Thomas Graves

Bobby, "Is there any reason these scenes could not have been staged at a later date?" I assume you mean the clips by Robert Hughes and postal worker Jack Martin showing Billy Lovelady wearing his plaid red shirt and smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination, and also the clip showing Oswald being taken past Lovelady (sitting in a chair inside the police department) a couple of hours later? Well, Bobby, my answer is kinda short and a tad rhetorical. Here it is: "Are You Absolutely Nuts?" Now that I've answered your question, I have a little question for you. I'll even phrase it a six different ways so you'll be sure to understand it: 1 ) Why do you have such a hard time accepting the possibility that Oswald wasn't "captured" in Altgens 6? 2 ) Why do you base your total case regarding Oswald's innocence on Altgen's 6? 3 ) Even if Oswald wasn't captured in Altgens 6, wouldn't you consider him to be innocent, anyway? (I do.) 4 ) Do you think that Oswald's not being captured on film during the assassination somehow implicates him in the dastardly deed? 5 ) Isn't there enough other evidence -- for example Vicki Adams' not seeing or hearing Oswald on the wooden stairway between the 4th and 1st floors after the shots rang out, and Oswald's saying that he saw "Junior" and another black guy in the Domino Room during lunch, etc.--- to exonerate Oswald, regardless of whether or not he's in Altgen's 6? 6 ) Do you kinda "get off on" proving to yourself that so darn many films and photos were "altered" or secretly "staged?" And here's the brand new bonus question! 7 ) How is your particular "four shot theory" helping us solve the JFK assassination? Do you hope to pinpoint where the shots came from and then discover the shooters in some "unaltered" or "unstaged" photographs or films? Or is it gonna have to be, by definition, a lot more general than that -- "The Illuminati / CIA must have done it because they were the only ones who could have altered and staged so many photos and films, and so quickly, too!" And now for the most important question of all, Bobby. Here it is: Why are you so obsessed with the photographic "alterations" and indications of "stagings" you think you've discovered, Bobby? Does your psyche thrive on the negative feedback loop (kinda like an addictive drug I guess) which is involved in and reinforced by your "observations" and "discoveries" and "proofs" of the bad, bad things that must have been done, and done by so many corrupt authority figures types and so many people with so much money and so much power and, well, the types of people that you just don't like very much? If so, perhaps you should consider getting some help, you know, from a someone who isn't (in your humble opinion) suffering from a nasty 'ol case of "cognitive dissonance" himself or herself. Hmmm...., on second thought, that would by definition severely limit the number of qualified professionals who could help you, wouldn't it, because everyone who hears you out but still refuses to see things your way is obviously suffering from "CD" aren't they?. Well, in that case I guess you'd just have to find a professional who is willing to agree in advance to "see things your way!" (That is, of course, only if you thought you actually needed professional help...) --Tommy PS-- I've noticed that you're always talking about "distractions," Bobby. "Oswald is a distraction." "Edwin Walker is a distraction." "Reality is a distraction...." Well, in my humble opinion, the whole "issue" as to whether or not Oswald was captured in Altgens 6 is the biggest distraction of all, and if I were paranoid, I just might be tempted to say that you are a disinfo agent who was sent here to distract us! LOL How you like 'dem apples, Bobby? Well Bobby, I hate to disappoint you but I ain't gonna engage you in an endless downward-spiraling "debate" about Altgens 6, nor am I going to argue with you about your ridiculous proposition that the Jack Martin and Robert Hughes clips were secretly "staged" at your conveniently unspecified "later date" (funny how none of the "extras" nor any of the inevitable "Lookie Loos" ever said anything about it, huh?; did the bad guys kill them all?) and whether or not the Martin and Hughes clips show a guy who sure looks like Lovelady in front of what sure looks like the TSBD, and only about ten feet away from two guys who sure look like Lovelady's co-workers Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce not long before Williams and Arce, wearing the same clothing, respectively, were taken away in what sure looks like a police car with a guy who sure looks like Bill Shelley on 11/22/63, ... Bobby, I'm gonna lay it out for ya. I'm afraid you're suffering from a severe case of "cognitive dissonance" with perhaps a touch of paranoia thrown in, and I think that that "combo" makes it particularly difficult to get you to see things any other way than the way you've chosen to see them. Why? Because you have such an elaborate and flimsy "belief system" to prop up and maintain as regards our evil, evil society and the JFK assassination (and probably whether or not the moon is made out of green cheese, too). I've read your posts and tried to follow your logic and tried to grasp your analysis of "the situation," but frankly, Bobby, I'm not favorably impressed by what you have to say. Sorry Dude. So instead of wasting any more time and energy "debating" with you, I'm gonna "stop beating my head against the wall" now and just "run away with my tail between my legs." Okay, Bobby? Feel free to go ahead and declare yourself "the winner" if you want to, Bobby. I couldn't care less. You'll always be a "real winner" in my book. LOL Please realize that the edited post, above, is my Parthian Shot here, Bobby. I'm riding this horse over to greener pastures now. (Look "Parthian Shot" up if you have to, and oh yeah, try to, as you say, "Be Well" yourself.) Hey! I just thought of a good joke! -- "Robert Mady is the kind of guy who gives cognitive dissonance a bad name." LOL Not bad, huh? --Tommy Bumped for Bobby Mady! My recently-added question # 7 is another Parthian Shot for ya, Bobby. I decided to double back and try to lure you out. Ever heard of the Parthians, Bobby? How about the Scythians? Okay then, how about Geronimo? --Tommy

