David Josephs

No worries... you did quite a lot to establish the distance and time problems so I believe you deserve some of the kudos regardless... Your comment about z100 got me looking... I did not find anything in the testimony but I did go look at the frame.... as well as from 94-101... Tom is very cryptic but usually has a point... What struck me was the reflection of what looks like the letter "F" and how in all the frames before it moves in both the intersprocket area and above the top sprocket hole in sync.... Except for z100. Is it possible to have a section of the film moving while the reflection of that image doesn't?

When the attempt was made to reconstruct the Altgens photo, the final product moves Altgens to the EAST a considerable distance... The small letters are the recreation... the two images were stablized around the main pillar above the limo.... To get the small letters to align with the capital letters the camera MUST move to the EAST while rotating around that column... The REAL problem with Altgens was that it was taken 30-40 feet further WEST... where we ultimately see Altgens standing in Zflim... Altgens tell us the limo moved from 40 feet away in his photo to 15 feet at z313... both measurements do not work with what is seen on the Zflim. Add to this the incorrect survey data and the final shot at station 4+95 (15 feet in front of Altgens) and we all can see the real problems in using any of the photos/films in relation to one another... They do NOT work together... even though they appear to. The distance from Z255 to where Altgens is 15 feet from JFK (Z342) is much farther than what the z film allows... Now, why would "they" want to move Altgens 30-40 feet EAST for his photograph? DJ Mr. ALTGENS - You will see by then referring to picture No. 354, that the Presidential car was well down Elm Street in front of a tree that is located in a grassy area which is just off of Elm Street and just off of the street that runs down in front of the Book Depository Building, which would indicate that the point at which he was struck, the location of the car, would be approximately 30 feet in front of the position from which I made this picture. Does that make sense? Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; what you are saying is that picture 203 was taken at a time when the President's car had actually gone down Elm Street to a point past this tree that stands at the corner here, in the grassy area, outlined by Elm Street and a little street that runs down by the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

I didn't think they used temp employee for the 6th floor... don't we get a list of the workers from Williams? He doesn't mention TEMP workers... Mr. BALL. And how many were working on the sixth floor with you? Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe there were five. Mr. BALL. What are their names? Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, and there was a fellow by the name of Danny Arce. Mr. BALL. He is a Mexican boy? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. And a fellow by the name of Billy Lovelady, and myself. And there was a fellow that came up--his name was Harold Norman. He really wasn't working at the time, but there wasn't anything to do, he would come around to help a little bit, and then back down. Mr. DULLES. Was he in the employ of the company? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; he had been working there at the time about 2 years, I think. Mr. DULLES. But he wasn't on this particular detail on the sixth floor that you are speaking of? Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, he had been helping us on the fifth floor. When the orders would come in, he would go down and help with the orders, and when he didn't have anything else to do he would come back and help us move stock around. I think that was him. Mr. BALL. What part of the sixth floor were you working that morning? Mr. WILLIAMS. On the west side. Mr. BALL. Were you moving stock or laying floor that morning? Mr. WILLIAMS. We were doing both. Mr. BALL. You were doing both? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Yet this black man, at the rear door is there 5 minutes after the shooting and what appears to be 20-25 minutes after as well... I believe that dark Cubans and/or some of the black men MAY have been put into a position to cooperate Goes behind TSBD: Mr. HAYGOOD. At that time I talked to the colored male (negro) who was standing at the door and asked him how long he had been there, and he said he had been there some 5 minutes or so. And I asked him if anyone had came out that door, and he said that they had not. Mr. SORRELS - I don't believe it could have been more than 20 or 25 minutes at the very most. Mr. STERN - Then you arrived at the Book Depository Building, and did you see any police officers outside the building? Mr. SORRELS - Yes; there were officers. I recall seeing officers. I could not say any specific one. Now, as I came into the back of the building, there was a colored man standing on the rear platform, a loading platform. And he was just standing there looking off into the distance. I don't think he knew what happened. And I said to him, ""Did you see anyone run out the back?"" He said, ""No, sir."" ""Did you see anyone leave the back way?"" ""No, sir."" Mr. STERN - Did you get his name? Mr. SORRELS - No, sir; I did not. I did not stop to do that, because I figured he was an employee of the building. Don't you find it hard to believe that NOTHING is seen for 20-30 minutes at the back of the TSBD? When we KNOW there was quite a lot of activity back there... just a thought... who would even guess that black men would be involved that day?

