Stephen Roy

The McLaney cottage was not a training camp.

The in-camera original was exhibited publicly in still frame right from the time of the assassination. Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example.

The other film, as I understand it, is either an unknown film taken from a slightly different location, or an unedited Zapruder film. If plotters went to the trouble of making and concealing (or editing) such a film, how could they have been so careless as to let it leak out and be shown in theaters or TV, especially to several of our own group of assassination researchers? Something doesn't make sense here.

"Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example."

Out of their kindness of LIFE magazines heart, right? Kinda like Jack Ruby doing a huge favor for Jackie by murdering LHO, eh?

Vietnam murder and mayhem on Uncle Walter's Evening News 5 nights a week, no-less.... LMAO! Self-serving BULL pookey, Blackburst! All sorts of shenanigan's going on with all sorts of Elm Street assassination-related films/photos

No, you're wrong David, your sarcasm notwithstanding. I've worked in the news biz for my whole career. There is no way Time-Life or anybody else would show that film on TV in 1963-4. Do all of us remember the horror when WE saw it for the first time? (By the 70s, we had seen lots of Vietnam footage, but we were still only barely ready for it in 1975.) Stills were available, but it was simply too graphic for TV.

The in-camera original was exhibited publicly in still frame right from the time of the assassination. Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example.

The other film, as I understand it, is either an unknown film taken from a slightly different location, or an unedited Zapruder film. If plotters went to the trouble of making and concealing (or editing) such a film, how could they have been so careless as to let it leak out and be shown in theaters or TV, especially to several of our own group of assassination researchers? Something doesn't make sense here.

I am mystified as to how an entity capable of pulling off a complex plot could have failed to prevent "the other film" from being exhibited in public.

oh. my bad. i thought everything i read on the internet had to be true.

you mean this is an ambiguous tale? what with such an official looking website and all...?

If you read the existing books with an eye toward citations of evidence which can be verified, you'll find that there is virtually nothing in terms of a solid foundation of evidence of even the most basic aspects of the theory. I can't find anything to support it, and my research partner, an expert on the Sherman case has found much to challenge the existing books. At the least, one should be cautious.

The Dr. Mary Sherman story does not subject itself to any sort of verification, in part or in whole. The fanciful account woven in recent books is directly and fully contradicted by new research.

Of course I knew that. You're doing an appeal to authority, that Lewis is OK because Stone believed him. Oliver Stone?? Who believes a LOT of wrong things?? You must be kidding.

Time for a word or two in defense of the people who usually and predictably get slagged in threads like these: They are not stupid, they do not have a lesser knowledge of the evidence and they are not shills, agents or paid agents. They are sincere people who, whether you like it or not, interpret things differently than you, and they deserve the same courtesies as you, like not being constantly called names and put down.

Stephen, as always, I tend to agree with most things you say. But, my criticism of most LNers in general is that they tend to be living decades in the past in terms of research and ignore entire fields of research that is inconvenient for them to delve into. Of course, CT's often ignore evidence too...

I was just trying to make an abstract point, devil's advocate, free expression and discussion, fair treatment, etc. One of the things that drew me to the Ed Forum was its vibe of chips-fall free expression, unlike some other sites. I hope it doesn't change. I wouldn't want to be part of it if it does.

Thanks for asking in a calm and polite way!

No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.

No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying

Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum...may be paid to post on this

forum:-...Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum.

Time for a word or two in defense of the people who usually and predictably get slagged in threads like these: They are not stupid, they do not have a lesser knowledge of the evidence and they are not shills, agents or paid agents. They are sincere people who, whether you like it or not, interpret things differently than you, and they deserve the same courtesies as you, like not being constantly called names and put down.

OMG. I'm very underwhelmed by the Oswald Conference. Both of them, actually.

Mythology surpasses reality.

I'm still looking for the Poage/JA reference, but the HSCA treatment says only that Gaudet may have observed Oswald's leafletting, and that he may have seen him with Banister. Nothing about knowing him.

Not to nitpick, but the Gaudet evidence is more significant it he knew Oswald than if he didn't know him.

How do we know that Gaudet knew Oswald?