Bobby, Please take Word Twister's vicious insults with a grain of salt and "consider the source." Since he refuses to see things your way, he must be suffering from a severe case of "cognitive dissonance." It's obvious that he's just trying to distract you. Your buddy, --Tommy LOL

Excellent post, Ron. I started getting "sick" while I was in law school and happened to see Oliver Stone's somewhat fictionalized JFK which motivated me to start reading Crossfire and Best Evidence and a couple of other books, as well. Haven't been the same since. Thanks for sharing. --Tommy

SPECTRE? MK/SPECTRE? Sorry Bobby, I'm not familiar with that CIA operation. You wouldn't by any chance be referring to Harlot's Ghost would you? (It was a joke, Bobby. You do know what the word "spectre" means, don't you?) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spectre You asked, "Is there any reason these scenes" (I assume you mean the clips by Martin and Hughes showing Lovelady smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination, and also the clip shot showing Oswald being taken past Lovelady, sitting in a chair inside the police department, a couple of hours later) "could not have been staged at a later date?" Well, my answer to you, Bobby, is kinda short and a bit rhetorical. Here it is: "Are You Nuts?" Now that I've answered your question, I have a little question for you. I'll even phrase it a six different ways so you'll be sure to understand it: 1 ) Why do you have such a hard time accepting the possibility that Oswald wasn't "captured" in Altgens 6? 2 ) Why do you base your total case regarding Oswald's innocence on Altgen's 6? 3 ) Even if Oswald wasn't captured in Altgens 6, wouldn't you consider him to be innocent, anyway? (I do.) 4 ) Do you think that Oswald's not being captured on film during the assassination would somehow implicate him in the dastardly deed? 5 ) Don't you think there's enough other evidence -- for example Vicki Adams' not seeing or hearing Oswald on the wooden stairway between the 4th and 1st floors during that critical period of time about a minute after the shots rang out, Oswald's saying that he saw "Junior" and another black guy in the Domino Room during lunch, etc.--- to exonerate Oswald, regardless of whether or not he's in Altgen's 6? 6 ) Do you enjoy discovering "absolute proof" that so many films and photos were "altered" or "staged?" Do you have an overall paranoiac world view? 7 ) How is what you are doing with your particular "four shot theory" helping us solve the JFK assassination? Do you actually hope to pinpoint where the shots came from and then find the shooters in some "unaltered" or "unstaged" photographs or films? Or is it gonna have to be, by definition, a lot more general than that -- "The Illuminati / CIA must have done it because they were the only ones who could have altered and staged so many photos and films, and so quickly, too!" And now for a "loaded" question, the most important one of all: Why are you so obsessed with it, Bobby? Does your psyche thrive on the feedback loop of paranoiac thought (kinda like a drug I guess) which is evidently involved and reinforced in your "observations" and "discoveries" and "proofs" of so many bad, bad things being done by so many authority figures and so many corrupt people with so much money and so much power? If so, perhaps you should consider getting some professional help, you know, from a real professional who isn't, in your humble opinion, suffering from a nasty 'ol case of "cognitive dissonance." Hmmm, on second thought, that would by definition severely limit the number of qualified professionals who could help you, wouldn't it, because everyone who hears you out but still refuses to see things your way is obviously suffering from a nasty case of "cognitive dissonance," aren't they?. Well, in that case I guess you'd just have to find a professional who agrees in advance to "see things your way!" (Good luck with that.) (That is, of course, only if you thought you actually needed professional help...) --Tommy You're always talking about "distractions," Bobby. "Oswald is a distraction." "Edwin Walker is a distraction." In my humble opinion, the whole "issue" as to whether or not Oswald was captured in Altgens 6 is the biggest distraction of all, and if I were paranoid, I just might be tempted to say you were sent here to distract us! LOL How you like 'dem apples, Bobby? I hate to disappoint you, Bobby, but I'm not gonna engage you in an endless downward-spiraling "debate" about Altgens 6, nor am I going to argue with you about your ridiculous proposition that the Jack Martin and Robert Hughes clips were secretly "staged" at your conveniently unspecified "later date" (funny how none of the "extras" nor any of the inevitable "Lookie Loos" ever said anything about it, huh?; did the bad guys kill them all?) and whether or not the Martin and Hughes clips show a guy who sure looks like Lovelady in front of what sure looks like the TSBD, and only about ten feet away from two guys who sure look like Lovelady's co-workers Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce not long before Williams and Arce, wearing the same clothing, respectively) were taken away in what sure looks like a police car with a guy who sure looks like Bill Shelley on 11/22/63, ... Bobby, I'm gonna lay it out for ya. I'm afraid you're suffering from a severe case of "cognitive dissonance" with perhaps a touch of paranoia thrown in, and I think that that "combo" makes it particularly difficult to get you to see things any other way than the way you've chosen to see them. Why? Because you have such an elaborate and flimsy "belief system" to prop up and maintain as regards our evil, evil society and the JFK assassination (and probably whether or not the moon is made out of green cheese, too). I've read your posts and tried to follow your logic and tried to grasp your analysis of "the situation," but frankly, Bobby, I'm not favorably impressed by what you have to say. Sorry Dude. So instead of wasting any more time and energy "debating" with you, I'm gonna "stop beating my head against the wall" now and just "run away with my tail between my legs." Okay, Bobby? Feel free to go ahead and declare yourself "the winner" if you want to, Bobby. I couldn't care less. You'll always be a "real winner" in my book. LOL Please realize that the edited post, above, is my Parthian Shot here, Bobby. I'm riding this horse over to greener pastures now. (Look "Parthian Shot" up if you have to, and oh yeah, try to "be well" yourself.) Hey! I just thought of a good joke! -- "Robert Mady is the kind of guy who gives cognitive dissonance a bad name." LOL Not bad, huh? --Tommy