There is no doubt that events where planned to create HONEST, conflicting testimony about identical events... There is also no doubt that we are not only looking at the tip of the iceberg... but in many cases the wrong iceberg entirely... So the question remains... how to authenticate the conspiracy using in-authentic evidence... by its nature, showing that the evidence cannot be authenticated IS in itself proof of the conspiracy... Take care Greg... and thanks for remaining one of the truly enjopyable points of light from this forum.... DJ

Excellent KK... thanks!

So Greg... What are you thoughts then... If they can alter Altgens to remove Oswald... IF... why not just simply put Oswald into one of the TSBD 6th images as I playfully did? and what is the white line crossing in front of his shoulder and chin and how does it actually appear as if black man is blocked out by Doorman 6-7 feet west of him in weigman... did he move to the west between images? DJ ps... you're one of the heavy weights Greg... anyone who's seen a differet Z film qualifies or has offered up clarity in as many areas as you have... cheers

Hi Tommy.. It's strange,no? I post this pages and pages ago to discuss the white lines crossing in front of Doorman... or how his shoulder and arm are so out of place... how it crosses in front of the black man.... just insults.. I make the suggestion that if the photo changers are THAT GOOD, why not just put Oswald in the 6th floor window in ANY image If they knew he would not be there and they could control any sightings of Oswald (Arnold, Reid) thru alteration and intimidation. why not, right? Silence. and then look at the images they DO use to argue DETAILS with each other... Can you imagine ANYONE outside our group reading this thread with the heavyweights of the assassination bickering like children... Here is the first floor B... David, You make an excellent point. --Thomas

David Look at Jerry's photo seen above. In Altgen's the doorway people appear to be one on top of the other, when in actual fact they were spead out right across the width of the TSBD steps. As i said before, in the Altgen's photo ( If you don't understand the perspective seen in the image ) you will NEVER get it Do you think the Weigman Film was altered ? I find it has become pointless to offer anything related to thoughts or opinions without supporting evidence.... and since none of us seem to be analyzing original negatives, or authenticated first generation prints... How do we know what we are looking at is in any way authentic? I am more than willing to hear you out in explaning how pespective allows Doorman's left arm to cross in front of a man 6-7 west of him... or the shirt of a man behind Doorman (in weigman as related to Altgens) and still have his left shoulder and part of his face obscured by this person. Is it possible that Doorman walked from where he is in weigman to the west side of the doorway for Altgens? The image as is, simply looks wrong... and of course perspective plays a role... but even perspective can't put body parts our of sequence... Camera > Black man > Doorman > Tieman So even though it appears as if Doorman's left wrist is between Camera & blackman... that left wrist is actually 6-7 feet BEHIND him? I value your opinion Robin... and will let it drop... yet it sure does look like tieman's shirt covers up Doorman's shoulder and face... and I KNOW that's not possible... Thanks for you explanation. DJ

Robin... am I really that far off here? Do we not see his left arm in front of a man 6-7 feet to the west of him? Do we not see the white shirt of the man behind him covering his left shoulder and part of his face? Is Doorman's left shoulder completely gone or has it been dropped down fromhis shoulder to his stomach? I mean I do see the black tie on the white shirt... and it is obvious that the black woman in the foreground blocks the people in the doorway... So why does it appear as if these three people overlap each other here? Thanks...

