Curtis Berkley Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 What welcome? From your posts, I can sense that you have a distinctly welcoming and congenial nature - particularly in the respectful way in which you embrace the opinions of others, including those which may be in opposition to your own, I naturally assumed that your welcoming me would be quickly and inevitably forthcoming. Was I wrong to assume these things, or is this my welcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support. More hilarity from Bob Prudhomme. Now he sees a conspiracy (of sorts) connected with the "new" Edu. Forum member, Curtis Berkley. Bob's use of quotation marks around the word "new" means, of course, that Bobby doesn't believe for a second that Curtis Berkley is using his real identity. Such paranoid behavior is, of course, par for the course among Internet CTers. It's behavior that should certainly be frowned upon by the owners of this moderated forum, however. Bob might as well just come out and call Curtis a xxxx. And on Curtis' first day here too. Isn't that special? Plus, Bob thinks things have gotten "a bit sticky" with respect to the preposterous "fake backyard photos" topic in this thread. Again, hilarious. Edited June 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support. More hilarity from Bob Prudhomme. Now he sees a conspiracy (of sorts) connected with the "new" Edu. Forum member, Curtis Berkley. Bob's use of quotation marks around the word "new" means, of course, that Bobby doesn't believe for a second that Curtis Berkley is using his real identity. Such paranoid behavior is, of course, par for the course among Internet CTers. (It's behavior that should certainly be frowned on by the owners of this moderated forum, however. Bob might as well just come out and call Curtis a xxxx. And on Curtis' first day here too. Isn't that special? Plus, Bob thinks things have gotten "a bit sticky" with respect to the preposterous "fake backyard photos" topic in this thread. Again, hilarious. It comes from experience, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 I like Mr. Berkley a lot already. Welcome, Curtis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtis Berkley Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I like Mr. Berkley a lot already. Welcome, Curtis. Thank you - now with your welcome, that's two just today (I'm counting Robert's as the first). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Curious Dave... you never did bother to address 133-C and the Det Brown recreation. Unless White and Stovall hid this third image and negative it was only acknowledged to exist on NYE 1976. How can the ghost image and Det Brown be in the 133-C pose when that image's existance had not yet been discovered? And why, when we paste Ozzie in from 133-C does the image not work and is all skewed? btw - the Det Brown image was taken on Nov 29th 1963 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 My son, a child of the Computer Age, looked at the BYP for about 30 seconds and pronounced, "Photoshopped!". You might have been able to fool the kids 50 years ago but, this bunch nowadays are too sharp too fall for the old tricks. How does it feel to be on an obsolete, losing team, Dave? Robert, while I wasn't a kid 50 years ago, I couldn't be fooled on the photos back then either. First, his standing posture is impossible. His shadow is not at the same angle as the other shadows in the photo. You can see the boards and grass and sprigs off the plants "through" his body/legs. The head was put on the body, the body was put into the picture. Only a total fool would believe this is a 'real' photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 If it is so easy to stand, leaning over 20° to the right, and bending only at the ankles, why not reproduce this photo for us, Dave? The CBS/Schiller photo you posted failed dismally at this, and only proved to everyone how impossible this pose is. That man had to keep his legs vertical, and bend at the hip. P.S. Note that the man in the CBS/Schiller photo had to place his right foot further back than LHO, presumably to keep him from falling on his butt. And note that the man's feet are further apart. LHO's left leg is way further left, not even under his shoulder, while the other photo the left foot is directly below the shoulder, plus the LHO photo is turned to make LHO appear to be standing a little more erect. Who ever did the 'reconstruction' photo did an excellent job of non duplication, proving that he couldn't do it. look at the dark board/post behind LHO left foot, his foot is left (right in photo) of the post, the recreation is right (left in photo) of the post, about 6 inches further right. But DVP threw in the towel, so even he has now admitted it has to be a fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Bob, I don't know Curtis. I don't think I've talked to him before (but I could be wrong about that; I've talked to many people about this case over the years). But, anyway, it's nice to see someone else (besides me) with some common sense posting at this forum. So you're not used to being around people with common sense DVP? That's no surprise. Nutters of a feather................