your or you're?

You know, Bobby.... Well, never mind. SPECTRE? MK/SPECTRE? Sorry Bobby, I'm not familiar with that CIA operation. Question: Why is it such a problem for people like you to accept the possibility that Oswald wasn't necessarily "caught" in the original, "unaltered" Altgens 6 photo? Couldn't Oswald have been innocent, anyway? Do you think that Oswald's not being captured on film during the assassination somehow implicates him in the dastardly deed? Why are you so obsessed with it? Does your psyche thrive on the feedback loop of paranoiac thought (kinda like a drug I guess) which is evidently involved and reinforced in your "observations" and "discoveries" of so many alterations and bad, bad things being done by so many authority figures and people in control? If so, perhaps you should consider getting some professional help, you know, from someone who isn't in your humble opinion suffering from "cognitive dissonance." But that would severely limit the number of qualified professionals who could help you, wouldn't it. Hmmm. That could be the Mother Of ALL Dilemmas! --Tommy Edited of course, and bumped. Bobby-- I just read your post # 244, too, and I'm gonna respond to it by askin' ya the same darn question I've already asked ya: Why's It So Important To You That People Believe As You Do that Oswald Was "Captured" In Altgens 6? In your mind does it somehow absolutely "make" the case" against Oswald if it is somehow proved that Oswald isn't in it? Couldn't he be innocent anyway, Bobby? I personally believe that Oswald was innocent, Bobby, and guess what-- I don't think he's visible in unaltered Altgen's 6! You're always talking about "distractions," Bobby. In my humble opinion, the whole "issue" as to whether or not Oswald was captured on film during the assassination is one big distraction. That's the best I can do, Bobby. I'm not gonna engage you in an endless "debate" about Altgens 6, the Jack Martin and Robert Hughes clips showing Lovelady in front of what looks like the TSBD, etc. etc. etc. I'm afraid you're suffering from a severe case of "cognitive dissonance" with a more than a touch of paranoia thrown in, and I think that that "combo" makes it particularly difficult to get you to see things any other way than the way you've chosen to see them. Because you have an elaborate "belief system" to maintain. I've read your posts and tried to follow your logic and tried to grasp your analysis of "the situation," but frankly, Bobby, I'm not favorably impressed by what you have to say. Sorry. So instead of wasting any more time and energy "debating" with you, I'm gonna "stop beating my head against the wall" now and just "run away with my tail between my legs." Okay Bobby? Declare yourself "the winner" if you want to. I couldn't care less.

