Denis Pointing

I cant imagine they were ever entered as evidence Bill, why would they be? I once read, but cant cite, that they express totally opposing views of communism. Only guessing but its hard to imagine that they didn't contain articles concerning Cuba, giving the time they were written.

Marina Oswald Porter, interview with author Vincent Bugliosi and lawyer Jack Duffy, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 30, 2000, reported in Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 794. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Os...Backyard_photos The "backyard photos," which were taken by Marina Oswald, probably around Sunday, March 31, 1963, show Oswald dressed all in black and holding two Marxist newspapers—The Militant and The Worker—in one hand, a rifle in the other, and carrying a pistol in its holster. The backyard photos were shot using a camera belonging to Oswald, an Imperial Reflex Duo-Lens 620. [121] When shown the pictures at Dallas Police headquarters after his arrest, Oswald insisted they were fakes.[122] However, Marina Oswald testified in 1964,[123] 1977,[124] and 1978,[125] and reaffirmed in 2000[126] that she took the photographs at Oswald's request. These photos were labelled CE 133-A and CE 133-B. CE 133-A shows the rifle in Oswald's left hand and newsletters in front of his chest in the other, while the rifle is held with the right hand in CE 133-B. Oswald's mother testified that on the day after the assassination she and Marina destroyed another photograph with Oswald holding the rifle with both hands over his head, with "To my daughter June" written on ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now you can no doubt tell me "why", correct Dave? Or are you just going to insult and run as usual? not exactly hon.... ya see, those backyard photos would not even make it into a court of law if a trial were held today. Simply, fand or one reason, they're fraud. I mean, even a elementary school grader can tell that. And please, when you quote Bugliosi as the source for ANYTHING, please post your proof that it was indeed him. Ya see hon, we don't know who wrotespecific parts of Reclaiming History. The only for sure fact we know about its authorship is, David Von Pein didn't write a damn thing and he's STILL pissed.... you're the only one east of Manhattan that believes that nonsense, how long have you been at this, AGAIN? C,mon Dave, I gave you the cite....now you tell me WHY Marina STILL claims she took those photos...can you or cant you? Simple question even for you.

Marina Oswald Porter, interview with author Vincent Bugliosi and lawyer Jack Duffy, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 30, 2000, reported in Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 794. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Os...Backyard_photos The "backyard photos," which were taken by Marina Oswald, probably around Sunday, March 31, 1963, show Oswald dressed all in black and holding two Marxist newspapers—The Militant and The Worker—in one hand, a rifle in the other, and carrying a pistol in its holster. The backyard photos were shot using a camera belonging to Oswald, an Imperial Reflex Duo-Lens 620. [121] When shown the pictures at Dallas Police headquarters after his arrest, Oswald insisted they were fakes.[122] However, Marina Oswald testified in 1964,[123] 1977,[124] and 1978,[125] and reaffirmed in 2000[126] that she took the photographs at Oswald's request. These photos were labelled CE 133-A and CE 133-B. CE 133-A shows the rifle in Oswald's left hand and newsletters in front of his chest in the other, while the rifle is held with the right hand in CE 133-B. Oswald's mother testified that on the day after the assassination she and Marina destroyed another photograph with Oswald holding the rifle with both hands over his head, with "To my daughter June" written on ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now you can no doubt tell me "why", correct Dave? Or are you just going to insult and run as usual?

No, that's not the "bottom line". The real bottom line is that although Marina Oswald may have been scared and intimidated by the CIA/government agencies back in 63 that's certainly not the case today. And yet Marina still claims to have taken those photographs, even though she could now be accurately described as a CT. Why?

t

Meet the anti-alterationists... http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/areyoubeingserved/ As played by "Young" Mr. Thompson, "Major" Lamson, and Mrs. Slocombe... Take another look Paul, http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/areyoubeingserved/ isn't that you standing on the extreme left? With Jack White in the brown coat and Healy with a rose. ROTFL Ah Paul..... never fear, that's Denise's way of asking Dr. Thompson for an autograph.... he feels he needs to make himself worthy and accepted before he mounts the courage to ask. The wild and wooley ways of the Lone Nut wannabes, they never change. Actually the only thing that changes is the aliases and forum photos.... Batter up David Healy Ahh its really sweet the way you always rush to protect the boy Dave. LOL What exactly does "batter up" mean?