So ignore the discussion about your complete lack of Proof in your infamous 9 and focus on whether I said there was a person behind doorman or not... I KNOW there is a person there... CL tells us that the white streak to the right is that man's tie... I dont blieve it is. Furthermore there IS a white streak directly over Doorman... I've posted an image with arrows pointing at it... and then ask if you've EVER seen a version of this photo without those white streaks - a simple yes or no Jim... if so... post it please. I also posted that image to show that the strange anomolie is the FACT that something is crossing in front of the black man's neck area... it APPEARS as if Doorman is holding this man's right shoulder in his hands... In weigman they are 6-7 feet apart... Jim, can your insulting friend explain how that happens? btw, All I did was increase the resolution so that what was too small to see, can be seen without the fuzzy distortion... here is a blowup of a 17 Meg PNG file without a resolution change... your friend would rather convince us using that? Jim... man up already.... your "9" is nothing more than opinion and what if statements... if this is your example of PROOF, and your back-up to Fritz' "I SAID HE SAID" notes that could mean just about anything... I see why you have such a hard time convincing anyone of anything. Your "notch" is a figment of your imagination at best.... Duncan, in an earlier post shows you what a crap source Jim posted, was THAT created by your critic of my enlargement? Here is the post - your critic have anything to say about that? It's even worse than the enlargement I post above http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697&view=findpost&p=245619 Deal with the question Jim... 2 white streaks seen on the left side of Doorman... what caused them? (EDIT: Since the man behind Doorman is, uh, BEHIND him... how does his white shirt appear infront of Doorman's left shoulder and cover part of his face? Better yet... where is Doorman's left shoulder?) The fact that your critic (or your alter ego, no one is sure) can't tell the difference between an enlargement and alteration of an image is quite the joke. and when we go to Duncan's post and see what a complete POS image he used... it's no wonder you both arrive at incorrect conclusions... (1) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady; (2) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter; (3) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then; (4) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work; (5) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photo is not clear in the doorway; (6) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated; (7) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been; (8) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy". (9) Lovelady was stocky and filled out his shirt; Doorway Man has a slight build and loose hanging shirt.

Jim Fetzer.... Professor Fetzer... "If" something occurs is not a proof... it is a conditional phrase... The hypothesis that "Altgens was altered" is in no way proven or even supported by an If-Then statement. Whether there has been a "long-standing debate" over the the figure in the doorway again, is not PROOF of anything Jim... It is a simple statement that has no bearing at all on the authenticity of Altgens There not being, "any good reason to alter" when alteration has yet to be proven, again... does nothing to substantiate your hypothesis... and cannot, is not considered PROOF in any sense of the word. While Craig and I disagree on many things... his insistence you provide actual PROOF, as opposed to the "aren't you smart enough to see what I see" argument is WHY you continue to disappoint and enrage others. Believing YOU see something while condemning others for not, when your actual attempts at proof fall woefully short is another reason those following this thread are besides themselves with your approach and lack of understanding in the shortcomings of the so called "evidence" you believe you are offering... Pointing and proclaiming how nice the Kings New Clothes are... when the rest of us see he's naked.. is not proof Jim. Using CAPITALS and showing bewilderment over anothers inability to agree with you changes nothing... Your hypothesis remains unproven... and your LIST of 9... is nothing but opinion that you like to twist to suit your needs... You're so close to the leaves you're drinking the chlorophyll, while Saladria discussed the forest. and the bottom line is you still have yet to actually PROVE anything other than who you are when challenged. (1) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady; (2) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter; (3) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then; (4) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work; (5) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photo is not clear in the doorway; (6) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated; (7) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been; (8) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy". (9) Lovelady was stocky and filled out his shirt; Doorway Man has a slight build and loose hanging shirt.