You know, Bobby.... Well, never mind. SPECTRE? MK/SPECTRE? Sorry Bobby, I'm not familiar with that CIA operation. Question: Why is it such a problem for people like you to accept the possibility that Oswald wasn't necessarily "caught" in the original, "unaltered" Altgens 6 photo? Couldn't Oswald have been innocent, anyway? Do you think that Oswald's not being captured on film during the assassination somehow implicates him in the dastardly deed? Why are you so obsessed with it? Does your psyche thrive on the feedback loop of paranoiac thought (kinda like a drug I guess) which is evidently involved and reinforced in your "observations" and "discoveries" of so many alterations and bad, bad things being done by so many authority figures and people in control? If so, perhaps you should consider getting some professional help, you know, from someone who isn't in your humble opinion suffering from "cognitive dissonance." But that would severely limit the number of qualified professionals who could help you, wouldn't it. Hmmm. That would be the mother f ALL dilemmas! But at least it would give you something else to obsess on and construct a complicated, paranoiac theory about ! --Tommy

Exactly what I'm talking about, Bobby. Your words in red: "Film clips of Lovelady [standing in close proximity to co-workers Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce in front of a building that sure looks like the TSBD in a "scene" that sure looks realistic for the situation that must have existed a few minutes after the assassination, and - oh yeah - filmed by two amateur photographers wouldn't you know; and yet another clip filmed by a third photographer a couple hours later of someone who sure looks like Lovelady wearing the same gosh darn plaid shirt but now sitting in a chair inside what sure looks like the police department as someone who sure looks like Oswald is taken past him] were staged on a later date specifically to create (disinformation) evidence of him in a plaid shirt." Why did the bad guys go to all that trouble, Bobby? I mean, they must have had to cordon off the TSBD at your "later date" to keep away all the nosy gawkers and lookie loos (or did they build a fake building that looked just like the TSBD, and if so where did they do that-- Area 51?) and killed all of those "extras" including two guys who were dead (pardon the pun) ringers for Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce, you know to keep 'em from talking about it, just to make it look like Billy Lovelady had worn his red and black and grey plaid shirt on 11/22/63. Why was it so dog gone dangerous to the bad guys that Billy Baby had worn his vertically striped shirt that day, instead, as you claim? Because he might be confused with Doorman, Howdy Doody, or Prayer Man? Seriously now, Bobby. Your saying that I (or anyone else) am suffering from "cognitive dissonance" (did you pick up that phrase from a psychiatrist?) is like The Pot Calling The Kettle "Black." Of course another saying that comes to mind is, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." It's time for you to take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror, Bobby Boy. --Tommy

Greg, It certainly is intellectual dishonesty for a person to refuse to admit having made a factual or conceptual error when it's pointed out to him, but to instead rephrase it slightly and keep right on saying it, or to "go silent" on it for a few of months and resurrect it later, slightly rephrased. IMHO that's what I think Word Twister does all to often. --Tommy

Well, Paul B., although you have a cheering squad of two on this thread, I still think you're getting close to the edge of the Policy of this Forum -- against calling another member a xxxx. You didn't actually use the word, 'xxxx,' but the challenge to "intellectual honesty" really boils down to challenging somebody's "honesty," and it's in the same ballpark as 'xxxx'. So, I'd like to get a Moderator's opinion on this, please. Thanks, --Paul Trejo Trejo, Is it true that you never mention the fact that Walker didn't verifiably claim until after the assassination that right after someone had taken a shot at him, he somehow knew that it was Oswald? --Tommy