Meet the anti-alterationists... http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/areyoubeingserved/ As played by "Young" Mr. Thompson, "Major" Lamson, and Mrs. Slocombe... Take another look Paul, http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/areyoubeingserved/ isn't that you standing on the extreme left? With Jack White in the brown coat and Healy with a rose. ROTFL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the following from Dave Healy backs up your above statement very appropriately Barb. LOL quote Dave Healy: Oh-brother.... is it ANY wonder this case has languished in the hands of the Lone Nut WCR/SBT supporters. And speaking of EGO'S. You not only disagree with film-photo alteration, you disagree with how those researchers came to believe what they believe (professionals in the field) concerning the film-photo evidence? As if their belief have bearing on anything? You're sounding more like .john McAdams as time goes on..... should we be surprised.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business. Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.

Dresser relocated to Dallas in 1950, Neil Mallon was made president and it was he who employed Gisevius in the same year. Gisevius was officially hired to work on a economic development program called "INSITUTE ON TECHNICAL COOPERATION" whatever that means, part of his "real" job seems to have been acting as liaison between Mallon and Dulles. Interesting side note, Magnolia Oil also moved to Dallas at the same time as Dresser. The more I find out about Gisevios the more I realise that although he may have been anti Nazi and certainly anti Hitler he was not necessarily anti fascist, nor of course was Dulles.

Bill, I find it interesting that Gisivious worked for Dresser Ind. Here's some rather interesting info on Dresser. Harriman & Co purchased Dresser in 1929, Prescott Bush was a director and they all became extremely rich by re-arming Germany. Later with others, notably John Foster Dulles, brother of Allen Dulles, they actually financed Hitler. P. Bush's son, G.H.W. Bush, also worked for Dresser before forming his own company Zapata Oil and of course later became director of the C.I.A. in 1976. Dresser eventually went on to merge with Halliburton. I've deliberately tried not to go into too much detail as I dont want to deviate from your thread too much, but I just find it incredible that no matter which avenue of research we take we always seem to bump into the arms industry, oil magnates, CIA and the Bush family. Coincidence?

So, JFK willingly risked the life of his wife, the Connelly's and innocent bystanders? I dont need to read this book to know its utter nonsense. This is the second book written by Haines on JFK, the first being: Deception in Dallas : A Rational Explanation & Moral Justification of the JFK Plot. If you can call it a book, its only 128 pages long. Published in 2002.

Don, I'm having trouble understanding why Duke's getting so much criticism on this thread. The main problem with researching this murder has always been that there's far too many witnesses all claiming to have witnessed totally differant scenarios. Liars, cranks and phoneys all creating a situation where its impossible to be able to see the wood for the trees. If Duke or any other researcher, yes including Macadam, can show any of those to be false or unreliable witnesses..great. Lets be grateful that the trees are getting cleared so at long last we can see the wood. And if that means we "run out of any credible witnesses to the assassination" so be it. No one here has to agree with Duke's conclusions, I for one, very often dont, I'm sure were all old enough and wise enough to make the ultimate decision for ourselves as to whether or not the witness is reliable or not, but its only after reading this type of critical research that we are truly in a position to judge. Just my opinion FWIW.

