Paul Trejo Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 12 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said: Just out of curiosity, have you read Norman Mailer's Oswald's Tale? Alistair, Yes I have read Mailer's book. I'm not impressed at all. Sure, Mailer was a class wordsmith. But regarding the facts of the JFK assassination, Mailer was a lightweight. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted March 9, 2017 Author Share Posted March 9, 2017 9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said: Yes I have read Mailer's book. I'm not impressed at all. Sure, Mailer was a class wordsmith. But regarding the facts of the JFK assassination, Mailer was a lightweight. I'm both surprised and not surprised by your response there Paul... surprised because there is much in his book that backs up your thinking, and not surprised because there is much that goes against your thinking. lol Setting aside Mailer's 'conclusion', the work he has done on the time Oswald was in Russia is impressive - the KGB transcripts for example are quite the window in to Lee and Marina's marriage. And the work he does on Lee's time in the Marines is quite the eye-opener (even if sometimes he implies things that probably aren't true - hint: Schrand). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 6 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: I'm both surprised and not surprised by your response there Paul... surprised because there is much in his book that backs up your thinking, and not surprised because there is much that goes against your thinking. lol Setting aside Mailer's 'conclusion', the work he has done on the time Oswald was in Russia is impressive - the KGB transcripts for example are quite the window in to Lee and Marina's marriage. And the work he does on Lee's time in the Marines is quite the eye-opener (even if sometimes he implies things that probably aren't true - hint: Schrand). Alistair, I'm disappointed that Norman Mailer took the LNer position so uncritically. He didn't even broach an alternative. Great swordsmith, though. Regards --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) @Paul, Alistair & David Von Pein: I wonder if you fellows have seen this analysis of LHO & how it will affect your critical thinking both of you have expressed in this thread (and elsewhere on EF threads in the case of DVP) if that really is LHO in the sniper's nest window: Possible Hearing Damage Warning! Turn your headphones volume way down during the beginning of the video! It certainly looks like LHO peeking out of that window to my eyes.... Best wishes: Brad Milch PS: I'm curious about the relationship in time between this Tom Dillard photo & DPD motorcycle officer Marion Baker dashing towards the south entrance of the TSBD (as captured in the Darnell film). If the two visuals are in close in time proximity, it suggests to me that the man in the window that appears to be LHO saw officer Baker heading inside the building. That in itself may explain LHO's alleged speed in getting himself off the 6th floor of the TSBD, past the stairway women & into the lunchroom to be greeted by officer Baker's pistol pushed up against his gut. People have been known to move extremely fast when a cop is coming after them (smiles)... Edited March 9, 2017 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted March 9, 2017 Author Share Posted March 9, 2017 20 minutes ago, Brad Milch said: @Paul, Alistair & David Von Pein: I wonder if you fellows have seen this analysis of LHO & how it will affect your critical thinking both of you have expressed in this thread (and elsewhere on EF threads in the case of DVP) if that really is LHO in the sniper's nest window: The 'Oswald' face in the Dillard photo has been discussed before in this thread here. I have quoted a comment from that thread from David Von Pein so he gets a notification here and hopefully he will be able to go in to a bit more detail about it... On 09/11/2014 at 2:12 AM, David Von Pein said: It would be nice if this "face" were real. But it's almost certainly a fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said: The 'Oswald' face in the Dillard photo has been discussed before in this thread here. I have quoted a comment from that thread from David Von Pein so he gets a notification here and hopefully he will be able to go in to a bit more detail about it... Aliistair: The thread you referenced concerns a bad copy of the Dillard photo. The link I posted is for a version of the Dillard photo closer to the original photo (the video narrator explains this). One has to watch the video to obtain that info & see the comparison made between the clearer image & what was discussed in the past with an inferior image. The narrator just posted this video yesterday (with the clearer image analysis); talking about it in past threads on any JFK forum could not be possible where I live. I obviously don't live on 'I know everything there is to know about everything there is in life street' like some claim to house themselves (smile). David Von Pein & I don't agree in this area of the JFK discussion: I believe Mr. Oswald was caught on film in the sniper's nest. Had the photo been faked, surely early investigators & the WC would have used it & newspapers globally would have splashed it across their front pages. I believe new visuals analysis has brought out something that was overlooked in the past half century. In regards to Paul Trejo's research, if the new visual analysis is accepted globally as genuine, Paul will have to re-explain his LHO 'handing off his rifle to someone he trusted' research to include LHO standing in the sniper's nest window just moments after the shooting occurred. For others who refuse to accept that LHO was at least one shooter, regardless of what evidence is shown them, this new visuals analysis will surely be rejected. It's been said before that one cannot teach an old dog new tricks, no matter what method of schooling is employed. Regards, Brad Milch Edited March 9, 2017 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Brad Milch said: @Paul, Alistair & David Von Pein: I wonder if you fellows have seen this analysis of LHO & how it will affect your critical thinking both of you have expressed in this thread (and elsewhere on EF threads in the case of DVP) if that really is LHO in the sniper's nest window: It certainly looks like LHO peeking out of that window to my eyes.... Best wishes: Brad Milch Brad, The imagery is striking, yet I have serious doubts about it for two reasons: 1. We can see the outline of the head of LHO, complete with hairline -- and yet we cannot see any part of the rest of his body, even though he is standing full bodied against a long, body length window. 