So these are your 9 elements of "proof" Jim? Proof? as in - this is what you would stand up and say PROVES that Altgens was altered to make Doorman look like Lovelady? Looks like a list of observations ABOUT the situation and photo, as in, "there is not good reason...." in #7 How again is NOT HAVING A GOOD REASON proof of an altered photo? or the statement about Oswald being in the doorway proving conspiracy, #4... "IF ?? " My #4 - if Oswald was in the 6th floor window holding a rifle at the time of the shots, this demonstrates he did it... if they could put Lovelady in the doorway... why not put Oswald in the 6th floor window and call it Case Closed?? Here, throw this up to the world - the long lost proof that Oswald did it... give me a break already Well, suppose we subtract the "Fritz notes" from the equation. What do we have left? All of the following: (1) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady; (2) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter; (3) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then; (4) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work; (5) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photo is not clear in the doorway; (6) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated; (7) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been; (8) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy". (9) Lovelady was stocky and filled out his shirt; Doorway Man has a slight build and loose hanging shirt.

My pleasure Pat... I apologize for letting myself get sucked down to his level. Although I have learned a few things about back-n-forth from you and Fetz... Back to the subject at hand... I posted an extreme blowup of the Door-man and asked who what we see can be considered a "Vee" neck collar... it is an EXTREME blow-up using the available files and shows me that there is much more shadow than Tshirt, how can the shape be identified since the collar itself is completely in shade? Rather than insults... if Mr. Lamson has the ability to SHOW US that this collar is not actually detectable.. as I have tried then he should simply show us and keep his insults to himself. Can you imagine the ACTUAL SIZE of the portion of the photo this represents? and yet, with my rudimentary skills I can offer an image that DISPROVES Fetzer and friends' claims.. My real quesiton are what are the two white streaks on Door-man's left side... I do not believe the right most one (looking at the photo) is the tie of the person behind him... Is there a version of Altgens WITHOUT these white streaks? DJ ps... Pat - CL is here for no other reason but to "push buttons" as he posts... at what point does his collective body of work get banned from disrupting thread after thread? All one need do is LOOK thru his posts... for every one that attempts to say something of substance there are 20 that are filled with insults and attacks... Are members "pushing buttons" solely to annoy others and disrupt threads the purpose of this place? Moderators? Accusations of "Making up false data" are simply allowed as the result of enlarging a section of an image? I enlarged an image to make a point while CL both refuses to offer an improvement and posts this kind of junk: He pulls the same BS on every forum and in every thread... just ask Duncan. Once more, I apologize for my posts to him and for not turning the other cheek... I will try harder.

Just when I had thought you had reached the epitome in your quest to present yourself as a pompous A$$... you post this. What an amzaing disappointment you are Mr. F. It's no wonder you are the laughing stock of the JFK community and a detriment to any unified understanding of the situation... I had defended you on other forums for you pioneering and dedication to uncovering conspiracy where you could... yet your entire condescending approach as well as your inablility to DISCUSS rather than DEBATE... to collaborate rather than condemn and ridicule has so turned me off to you and your work as to render you worthless... nothing you say or present is believeable... nothing you endorse can be taken seriously With as many sets of shoulders you stand upon - oh, never mind... I may be just some inconsequential, interested party... but I USED to be your audience... You're worse than Barnum's flea circus act.... All show, no substance "Now what's to be found by racing around, you carry your pain wherever you go, Full of blues, and tryin' to lose, You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know. It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. —William K. Clifford (1879) Good stuff Greg... The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery. William Kingdon Clifford and the King of them all... "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously. "The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down." 3" folds, Vee-necks, auto shells, Mausers, C20-T750, 38E, handwritting analysis, reconstructions, survey data..... "micro-analyzing the evidence" is the bread and butter of the assassination... and illustrates the effectiveness of the conspiracy Cheers Greg... I applaud your efforts... DJ "The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred - by economic inequity - faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices." Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States

Then post a BETTER image of the man and STFU already.... As THIS is what you posted when presenting your 3" disaster... THIS is your idea of a quality enhancement and enlargement to prove your point...? UTTER FAILURE there "photo expert"... That's really the BEST you can do? or the POS images you posted a bit further down http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18646&view=findpost&p=243906 You are and will always remain a gnat on a bulls a$$ here Lamson... a minor, bloodsucking annoyance but you go right ahead and keep swinging for the fence.. your entertainment value is priceless... Which is exactly how 3 inch folds and a shoulder hidden by a wall are found. And WHY davie j fails...(utter photographic ignorance aside) Good stuff davie, knocked your self right out with a single punch.

