Brendan Slattery

Great talking points, Paul! Should be posted elsewhere...

David, Jack, Ashton -

A pleasure to be in the company of those for whom first principles are not at issue.

Paul

Amazing how the whackjobs seem to find each other. Paul, you have zero evidence for any of the lamebrain things you posit. Kennedy was killed because he had the misfortune of driving past a crummy little Commie's place of employment. Please find a new hobby. Fast.

We fouled up Korea? I learn something new every time I come here. Dumb and erroneous, but new.

If I go, you go. Have a nice day.

Hey Jack, Robin asked a simple question about the timing of the photograph. It was NOT an invitation for you to spew all your tired, lame, nauseatingly familiar, batxxxxcrazy theories about alleged photo manipulation. Now answer his question or stfu.

HSCA:

4. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

(437) Beyond the evidence produced by the use of the

various photographic analyses, which did not detect any evidence

of fakery in the backyard pictures, several practical

considerations reinforce these conclusions. For example, the FBI

established that the newspapers that appear in the photographs

did not reach Oswald until March 27, or 28, 1963, and the

committee determined that by April 5, 1963, Oswald had already

autographed the back of one of the pictures (133A-DeM). (192)

Aside from the obvious question of whether Oswald would place his

signature on a fake picture, for the photograph to have been

faked would have required access, within just a 10-day period, to

Oswald's backyard, his camera, rifle (knowing that this would be

the assassination weapon), and newspapers.

(438) While such access without Oswalds knowledge would

theoretically have been possible, it is regarded as unlikely.

Moreover, a fundamental question is whether a sophisticated

conspirator would expose himself to unnecessary risks of

detection by making three fake photographs, when just one would

suffice. Using stereoscopic analysis, any inconsistent evidence

of fakery would be detected, as literally floating in the image

space of the photograph.

(439) Another important consideration mitigating against

fakery is the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of

photographs progressed--133C, CE 133-B and CE 133-A. Quite

clearly a learning process was taking place, as the photographer

determined among other things how the subject would best be

centered in the field of view. Finally, the presence of graphite

marks on CE 133-A and CE 133-B strongly suggests that the prints

were routinely developed by a drugstore or camera store

photofinisher's laboratory. It is unlikely that sophisticated

conspirator would have given the end product doctoring efforts to

a drugstore for printing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, common sense has never been a Buff strong point. "But .. but .. Oswald's signature is fake too!" Suuure it is. Take your ball and go home, gents.

You're equating that to intentional mass murder? Bill Greer lied thru his teeth to the WC, but that doesn't come close to proving he was part of a conspiracy.

Non sequitur of the year award - with bouquet - goes to Mr. B, the Artie Fufkin of neo-con apologetics

Paul, get off the computer. Your mom needs to use the phone.

Which is a bigger waste of time--this, or Clint Hill Shoegate?

"The 9/11 conspiracy movement exploits the public's anger and sadness. It traffics in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans."

-- Sen. John McCain

"In a story worthy of front-page coverage, the Washington Post reported today that many members and staffers on the 9/11 commission considered the testimony given by military and aviation officials to be criminally misleading."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101300.html

Not just 9/11, Senator.

How true. The same verdict applies to past conspiracies.

"Significantly, The Warren commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government had cooperated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

"We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

"Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

I am now in that camp."

G. Robert Blakey - Chief Counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Sen McCain will awake with the same hangover that Blakey did, as will all others who prefer drinking the "patriotic" KoolAid to doing their own thinking, based upon fact rather than flim-flammery.

I'm supposed to be shocked or surprised that incompetent people who made mistakes on or before 9/11 are in CYA mode? You're equating that to intentional mass murder? Bill Greer lied thru his teeth to the WC, but that doesn't come close to proving he was part of a conspiracy.

how and why did Abe Zapruder and Ms. Sitzman continue to stand erect on a prominent raised platform in the middle of the likely firing zone with Zapruder resolutely locked on the Presidential limousine until it disappeared under the overpass?

Um, because he's not a big wuss like you?

"The 9/11 conspiracy movement exploits the public's anger and sadness. It traffics in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans."

-- Sen. John McCain

Not just 9/11, Senator.

This post has been edited by Terry Mauro: Today, 11:03 PM

Keep editing 'til you hit zero words, Terry. It's for the best.

This nonsense has been addressed before. Just enter "rybka" into the search engine and all will be explained.

Despite Castro's undemocratic failure to hold elections,

Uh oh. Here's comes the moral equivalency argument.

the Cuban people generally DO like him and are better off, generally, than they were under the US-fronted-Mafia-backed Batista thugocracy.