2. The image of LHO's head is almost identical to a well-known photograph of LHO in custody in the Dallas Police Station. It seems to me that a photographic wizard has taken smudges on the window that reminded him (or her) of LHO's photograph, and then used artistic craft to place the face over that smudge. My evidence for my opinion is that if we can get this close an impression of his head, hair line, eyes and ears, then why can't we see any part of the rest of his body, although the window is body length? So, it seems like a hoax to me. This is the main problem we have with photographic geniuses entering the JFK CT community -- some of them like hoaxes, and some of them are pretty good at it. It does remind me of this factor, however -- LHO himself liked photographic hoaxes, and his BYP (which I am convinced he crafted by using the sophisticated photo equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stoval during the month of March, 1963) shows that LHO was very much aware of plausible deniability in photography. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted March 9, 2017 Author Share Posted March 9, 2017 41 minutes ago, Brad Milch said: The narrator just posted this video yesterday (with the clearer image analysis); talking about it in past threads on any JFK forum could not be possible where I live. Just because a video was posted yesterday doesn't negate an image therein from having been discussed previously (and it's not just on past threads here it has been discussed by the way)... the image from Leroy Blevins that shows 'Oswald' in the window predates the creation of the video... 59 minutes ago, Brad Milch said: I believe new visuals analysis has brought out something that was overlooked in the past half century. New? Not only was it being discussed in November 2014 but at that time Blevins claimed that he had that image that showed 'Oswald' in the window for 7 years previously... 1 hour ago, Brad Milch said: ... LHO standing in the sniper's nest window just moments after the shooting occurred. Small point but he is in the window beside the sniper's nest window... and what happened to his body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) @Alistair: The beauty of the gift of a democratic society, wherever it is on earth, is people have a choice between doing their own thinking, seeing with their own eyes, reaching their own conclusions or being micro-managed into believing what someone they don't even know thinks. Or even worse...wants them to think. For the free thinkers here at or reading EF as 'lurkers', I made my contribution. For the micro-managers, I have the 'ignore' function to rescue me. To them, I say 'Bye bye forever'.... Brad Milch PS: @Paul Trejo: Because I used the ignore function, I have to post a reply to your post here, for the time being, Paul. If you've never had cause to use it yourself, it's kinda like a shark cage. I can still sense the sharks swimming around me, but now I don't have to see their dorsal fins in my face each time I post something (LOL). You bring up great points for consideration, Paul, for those following your reseach in this thread as well as those checking out the new video analysis of the Tom Dillard photo I gave a link to above. I'm no photo analyst, but to me, the image of what appears to be LHO in the new video analysis I posted looks to be that of LHO holding a small camera to his face. The direction of the camera is in the area of the South pergola & the old Federal building behind it. Having read much research on LHO allegedly being an Intel operative, I immediately thought: what a slick way to get LHO to stand in the sniper's nest: his handlers give him an assignment to photograph someone or something during the assassination. This is the same thought many of those that participated in the 'LHO in the doorway' thread felt. It's understandable that those who worked hard on that thread would not want to see LHO's image elsewhere. EF readers will probably be more concerned which is correct: LHO in the sniper's nest, LHO in the doorway, or neither (or 'both' for the Harvey & Lee research followers). For the benefit of EF lurkers that can't comment, I also see what could be additional faces directly behind the 'LHO in the sniper's nest' Dillard image. I don't see anyone holding a gun to the man in the window's head either, suggesting to me that, if a genuine image, LHO wasn't forced to stand where Tom Dillard captured him in one of his TSBD photos. To my eyes, LHO is standing behind some boxes. The line of the boxes is visible just below the large rectangular black shadow that separates the upper from the lower section of the window. By following the line of the top box, I make out another row of boxes closer to the window. Around 'LHO's' face I see a reflection of a large crowd standing in front of the reflecting pool. The reflection in the window is very similar to the scenes in the Dorman film, from a slightly higher position. A skilled visuals analyst without a paid agenda can probably take it further. What I wrote is what I see in the clearer image. EF readers may want to look for those items when they examine the new visual analysis for themselves. I can't help what I see. EF readers can't help what they see either. The trick is understanding what we see. That's where the pros come into play. Like buying a used car, some salespersons are honest & others have hidden agendas. For the fakery part: why didn't Henry Wade, Jesse Curry, Will Fritz, J. Edgar Hoover on