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. —William K. Clifford (1879) Good stuff Greg... The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery. William Kingdon Clifford and the King of them all... "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously. "The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down." 3" folds, Vee-necks, auto shells, Mausers, C20-T750, 38E, handwritting analysis, reconstructions, survey data..... "micro-analyzing the evidence" is the bread and butter of the assassination... and illustrates the effectiveness of the conspiracy Cheers Greg... I applaud your efforts... DJ "The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred - by economic inequity - faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices." Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States

How can he tell this is a VEE?

Not going to get into it with you Craig... You're wrong.. simple as that... Thanks for your contribution Craig... always a pleasure. But you can continue to play with yourself... As you've learned from so many others here you are a complete waste of time, and nothing more. Bu-bye now... fyi - this means I will not be bothering with your disruptive posts... insult away Lamson... which remains your only means of getting attention here, there or anywhere.... maybe you can bring up the 3 inch fold again while screaming "hey look at me, I'm right - you're all wrong - DEAL" what a joke. Yea right davie. I waited for McAdams... Your paranoia is running amuck again. I see you are failing photo 101 again. NOTHING is crossing black mans neck. You can't SEE his neck nor his shoulder, they are BEHIND the wall of the DSBD. LOOK at Weigman. LOOK at the angle of Black Mans body, LOOK AT HIS SHIRT, and then plot his body angle with the Altgens camera position and line of sight. You can't see ANYTHING but a tiny silver of his face as he LEANS forward. When this simple fact SINKS in....GET BACK TO US! Your inability yo understand what you see in a photograph is simply astounding. BTW, nice job of confusing the shirt and tie of the guy standing BEHIND Lovelady for his "shoulder pads" You are the poster child for photographic ignorance....

Thanks Craig... What you continue to prove about yourself with each post is perfect... It's obvious to all that you can't SEE anything without McAdams telling you it's okay, first. The man looks like he's wearing shoulder pads and his left arm is directly in front of the black man... which is impossible. Better yet eagle eye... how about YOU tell us what IS crossing in front of this man's neck... his chin is almost resting on it.. and then point this out in the weigman image... should be interesting

In terms of powerful men and the conquest of women, how were the early 60s different from today (or, for that matter, from the early 60s B.C.)? Has there ever been a time when power hasn't corrupted (or simply added to the corruption)? What about Gary Hart and the Monkey Business, Bill Clinton and his bimbo eruptions, John Edwards (who cheated just once that we know of, but he made it a biggie), or Newt Gingrich with his mistresses or wives-in-waiting? Were these exceptions to the rule or just guys who got caught (or in Gingrich's case, why even try to hide it, like Rudy Giuliani, kicking his wife out of the governor's mansion to make room for his lover)? IMHO... there is a big difference between today and 1960. In 1960 you were EXPECTED to behave this way... it was acknowledged with a wink and a a nod... the women themselves were almost apologetic about it... there was no such thing as Politically Incorrect.... It still happens today but there is the sense of righteous indignation surrounding it... That we are SUPPOSED to behave better... just cause. Sexual repression was the order of the day... and in today's world the person is judged more by their non-political activities than their record... Does the common person know how Newt voted on key issues... what he really stands for... or is all about the personal life? Whatever it was that occurred in JFK's pants is his business... Until there is a direct relationship between these activities and the day to day running of the country.. what's to be gained by condemning the man for being a man? Are any one of us in a position to claim such moral superiority throughout our lives that we can dictate this morality to others? Given the atrocities that US Presidents have fostered upon the US and the World... it amazes me the human obsession with SEX has created such a negative connotation... while WAR and the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, women and children is not even met with half the outcry this "situation" created. JFK was THE man of his time... and instead of attacking him for this stupidity... how about we remember who he took on and how badly he lost... and how his loss has rippled thru time, thru today. MAKE LOVE NOT WAR... so far I don't remember reading a single thing about "no consent" among ANY of these cases you named... Now, if he was pulling a PENN STATE... that's a different thing... but he wasn't... JFK was no saint... but then again... can you name a single president who was?