Yeah, all those people on makeshift rafts braving shark-infested waters are big fans of El Papi. I guess that also explains why so many non-Cubans are eager to get in. But hey, who needs freedom, democracy, and civil liberties when you have free healthcare, right? Batista is FDR compared to this a-hole.

Cubans have better general healthcare than do the average American.

Ha! You just knew that was coming! In Pete's demented mind, free healthcare is a fair tradeoff for 40 years of one-party fascist rule. FYI, Mussolini made the trains run on time. I guess that made him a great guy too.

The poverty of the country is IMO more an artifact of the US led embargo and other dirty tricks than the system of government.

So that would explain why Castro's net worth exceeds $900 million. Looks like he's weathered the embargo quite well. His impoverished and downtrodden countrymen? Well, they weren't as fortunate.

The Cubans also like the fact that Castro has stood up to the bully to the north.

No, that's why you and your US-hating buddies adore him. The international left will overlook oppression and economic looting at home if you market yourself as David to the American Goliath. The thousands killed by Castro over the years, the tens of thousands more who have died desperately seeking freedom in the U.S., the political prisoners, the torture, the imprisonment of librarians--all can be forgiven so long as you pose as the alternative to the American "hegemon."

I like Fidel in many ways, though wish he had found a way to be more democratic.

Did you like Stalin? Pol Pot? Khomeini? Mao? Saddam? What exactly are Fidel's redeeming characteristics? What exactly has prevented him from holding free, multi-party elections or granting freedom of the press?

IMO the US drove him into the hands of the USSR and further toward their system than he wanted.

He came to power promising democracy. He lied and subsequently brutalized and robbed his own country. Yet Pete wants to absolve all those sins and put it on Uncle Sam's tab.

In free elections, he would often have been re-elected, I believe.

Regrettably, he ain't dead yet. So what's stopping him? There is little doubt that, given a genuinely free electoral choice, the Cuban people would opt for a true democracy.

Anyway, in the next year or so he will likely exit stage right. I only hope the USA through the CIA doesn't impose upon Cuba the usual - as they do in Haiti and so many other countries. They will try.

I certainly hope we do. We're in the democracy-exporting business. You don't have the right to a communist xxxxhole in our hemisphere.

The Cuban people deserve better

"Deserve better"? Why? I thought Cuba was a worker's paradise??

...and an end to the blockade to economic growth and trade

Hell no. You lefties wanted sanctions on South Africa in order to spur human rights. Cuba is no different.

- but then we Americans deserve better than the fascists we now have ourselves

For those of you playing at home, Pete can't make one post without some sort of allusion to US "fascism." Cuba rounds up political prisoners, shuts down newspapers, and brutally suppresses dissent, yet somehow America is the police state. Go figure.

I live in Europe and many here go to Cuba for vacations.

No wonder you don't know xxxx about America or Cuba. Are you an ex-pat or a generic Euro weenie?

Americans are all but prohibited from going...out of fear of their seeing the truth there.

Yeah, I really want to see slums and rusted out Chevies from the 1950s. Peter thinks police states can't have sun and palm trees.

It is an island or potential weath and prosperity...if left to decide its own fate without el Norte dictating its fate or the return of the Mafia and Oligarchs that fled with Batista.

WSJ editorial: The standard apologetics for the sorry state of the Cuban economy begin from the premise that America, not socialism, is responsible for Cuba's travails. But Castro's personal financial success suggests that in fact substantial revenue is sluicing through the island. Even with the U.S. embargo in place, there's plenty of money to be made in Cuba. It's just that nearly all of it the income from exports of seafood, tobacco, sugar and nickel, not to mention Fidel's real-estate and pharmaceutical operations, goes to the ruling clique or to the military, bypassing the population. There are good reasons to question the embargo, but the notion that it is the source of all of Cuba's ills isn't one of them.

Those same Mafia and Oligarchs are now predominant here in the USA now.

"Here"? You don't even live here, you dummard. I do. And I know real fascism (and real morons) when I see it.

I found Bill to be a likeable, sincere and well informed guy.

Fear not. The same will never be said of Ash.

PUTZ

Poor Jack. Still "stuck on stupid." Marina Oswald took those backyard photos. She admitted as much on Nov 23 and does so today. His head. His body. His newspapers. His rifle. His revolver. Zero credible/scientific evidence of fakery. End of story.

Hey Measley Mouth Pencil D*ck,

you sure look like Jim Plunkett - can we have your autograph?

And you look like you're at death's door. I win.

Aging virgin Robert wrote:

The charm-school dropout returns to offer nothing of significance, while making his rounds as self-appointed hall monitor.