Greg, I was indeed being serious. I'm English not American and admittedly we don't use the word billfold. But if I understand the term correctly a "billfold" is a smaller, slimmer version of an actual wallet, used exclusively to carry paper money. I, in fact, carry the same, although I would just call it a "small wallet". At the same time I also carry a "full size" wallet in which I keep I.D., credit cards, photos, tickets and other personal items but never money. I'm suggesting Tippit may have done the same. Yes Greg, I did indeed mean "did belong to Tippit" as opposed to "did not belong to Tippit". Sorry for the typo. As for the officers displaying the contents of Tippits wallet "for Reiland's rolling camera" that's a bit of an exaggeration isn't it Greg? I dont belive anybody could identiftify a single item from that distance. Finally Greg, just for future reference, I never write posts "tongue-in-cheek". To me that's just another form of sarcasm, which I abhor. Denis. P.S. Just found this: bill⋅fold   /ˈbɪlˌfoʊld/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bil-fohld] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a thin, flat, folding case, often of leather, for carrying paper money in the pocket and with fewer compartments than a wallet. 2. wallet (def. 1). Also called, especially British, notecase. Origin: 1890–95, Americanism; bill 1 + fold 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your reply Greg and thank you to Raymond for your comments. I can understand Raymond's viewpoint but I know he is wrong over one point. He has suggested that a police officer finding Tippit's wallet at the murder scene might have taken it to Tippit's widow and passed it on to her and offered his condolences at the same time. If we look at the City of Dallas Archives JFK collection Box 1 ( http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box1.htm ) in folder 4, item 6 we find a report from Davenport and Bardin regarding evidence removed from the body of officer Tippit and given to Captain Doughty of the ID bureau. The report also mentions that the personal affects of Officer Tippit were also turned over to Captain Doughty. If we then go to Box 9 ( http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box9.htm ) in folder 2, item 3 we find a CSS form by Officer Bardin which lists the 12 personal items belonging to Officer Tippit which were handed over to Captain Doughty at 3:25pm. Here we find "a black billfold" included amongst those items. This means one of two things could have happened. Firstly, Captain Westbrook, or another officer who had been with him, could have taken Tippit's wallet over to the Methodist Hospital to put together with Tippit's other possessions ( there is no paper record of this happening) or secondly, Tippit's wallet was removed from his pocket at the hospital having never been on the street and the wallet found at the Tippit murder scene did not belong to Tippit. It appears that an officer did not simply take the wallet around to Mrs Tippit. As for the two possibilities, you have to ask yourself, which one is more likely? Good research Tony, it seems you've established that the black wallet cited by Greg was not in fact a wallet at all, but a black "bill fold". However, I dont see anything which would contradict Ray's hypothesis, IMO a sound one, that the brown wallet being examined by officers at the murder scene did belong to Tippit. The wallet would have contained many personal items, not at all relevant to the investigation, and I can easily envision a sympathetic officer ignoring police procedure and handing the wallet directly to Mrs Tippit.

Wonder if Dankbaar will be getting any fan mail from Bob Vernon? After reading this I kinda doubt it. http://www.bobvernon.com/Letter.html

What kind of a "researcher" posts his own fan mail. LOL Tell me Dankbaar, are you going to have that printed in this years xmas cards on top or below your photograph? ROTFL

Good post Bill, some very interesting points thank you.

Good point. In addition, if LHO had any knowledge even that shots had come from the TSBD it is unlikely he would have bothered to stop for a bottle of pop in the first place. That he did shows his lack of awareness of the events that had just taken place. Pam, you seem to be missing an importaint point here. If Oswald was rushing down from the 6th floor he didn't go in the lunch room because he fancied a quick Dr Peppers, the allegation is that he dived in there to avoid Roy Truly and officer Marion L. Baker rushing up the stairs towards him.

I agreed with you on that, didn't I? My point has been that the shells were not "produced as evidence for those officers to identify," and as a consequence, they were not identified, and the chain wasn't established. Barnes and Dhority testified to marking "a" bullet - not one being shown to them - and Doughty didn't say or do or even write anything.Short enough for you? I'm trying hard not to be arrogant and stubborn and use ten words where one will do. May I recommend Dale Carnegie to you? Nobody forces you to waste your time reading and responding to my posts, least of all me. You could put me on your "ignore" list and then you wouldn't feel compelled, you wouldn't even see them. Give it some thought. I only wish I could ignore you...unfortunately your one of the best damn researchers on this forum, oh yeah, I removed the word arrogant....but stubborns staying. I'm already familiar with Dale Carnegie, are you saying his book "HOW TO MAKE FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE" isn't working for me?

OH MY GOD TOM...COULD ALL THIS POSSIBLY MEAN (GASP) THAT FILES IS MISLEADING US A LITTLE!!!!