The evidence suggests that he used the power of office to seduce, young innocent women. That is more than just being a "lousy husband". John, Don't you get the impression that he'd be doing that whether he was POTUS or a shoe salesman... Of course there is a difference with access, power, etc... but he was ALWAYS a cheating husband... That was what you did in the early 60's... if you were powerful... part of that power is the conquest of women... turn it around for a second.. Why would JFK even bother? What do you suppose HE got out of these little trysts... some offering so much - like this one - he couldn't bear to lose it... in fact he pursued it when he could have anyone in the world, practically... Does this make Jackie and idiot for allowing it and standing by her man? or is that WHAT WAS DONE in those days...? Were our founding fathers who had slaves any less effective as leaders and framers of the USA? Of course not... that was what was DONE at that time...\\Kinda strange that the loose morality of today condemns the man for activities that, at the time, were almost considered the RIGHT of the powerful.... and as you hear her words... the attention of the POTUS was a bit much to turn down... and now she has a story for the centuries He was obviously not afraid of death, not afriad of his administration hawks, not afraid of the public, and was at the very seat of power at the moment of shift in the times and morality.... The most dangerous person is one not afraid of any consequences... and I simply believe that JFK epitomize the men of the times... the mafia bosses were doing it, the hollywood stars were doing it... I am NOT making excuses... Yet I have to believe his being on massive pain killers, cortesone, and all the other fun things he took was much more of a threat to the US than his womanizing... Besides, he made it the the POTUS... you don't think his moral center was a bit off to begin with?

Let's try this again, shall we...? The Doorman's arm is IN FRONT of this black man and casting a shadow on him - you DO see the black shadow on his white shirt - yes? Since he is 6-7 feet behind him in Altgens... the black man's face and body should be blocking Doorman... not the other way around... This is neither science nor cause for you to get all uppity... with your cute, little, kindergarden insults... You DO realize how much like FETZER you sound when you do this right? Kettle and the Pot... you guys are perfect for each other... "Pocket? what pocket, I don't see a pocket.. only an idiot sees a pocket... do you see a pocket - then you're an idiot" -CL photo expert extraordinaire

Just explain the photo, Mr Photo expert... in Weigman they are at least 6-7 feet apart... (F vs G) In Altgens, "whatever that is" is obviously in front of this black man in line with Altgens camera... Does Door-man have his left arm around the man? There is no physical way for his arm to be INFRONT of this other person when he is standing 6-7 feet behind this person from Altgens' angle... But since YOU are the expert... 'splain.. Where IS Door-man's left arm? AS I looked at the composit that Robin posted I am struck by the distance between Shelley and the black man in the corner of the doorway... which in weigman appears as if they are separated by quite a distance... Yet in Altgens... The Shelly/Oswald charater's sleeved arm is IN FRONT of this man... and his entire left shoulder looks mis-shapened... and the two white streaks on his shoulder deosn't seem part of the original image.. More importantly... how does "Shelly's" arm cross in front of a man standing so far away? Is this a joke post David? Clearly you can't be serious....

"Pew" "pew" is the sound a child makes when imitating the sound of a gun... "I'm shooting you... pew pew.... you're dead" DJ

In Wise's report he tells us what was in the bag... and that he removed a knife from the bag first.... Yes Mark, you are correct... the manner inwhich these men are escorting MURDER SUSPECTS is absurd.... One of the reports states that since there were so many officers present they didn't need to handcuff the suspects... What sparked my interest was the that the lead cop in the Landsdale photo is not the same as in the other photos... we dont see this man again, and the mis ID of these two men to begin with... Can anyone tell us the names of the policement in the different photos? and the difference between a two bar name tag and the one bar ones worn by the man in front in one image and a cop at the back left in another... thanks DJ