you about these photos before you testified to the Warren Commission?"

Et cetera.

Edited by Jon G. Tidd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two comments:

[1] Jim Di writes here about so-called evidence. Why? Because the BYP have been called effectively into question. Why then is anything in this matter "evidence"? All arrows pointing toward Oswald as a killer can be and have been called into question. The same can be said of the arrows pointing towards Oswald's being a CIA agent, an FBI agent, whatever.

[2] The BYP never get admitted into evidence in a trial of Oswald as JFK's killer. Or if the trial judge does admit the BYP into evidence, Oswald's attorney effectively attacks their weight. What kind of attack?

"Mrs Oswald, please tell the jury how you held the camera when you took these photos."

"Mrs. Oswald, how many photos did you take?"

"Mrs. Oswald, what became of the clothes your husband wore in those photos?"

"Mrs. Oswald, do you know where those photos were developed?"

"Mrs. Oswald, did anyone from the government talk to you about these photos before you testified to the Warren Commission?"

Et cetera.

Basically you're saying that the only thing the BYP are evidence is: that someone can make very poor quality fake photos. I would certainly second that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon:

Thanks, but don't give me credit for this. CTKA is a platform for many good writers.

in this case it was Jeff Carter. Jeff did the "Fifty Reasons for Fifty Years" series with Len Osanic, which also turned out well.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken:

Please read the whole series since I think you may be missing the main point of Jeff's argument.

Jeff is, I think, deliberately minimizing the whole "pictures are fake" line which people like Fetzer and Marrs have taken about as far as one can go.

What Jeff is really arguing is the provenance of the camera and the photos. In other words, was that really Lee's camera and did Marina take the photos? No one, to my knowledge, has ever taken this argument as far as he has. This is why its so original and unique. So please read it.

BTW, Jeff told me that what got him started on this was a very close reading of the HSCA report which was authored by Kirk. Kirk minimized or sidestepped the provenance question in a lawyerly way. This is what got him suspicious.

It always amazes me, with all these people doing work in this field, how a new angle or a new piece of evidence can surface fifty years later.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The approach here is to take something of the presentation and mention points that may be faulty. In this instance something that doesn't directly deal with the BYP's but the author deems important enough to include in the introduction area of the article. (hence my mentioning I don't necessarily dispute any particular conclusions of the overall article.) IF the paragraph is significant to making points then having these details correct is important. As this doesn't seem to be the case, why is the paragraph there at all? What point does the paragraph make as is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily disputing various conclusions but this paragraph :

"If Oswald’s Marxist tendencies had been more informed, his subscription and party membership activity should have been limited to one or other of Communist Party USA or the Socialist Worker’s Party. Factional splits and philosophical differences had led to bitter divisions between the two organizations. Oswald’s correspondence through 1962 and 1963 with various left-wing outfits shows him apparently unaware or unconcerned with these splits. Oswald assumed a personal stance, articulated during social occasions at the time, that he disliked both the Soviet and American political systems and instead endorsed Marxist analysis and ideals. Yet in Texas and Louisiana, in 1962 and 1963, he worked and socialized with, for the most part, persons of the right. 8 Oswald’s Marxist identity should be considered a front, and his communications with left-wing organizations insincerely motivated."

needs a look at.

"Factional splits and philosophical differences had led to bitter divisions between the two organizations." - is right but during this time frame there were indications that the two were moving closer again. Particularly regarding Cuba. Superficially one might say that there is a conflict in trying to join both, a deeper analysis may give reasons to support rapproachment.

"he disliked both the Soviet and American political systems and instead endorsed Marxist analysis and ideals" - in his diary he endorsed the Minutemen as a way to resolve and use the tensions between the two political systems.

It could have been Oswald's clever way of complying with his handler's directive (having some incriminating-looking photos of him taken) but making sure he could say later, if necessary, "Look, I'm not really a Communist. I'm was just joking! And not only am I holding two incompatible newspapers, but look! -- I ... , uhh, I mean somebody pasted my head on somebody else's body!""

--Tommy :sun

edited and bumped

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Thomas, I don't get what you're getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Thomas, I don't get what you're getting at.

Oswald could have created the BYP because his bad guy "handler" told him to.

But Oswald might have outwitted his handler by holding two ideologically-incompatible "Communist" newspapers in his hands, so that he could later claim "It was a joke! I'm not really a Communist! No Communist would have touted both of those newspapers!"

Get it, John?

That and the fact that Oswald might have intentionally, at the photographic studio he was working at, created a fake-looking photo of himself, complete with weirdly-tilted body and pasted-on head of himself. And he would / could claim that someone else had faked the photograph / photographs.

Get it?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Thomas, I don't get what you're getting at.

Oswald could have created the BYP because his bad guy "handler" told him to.

But Oswald might have outwitted his handler by holding two ideologically-incompatible "Communist" newspapers in his hands, so that he could later claim "It was a joke! I'm not really a Communist! No Communist would have touted both of those newspapers!"

Get it, John?

That and the fact that Oswald might have intentionally, at the photographic studio he was working at, created a fake-looking photo of himself, complete with weirdly-tilted body and pasted-on head of himself. And he would / could claim that someone else had faked the photograph / photographs.

Get it?

--Tommy :sun

Bumped for John Dolva.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paragraph starts with this : "If Oswald’s Marxist tendencies had been more informed, his subscription and party membership activity should have been limited to one or other of Communist Party USA or the Socialist Worker’s Party." and then mentions the disputes between the two parties.

I say an informed stance does not mean that support for both is unreconcileable. In fact a support for both is an indication of a deeper marxist analysis.

Further the statement about Oswald having a marxist analysis as a result of a dislike of two contemporary systems is wrong as he himself states he leans towards the Minutemen, not marxism, as being a solution to an impasse.

In toto that paragraph is flawed in a number of ways.

Perhaps it is just stating its proposition wrongly. Idk.

As it stands, at the beginning of the article, I don't see what it is supposed to do. I don't think it can be used as an explanation for what the BYP's are suppopsed to mean.

At the same time it may indeed mean something. They appear pristine and the wrapping paper by the gate may have held one or both. ie, one or both were specifically acquired just for this use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...