The range of possibilities is wide. It is possible that they were there at the same time (but no evidence) or is possible that they were three hours apart (but no evidence). Gaudet said he didn't recall seeing Oswald there,

Yep, I goofed. I said after, when it was before. Nine years ago. It would be inaccurate to say the evidence shows that they were in line together.

I can't find the document either, but I think that about 15 people got their papers that day.

Hi all,

wondering if anyone can help with some info on William Gaudet. In Anthony Summers 'Conspiracy' it says he had an office near Guy Banister at 'Camp and Common Street' in NO.

Presumably on the corner or between the two streets? Does anyone know which number the office was located at? Have been trying to dig into his presence in New Orleans a bit more but the main thing that comes up on the internet is the fact he was the person in front (or was it behind?) Oswald at the embassy in Mexico City.

William G. Gaudet was in line just in front of Oswald in New Orleans on September 17, 1963, when they got entry papers for visiting Mexico.

--Tommy

Allow me to quibble with this. Gaudet's was the "tourist card immediately preceding (Oswald's) in numerical sequence" on that day. There is no evidence that they were there at the same time or in line together. In fact, Gaudet "could not recall having seen Oswald on that day." The two events could have been separated by some time. To say that they were in the same line at the same time suggests a relationship not supported by the evidence.

Just sayin'.

Robert and David are right. No such footage has ever emerged.

Thanks Stephen, but it was there in 1963, I saw it, myself. I have seen it since. I'm not interested in it. It has nothing to do with 'who shot John".

Sorry, Kenneth, no you didn't. I have an extensive collection of post-assassination films (although maybe not as extensive as DVP's), and I'm fully aware of all the film inventories made from that time. There is NO FILM such as you describe. You're right, it's irrelevant, but you are misremembering.

BTW, there is "evidence which would prove something in court," and there is "evidence which is not conclusive but which strongly suggests what really happened." Just because the original evidence has been challenged at every turn doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable inferences from it, for historical rather than evidenciary purposes. If one believes the evidence faked, one has to consider how complicated it would have been to fake it.

Robert and David are right. No such footage has ever emerged.

I wish to ask a simple question.

Who, if anyone, has (i.e., can produce proof of) a fact pertaining to JFK's murder.

I ask for the person's name and the fact.

If the answer is silence (sometimes called chirping), I say there are no facts relating to JFK's murder other than the tautological fact he was killed by one or more third parties.

A perfect recipe for a justice system that can never produce justice...

Are you asking why I come to this group? To share research and discussion, and I often learn stuff or get insights from hearing all different points of view. That's one of the things I like about this forum. And I share stuff about my area of interest, New Orleans, from time to time.

Third try: Do you agree with DVP's LN views? THAT is what I asked both times above. The question you have ignored.

Dawn

No, I defend his right to make his case and be treated fairly.

Do you think he should be treated differently?

Are you asking why I come to this group? To share research and discussion, and I often learn stuff or get insights from hearing all different points of view. That's one of the things I like about this forum. And I share stuff about my area of interest, New Orleans, from time to time.

I think it's strange because he's the only one ever asked that question. Nobody asks Jon, you or me that question.

I won't even mention someone who recently took great liberties with some of my Ferrie material, and some even greater liberties with her guesses at a legend for Ferrie.

I think I've become alarmed recently that the legends of the case are beginning to surpass the realities, that the endless repetition of the internet and the many non-peer-reviewed self-published books have placed far more emphasis on loosely sourced/analyzed material than on more solidly sourced stuff. And it's even more annoying when people get all litmus-testy about it: You must believe this, you must not question that, otherwise you are a bad guy. Very anti-intellectual, especially in the Education Forum.

Stephen, relax. While I agree with you, Jon makes a valid point. You seem to have been initially drawn to Jon's posts but have been left with a bad taste with Jon's recent analysis. David's posts generally lack content and lump honest researchers with the wilder side of conspiracy theorists--something you can't help but wonder if is intended to incite sparring posts.

RE: Jon- Yes, I found his initial tone disarming, but now I see some him gravitating to what I feel is unrealistic analysis, which now includes suspicion of certain people's motives.

RE: Your comment on David: I DO think that a person who "suspects" that another - including an LN - has a hidden agenda or worse, is a disinfo agent, they're getting perilously close to tin-hat land. My opinion.