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 One of your disciples, Dave? This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support. Check out Curtis's profile; "Member since Today 1:33 A.M." Hi, Robert. I have lurked for a bit, and appreciate your posts. I saw the new member post while lurking today, submitted the necessary email containing the requisite information, and was approved a few hours later. I assure you that any significance of timing is purely coincidental. Finally, I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald, standing in his backyard, holding a rifle, just as Marina testified under oath that she had taken. If you have any evidence, beyond the aforementioned and anecdotal, please present it, as I'd love to know and consider it. Thanks, again, for the welcome. "I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald," You don't 'see'? No you don't, not if you see a picture of LHO standing anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support. More hilarity from Bob Prudhomme. Now he sees a conspiracy (of sorts) connected with the "new" Edu. Forum member, Curtis Berkley. Bob's use of quotation marks around the word "new" means, of course, that Bobby doesn't believe for a second that Curtis Berkley is using his real identity. Such paranoid behavior is, of course, par for the course among Internet CTers. It's behavior that should certainly be frowned upon by the owners of this moderated forum, however. Bob might as well just come out and call Curtis a xxxx. And on Curtis' first day here too. Isn't that special? Plus, Bob thinks things have gotten "a bit sticky" with respect to the preposterous "fake backyard photos" topic in this thread. Again, hilarious. Fake photos, eh? It certainly shouldn't surprise anyone that DVP sees nothing wrong with the fake photos, he even thinks he has a photo of a recreation. Well, he doesn't that 'supposed recreation' is so far from the original fake, that no one would suspect it's 'supposed' to be a recreation. There are few similarities in the photos and tons of differences. But then when you've screwed up the fake one to start with, that makes it harder to try to duplicate. I hope this is not typical of our US intelligence services photo abilities. Curtis your profile info is very interesting, especially your interesting experiences and hobbies. We also don't have many from your location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) David J.,I plead total ignorance on the "Detective Brown" matter. I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about. Edited June 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 http://www32.zippyshare.com/v/DjZSlsUk/file.html http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/rhKlLbNO/file.html chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 David J., I plead total ignorance on the "Detective Brown" matter. I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about. That's fair Dave... How about using some plain old common sense? The photo was given to the HSCA on Dec 31, 1976 by Roscoe White's widow The Det Brown image is from Nov 29, 1963 The ghost cutout was found in the DPD archives before Dec 31, 1976 Det Stovall provides yet another copy of 133-C in 1978 How can the DPD position the man and make a cutout of a pose no one was aware of when they have in their possession two photos of the same scene which they could just as easily placed Det Brown in? Don't over think it Dave... try some logic. What are the possibilities? - The photos existed as a set well before 11/22 - The cutout and Brown pose are two of the most amazing coincidences ever - 133-C was found with the other photos yet like the 133-A negative, simply disappears from evidence. For 13 years - ??? Can you offer any benign explanation regarding the 13 year foreknowledge of an image used as the basis for a recreation AND a cutout which does not fit back into the 133-C itself? And if you can't Dave... it's time to admit that the BYPs are simply not what the WCR wants them to be... plus the shadows don't work: This is something I created for my next CTKA article. As you can see, the body shadows on the ground behind both men go in the same direction yet just look at the faces and the anatomical left side of the neck... the face in the BYPs does not belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 6, 2015 Author Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) David Josephs, As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about. But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home.... "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6 and... "Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007) And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978.... https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7 In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle.... Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?" Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did." Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?" Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that." Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?" Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once." Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?" Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes." Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?" Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours." ------------- AUDIO VERSION OF ABOVE TESTIMONY -- https://app.box.com/s/wyh0qnvas7pkmkahcldp3omfjsxotmqq So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2. Edited June 6, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now