Poor Jack. Still "stuck on stupid."

Actually, BS, I think he got over you some time ago. It's over. Deal with it.

Oh please. Jack is the crazy uncle hidden in the attic. Sadly, you’re on the very same trajectory.

Marina Oswald took those backyard photos.

Citation?

WC: Two photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found among Oswald's possessions in Mrs. Ruth Paine's garage at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex. In one, Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, Oswald is holding the rifle generally in front of his body; in the other, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, he is holding the rifle to his right. Also found at Mrs. Paine's garage were a negative of 133-B and several photographs of the rear of General Walker's house. An imperial reflex camera, which Marina Oswald testified she used to take 133-A and 133-B, was subsequently produced by Robert Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald's brother.

HSCA: Volume VI (352) Marina Oswald was later questioned by the FBI about photographs. She said that she had taken them in the backyard

of the Oswald residence on Neeley Street in Dallas.

She admitted as much on Nov 23 and does so today.

Not quite, Sherlock. On 11/22/63 she stated that he didn't even own a gun, of any sort.

Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? From “The Assassin's Wife and the Quaker Woman Who Took Her In,” by Thomas Mallon:

Someone knocked on the door. Ruth answered it and was confronted by a group of law-enforcement officers, including men from the Dallas County sheriff's department. She thought that they were there to serve papers in connection with her divorce, until one of them announced that Lee was in custody, charged with shooting a policeman. When the officers said they wanted to come in, she managed to ask if they had a warrant. They assured her they could get one right away. "That's O.K.," she told them. "We're all upset. Come on in."

Ruth thought that "they'd come in and sit on my sofa and talk to me." Instead, "six guys spread out all over the house right away, like water." They asked whether Lee owned a gun, and Ruth said no. She translated the question to Marina, using the Russian word for "long gun" because that was the only one she knew. Yes, Marina responded, to Ruth's astonishment, Lee did have a gun. Marina then led the way to the garage. No mention had yet been made of the President; only of a murdered patrolman. But Ruth now understood what this was really about.

When I asked her, nearly forty years later, to reconstruct what happened in the garage, Ruth groaned, before saying that Marina "showed this blanket roll, which was on the floor. The officer picked it up, folded it over his arm. It was empty. He didn't even have to open it. You could see it was empty. That was when I had this feeling, My God, it could have been Lee — that he came out last night, that the gun had been there. . . . That was probably the worst moment."

Yes, all of this transpired on the 22nd.

If you know of her stating a mere day later the direct opposite, and that she took photos of him with it, please provide a citation. This would be a particularly stunning admission on her part given that the photos weren't discovered until the afternoon of that day, meaning that police confronted her with the photos immediately. If you have a citation to that effect, please provide it. If not, get lost and make room for those who actually trouble themselves to state a case.

She stated on the 22nd that he owned a rifle. On that same afternoon, they find the incriminating photos in a box when they sweep through the Paine’s garage. Marina stated that she took the photos. Oswald was confronted with one of the photos on the 23rd. Simple enough for ya?

Moreover, the poor woman's story has shifted so many times, on so many points, one finds it impossible to understand why a self-admitted prevaricator is offered as a witness for anything, let alone the topic of the backyard photos.

So is she a “poor woman” swept up in a whirlwind of events or a flat out xxxx? You seem to want it both ways.

For example, let's take a moment of candor in her testimony of Feb. 3/64:

"I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses."

And yet the Commission knew that there was a third such photograph, with Oswald holding the rifle above his head with both hands, for they heard testimony to that effect from Oswald's mother. Oddly enough, they chose not to ask Marina about this third photo when she was subsequently questioned by them.

Yes, she was admittedly confused. She hadn’t seen or thought about the photos in months. She fails to meet your standards of perfection. BTW, all it takes is ONE photograph taken by her in the backyard for the game to be over. Are you saying that she took NONE of the photos? Let me gauge just how batxxxx crazy you really are.

What the Commission didn't know was a fourth such photograph existed in the personal effects of the DeMohrenschildts, which surfaced in 1967.

What the Commission didn't know was a fifth such photograph existed in the personal effects of DPD Officer Roscoe White, which surfaced via his widow in the mid-1970s. It may be easy to forgive Marina mistaking two photos for one, but how does a person mistake five distinctly different photos for one?

The same way some earwitnesses heard five shots in Dealey Plaza instead of three. Sometimes, you only commit to memory the things that are important to you. The photos were important to Lee, not her. I was at the San Diego zoo last January. Did I take three photos or seven? Beats me. I didn’t want to be there anyway. Had she said she couldn’t remember taking any photos, that would have been much more ominous/incriminating. But that was never the case.