up to LBJ use the image (if it was faked)? Can you imagine the public response had Walter Cronkite shown the global public a photo on TV of what appeared to be LHO peering out the sniper's nest window moments after the shots? Seems more likely to me that the image was simply overlooked in the poor photo analysis of the day. This isn't to say the Dillard photo wasn't faked. One could honestly ask what JFK visual hasn't been accused of alteration? Others might wonder why some fight so vigorously for the honor & integrity of the Zapruder film & not the Dillard photo? What's up with that? Do researchers only fight for the authentication of visuals supporting their works when that work is threatened by allegations of visual fraud? But then again, what the heck does a Louisiana man know about this this old Texas super crime stuff, anyway (smiles)? Sincerely & Respectfully (to you, Paul & all good, loyal EF readers), Brad Milch Edited March 10, 2017 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted March 9, 2017 Author Share Posted March 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Brad Milch said: To them, I say 'Bye bye forever'.... Oh don't go Brad, I was just about to show you some new analysis that shows it was actually Paul Trejo in the window. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said: Paul, can you do me a favour and let Brad know that he may have misinterpreted my point? He has put me on ignore and (presumably) thinks I have a 'hidden agenda'. Yet the good points you brought up are the same as I brought up but I get ignored. lol EDIT: And ask him why he didn't start a thread to discuss it, instead of 'hijacking' this one. Edited March 10, 2017 by Alistair Briggs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said: I'm disappointed that Norman Mailer took the LNer position so uncritically. He didn't even broach an alternative. Great swordsmith, though. Had he broached even one alternative I can only imagine how much larger his book would have ended up being. lol Anyway, Just to ask, what (if anything) do you make of the following bit of testimony from Daniel Powers; Quote ...he had a large homosexual tendency, as far as I was concerned, and, well, maybe not these tendencies, but a lot of feminine characteristics as far as the other individuals of the group were concerned, and I think possibly he was an individual that would come to a point in his life that would have to decide one way or the other. Mr. JENNER. On what? Mr. POWERS. On a homosexual or leading a normal life, and again, now, this is a personal opinion. And I think this, more than any other factor, was the reason that he was on the outside of the group in this particular group that we were in there in Mississippi. He was always an individual that was regarded as a meek person, one that you wouldn't have to worry about as far as the leadership was concerned, a challenge for leadership or anything. He could easily be led, an individual that was influenced I think by education, and was impressed by a person who had some education, an intelligent individual. He had the name of Ozzie Rabbit, as I recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: Paul, can you do me a favour and let Brad know that he may have misinterpreted my point? He has put me on ignore and (presumably) thinks I have a 'hidden agenda'. Yet the good points you brought up are the same as I brought up but I get ignored. lol EDIT: And ask him why he didn't start a thread to discuss it, instead of 'hijacking' this one. Will do. --Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: Anyway, Just to ask, what (if anything) do you make of the following bit of testimony from Daniel Powers; Alistair, There were many WC witnesses from the Marines for LHO, and Daniel Powers was the only one who said LHO had homosexual tendencies. Yet Daniel Powers did not spend a lot of time with LHO. He supervised a large group for a few days, and LHO was in that group. I got the impression that Daniel Powers was projecting. In any case, it was a superficial option from superficial observations. I think, furthermore, that Daniel Powers was not particularly articulate. The fact is that Oswald was different from the other young Marines -- but this was because Oswald was a book-reader. He had little to talk about with most other Marines. Daniel Powers, being a gung-ho muscle-head who never read anything other than magazines with pictures, therefore took literacy as "effeminate." There is some logic to this when one is preparing for battle and war -- you don't want to trust your life to a guy who retires by himself all day reading books. You want a guy who has blood and fire running through his veins. I think this is what Daniel Powers was trying to say. By the way -- as I recall his testimony, he witnessed a rough confrontation of some of the Marines with LHO, and LHO faced them down, and Daniel Powers was impressed. That's why he didn't give up and just call LHO a puff. LHO did stand up for himself, even with bigger men -- so Daniel Powers would give LHO a second chance. Daniel Powers was right on with one observation -- LHO was impressed by people who had education. Further, LHO was turned off by people who had none, or who boasted about having none. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 36 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Daniel Powers was right on with one observation -- LHO was impressed by people who had education. Further, LHO was turned off by people who had none, or who boasted about having none. Yep, and I think you make some great points with the rest of your comment too. I'm currently making my way through the WC testimony of those he was in the Marines with,.. ... just as an aside, I wonder what it must have been like for the people that previously had known Oswald - what their thoughts would have been. Would the ones that liked him be biased towards him, the ones that disliked him be biased against him... probably. Regards P.S. I must confess that I had to Google the word 'scuttlebutt' to see what it meant. lol 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