Maybe they might have ... if anyone had bothered to subpoena Captain Doughty to testify that the "third" shell - that they would have had to show him - bore the marks that he presumably said that he made, and if anyone had bothered to show the "fourth" shell to Brown and Dhority so they could identify it. But they didn't, which could be because they wouldn't have so identified them. We don't know either way, and because we don't know, those shells have to be excluded.Joe Poe thought that he'd put his initials on the first two shells, found by Benavides. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but his inability to state that the shells that he was shown were, in all fact, the shells that he'd handled on November 22, they, too, must be excluded. Their exclusion must be upheld if the fourth-person FBI report in which it is purported that Captain Doughty "positively identified" the shell that he'd handled is sufficient to establish such "positive identification," since in it, Poe also stated in no uncertain terms that he did mark the two shells. Sergeant Jerry Hill also testified that "I told Poe to maintain the chain of evidence as small as possible, for him to retain these at that time, and to be sure and mark them for evidence, and then turn them over to the crime lab when he got there, or to homicide." While it may be possible that, on his own, Poe would have forgotten to mark the shells, but is it likely that he would have forgotten to mark them after having been reminded to? Sergeant Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab testified that "empty .38 caliber hulls was turned over to me at the scene by patrolman -- I believe I would be safe in saying Poe, but I am not sure about that." Poe cannot find his initials which the believes that he put in the shells, and Barnes isn't sure it was Poe who gave them to him. Might have been, but couldn't say for sure. The problem with that scenario is that the bullets went to the hospital along with Tippit's body. Kind of tough to switch something you can't get your hands on. Duke, your stubborness is just wasting everyone's time here. Below are three links to the sworn testimony of officers Brown, Dhority and Barnes. All three swore under oath that they marked the shells found at the Tippit murder scene. Read them, dont read them, accept them, dont accept them. Frankly, I no longer care. This is like trying to reason with a Jehovah witness. My closing comments are brief, unlike yourself I dont use ten unnecessary words for every nessarcy one. If Oswald had gone to trial and those casings produced as evidence for those officers to identify, the chain of possession would have passed the criteria and they would have been accepted as admissible evidence. That's what our debate is about, remember? All your rhetoric and nitpicking wont change that. Incidentally, your last statement, "that the bullets went to the hospital with Tippit's body" do you really think they stayed there? Perhaps you belive they were locked away in the ointment drawer! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dhority1.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brown_c.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/barnes.htm

LOL Nice attempt to get a few more members on board, are you not getting the response you expected?

Pam, Dankbaar didn't say Duke posted at McAdams, only that his article is posted there. The ED forum is listed there as well. Denis. If the article is posted there, Duke must have given it to McAdams. If so, it would seem McAdams would have been showing his oh-so-helpful side to Duke to get him to do so. I think of Duke's articles in a much higher light than I do anything McAdams has at his site. Pam, why must Duke "have given it to McAdams"? Copyright © 1992 by M. Duke Lane [This text may be reproduced in any form provided only that it is not sold or published in any fee- or subscription-based publication.] I really dont think there is any reason to doubt Duke's loyalties here. Its just Dankbaar besmirching yet another good researcher who dares to disagree with him. By the way, SOME of the article's at McAdams are good stuff...dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. Denis. I disagree. I think that anyone who is not a blind LNT who chooses to allow an article to be published at McAdams site leaves themselves open to scrutiny as to what they thought doing so would accomplish. Surely they have read McAdams pages and realize that they are disinformation at some times to the point of slander. Why would anyone who is able to think critically want to be aligned with that? They must also realize how vicious McAdams is to CTs, and what a slanted field he has created at alt.assassination.jfk with the apologist mods, not to mention his grunions such as ex-mod Barb Junkaarinen and Dave Reitzes who attempt to block research and target posters. You seem to know a great deal about alt.assassination.jfk dont you Pam...hmm bit suspicious that!! LOL C,mon girl relax, LN are a bit like ghosts, they can only hurt you if you belive in them.

LOL Glad to hear it Ray. Thanks. Denis.