Further, Marina has stated that when she took her photo, her back was to the stairs, yet the very same stairs are clearly shown in the photo.

Um, you just laid the groundwork that this woman is either confused or a xxxx. So why can’t she be confused about the stairs? Suddenly she’s telling the truth?

Marina stated that the photos were taken in the early afternoon, on a date the Commission pegged as being Sunday March 31 '63. Subsequent investigation revealed that the photos couldn't have been taken on that date [not Marina's fault, since she didn't pick the date],

They said it was likely the 31st. No one ever nailed down the date definitively.

as the weather bureau reported it was overcast with occasional drizzles of rain, facts inconsistent with the sunny weather depicted in the photos.

Do you realize it can rain and be sunny on the same day? Remember November 22nd?

More problematic, however, is that irrespective of the date on which the photos were taken, the shadow patterns dictate that the photos were taken early in the morning, shortly after 9 am, not in the afternoon as Marina recalled.

Says who?

And speaking of her recall, it left much else to be desired. Shown two cameras on Feb. 6/64, she recognized a Russian one, but not the second one. Little wonder. FBI didn't take possession of the Imperial Reflex used to take the backyard photos until Feb. 24. So good so far.

Yet, on Jan 29/64 Marina had been shown photos of two cameras, one Russian and one a US made Realist camera, and she ID'ed them as being her husband's. Shown the very same photos on Feb. 17/64, she claimed that the Realist was not her husband's, and that she'd never seen it before [despite having been shown the very same photo less than three week earlier and claiming it was her husband's.] Then, FBI claimed that on Feb. 25/64 she had been shown the Imperial Reflex camera it obtained on the preceding day, and that she "... immediately identified it as the American camera which belonged to her husband and the one which she used to take the photograph [sINGULAR, you will note] of him with the rifle and the pistol." Only problem is, either FBI never delivered such a Feb. 25/64 Marina interview report to the Commission, or the Commission received it and failed to include it among the 50-odd such Marina interview reports it chose to print.

It wasn’t her camera. Why would she have intimate knowledge of it? Did the cameras in any way resemble each other? Were they both the same color?

More astonishing by far, however, is that FBI located about 75 photos in the various search-and-seizure operations around the Paine home and Oswald's boarding room. They were shown to Marina, and she identified them all. Oddly, the only ones taken with the Imperial Reflex were the backyard photos and the shots of General Walker's home. In other words, those taken that most incriminated Oswald were shot with a camera that wasn't located during multiple searches of the Paine home and Oswald's rooming house, a camera that wasn't even located until February of the following year, despite the meticulous searches conducted.

His brother had it, not some dark sinister force.

In 1970, Dallas reporter Jim Marrs was investigating the backyard photographs when he interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester, who worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They said they were very busy processing photographic material for both the FBI and the Secret Service the night of the assassination. In 1970, the Hesters told Marrs that the FBI had color transparencies of the backyard photographs on the night of the assassination and had one color transparency that had nobody in the picture. Yet, this was the night before the photographs were allegedly found among Oswald's effects.

I see. Marina is a xxxx but the Hesters are pure as the driven snow. Have them sign an affidavit and get back to me. Otherwise, it’s hearsay whispered into a buff’s willing ear.

Perhaps rather than indulge in drive-by smears of Jack White, BS could trouble himself to instead impeach the Hesters, for they offer as much proof of photographic forgery as Jack White and a number of others.

An “accusation” is proof? Please don't tell me you practice law.

[should BS care to try, I've appended precisely what the Hesters referred to in their conversations with Marrs in 1970, which was located in DPD holdings 22 years after the Hesters made their assertions. If they were wrong, how did DPD come to possess precisely what they referenced? And if what is appended is unrelated, how did the Hester's know of its existence 22 years prior to it surfacing? Have at it, BS. We're waiting.....]

I’m still trying to figure out how the dirt poor Oswalds could afford color film. Am I supposed to be impressed that the Hesters haven’t budged from their story? Neither did the lady who claimed to be Princess Anastasia.

BS glosses over these details as though unimportant, because, after all, we have Marina's word. What else could we possibly need.

I thought Marina was a beloved martyr who now thinks her husband might have been framed? So she did the framing? On the 22nd, Marina desperately wanted to believe in her husband's innocence. Why would she say she took damning, incriminating photos if she didn't really take them?

His head.

Even Oswald admitted that much. Though the tell-tale crop lines by his chin weren't very subtle or professional, were they?

Yes, ‘cause lord knows LHO never lied.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm

His body.

Photo experts from around the world have already eviscerated that contention.

Citation? I can’t wait to see who you unearth.

BS would know this if he'd bothered to read their accounts. Or perhaps he has done, and merely hopes to skate by on the assertion alone, in the hope that others haven't read those accounts. [sorry, BS, but some of us have.] In either case, Jack White stands in excellent company when he maintains - as did Oswald - that the accused's face was superimposed on another man's body.

Jack is a buffoonish fraud and so are you. What else you got?

His newspapers.

Then they were presumably found among his effects. Citation for that contention, please?

No one ever said they were found among his effects, but I won’t rule it out.

HSCA (353): The left-wing newspapers Oswald is holding is dated March 11 and March 24 and were mailed on March 7 and March 21, respectively, both by second-class mail. According to postal authorities, both

newspapers would have arrived in Dallas by March 28.

His rifle.

Never demonstrated. If you know otherwise, citation please?

“Never demonstrated? What the f*ck are you talking about?

His revolver.

Never demonstrated. If you know otherwise, citation please?

Again, what the f*ck are you talking about? He absolutely owned those two weapons.

Zero credible/scientific evidence of fakery.

Only for those who refuse to read anything other than the Warren Report. In point of fact, the only Forum member who regularly shows up with "zero evidence" is the same one who smears other Forum members while refusing to offer any basis.

Warren and HSCA. You’re 0 for 2.

End of story.

Clearly that is your wish, dear boy. But if it were so, why are we still here 42-plus years later?

Because you’re a pathetic loser who has no life outside of this forum?

You cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube, PR boy, no matter how hard you try.

Still hung up on my job, eh? What, praytell, do you do for a living? Rubbish collector?

And I dare say that far better men than you have laboured to do so in the past, and been found sorely wanting. If they could not do so, with logic and passion you've yet to demonstrate, by what unbridled arrogance do you think yourself capable of the task?

Yep, all those experts at the WC and HSCA were fooled by 1963 cut-and-paste technology. But not you! You’re too clever for the conspirators! Sigh.

You have offered nothing new or unique. Why are you even here? Glutton for punishment? Enjoy parading your boundless uncritical credulity for all to see? Or just perennially dateless?

This from a man who has time to post on a Friday night. I guess you struck out at the men’s bathroom and headed on home.

Credit where it's due, though: at least you didn't sign off with "case closed."

CASE CLOSED, dumbass.

Nice avatar, btw. Too ashamed to show your ugly mug?

Chrysanthemum bouquet. Duh.

Jack, can we see the frame before the one on top. It looks like the front wheel of the motorcycle is blocking the boy/girl's lower leg.

The cycle is blocking the lower portion of the woman in the dress ... that's why Jack used the frame he did. This is one time that it took less time to see Jack's mistake than it did for him to create such a hair brained observation.

Bill Miller

Impossible. Jack's never wrong.

Poor Jack. Still "stuck on stupid." Marina Oswald took those backyard photos. She admitted as much on Nov 23 and does so today. His head. His body. His newspapers. His rifle. His revolver. Zero credible/scientific evidence of fakery. End of story.

Zapruder lied about what he was paid for the film he alledgedly shot -- deal with it!

Younger than his buddy Jack, but just as crazy.

Listen up, PR dude -- there's not one film that covers that corner without a break in the action (read: stop down, splice) - do your homework dufus!

Moron, the Towner film covers the entire turn and part of its procession up Elm. Greer was incompetent, but he didn't come close to clipping the curb. Nor did any eyewitness on that corner testify to that effect.

Zapruder lied about what he was paid for the film he alledgedly shot -- deal with it!

David, can you f*cking READ? Assuming you can, go read Appendix E again. Do you not realize what that's implying? Profiting from a film after the fact (i.e. Time-Life) is not the same thing as ACTING AS A WILLING, PAID, CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT. F*cking RETARD.

P.S. Regarding "homework," Time-Life came to him, not the other way around. Somewhere, a remedial history class awaits you.

So now an honorable man like Zapruder--who loved Kennedy--is smeared as a paid co-conspirator. Just when I think this place can't sink any lower. Castro? Benevolent dictator! Zapruder? Traitorous Jew!

P.S. The Towner film shows Greer making that turn quite smoothly. Was that faked too?

I'd say knowledgable enough with authorative posts and links, enough to keep you running all over the place. 300 feet from the lawn sensors hmm, that close to Gary's desk? Test 1-2-3, Test 1-2-3, hello TEST

Is BS helping you with these say nothing responses or are you just as good as he is in making them?

Bill Miller

Don't drag me into this you condescending twerp.