"When folks acquire become..." ? --Tommy

Yes, it's so much better to believe that all of the photographs and films were altered or faked, and so darn quickly, too! Especially the "purported" film clip's shot from almost the exact same place by two different guys, Jack Martin and Robert Hughes, which show an actor who looks just like Billy Lovelady, wearing Lovelady's red (and black and white and grey) "plaid" shirt just with a sliver of white t-shirt visible for a split second in the Martin clip, smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD with all of those other actors, a couple of whom look just like Lovelady's co-workers Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce (before they were hauled off in a police car with Bill Shelley) just a few minutes after the assassination. What a lot of work that must have been to fake that afternoon or the next day, huh? Amazing. Absolutely Amazing. Mind Boggling, Actually. And done with two photographers (probably just to make the fake scene more "realistic" although neither of them are in the other's film) and can you imagine! -- all in the open like that but done with such secrecy! I mean, the CIA and the FBI and the DPD must have cordoned off several blocks around the TSBD and killed anyone and everyone who might have witnessed the faking of it all! So many "mysterious deaths" and "missing people!" It just PROVES how all-powerful and omnipresent the bad guys really are, dosen't it? Or, hey, maybe they didn't have to kill anyone because they probably just filmed the clips the next day at a super hush-hush location inside AREA 51!!! But we know that they DID kill a bunch of people because they couldn't just let all those actors live, so they killed 'em all and buried them there in a mass grave after they'd finished makin' the two fake film clips! And the Z-film? Oh my God! Don't even get me started! Suffice it to say that I've proven to myself that the limo stopped for a good half minute and it was all altered! Altered I tell you! And anyone who doesn't agree with me is OBVIOUSLY either a CIA disinformation agent or is suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! What a joke. Cognitive dissonance my <deleted> . --Tommy Edited of course, and bumped

Yes, it's so much better to believe that all of the photographs and films were altered or faked, and so darn quickly, too! Especially the purported film clips shot from almost exactly the same spot by two photographers, Jack Martin and Robert Hughes, showing an actor who looks just like Billy Lovelady, wearing Lovelady's red (and black and white and grey) "plaid" shirt just with a sliver of white t-shirt visible for a split second in the Martin clip, smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD with all of those other actors, two of whom look just like Lovelady's co-workers Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce, just a few minutes after the assassination. What a lot of work that must have been to fake that afternoon or the next day, huh? And done with two photographers and a bunch of fake policemen pretending to check people as they enter the building (just to make it look more "realistic" by pretending that something really important might have happened in there a few minutes earlier, and, you know, just pretending that an assassin might still be in the building or something) and in the open like that but in such secrecy! I mean, the CIA and the FBI and the DPD must have cordoned off several blocks around the TSBD and killed anyone and everyone who might have witnessed the faking of it all! So many "mysterious deaths" and "missing people!" It just PROVES how all-powerful and omnipresent the bad guys really are, dosen't it? Or, hey, maybe they filmed it at a hush-hush location inside AREA 54!!! What a joke. Cognitive dissonance my (deleted). --Tommy

Jon, Don't you see? 1 ) Oswald was an avowed Marxist / Communist. 2 ) There were millions of 'em around the world in 1963. 3 ) Therefore it could be said that Oswald had millions of accomplices! LOL --Tommy

Looks like you've got a corner on The Truth here, Bobby. It's too bad that so few people see everything your way. Must be cognitive dissonance, huh? LOL --Tommy

Thank you for that reminder, Paul (Brancato). Sometimes it is worth noting, not only the nature and details of inconsistencies that crop up within a researcher's work, but also to notice how that researcher responds to well founded criticism of their methodology. Of particular concern--because it is so easily demonstrable--is Paul Trejo's response (or lack thereof) to peer review in which he chooses to ignore the significant effect that egregious FACTUAL errors do to his pet theory. Such monumental errors can only weaken it, at best, and often will weaken it to the point of nullification. I agree with you, Paul, that when a researcher carries on as if the errors he committed are of no consequence or were not committed--when proof of their commission has been provided--it speaks directly to that researcher's intellectual honesty. Greg and Paul B., Regarding his preaching on the Walker Incident, and the propounding of his so-called "grand unification theory" in general, Trejo reminds me of a very well trained lawyer. "Tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but for crying out loud don't tell the whole truth!" Compounding that shortcoming is the fact that oftentimes he can't even relay the facts correctly. As regards his alleged lack of intellectual honesty, it is interesting isn't it that Trejo refuses to respond to my recent post on another thread in which I point out just two of the more glaring factual errors he has made on this Forum: 1 ) Since Oswald was a "dialectical materialist" Marxist, he was, by definition, "materialistic" in his personal life and therefore overly susceptible to Guy Banister's offerings of cash and / or "big buck" career advancement opportunities. (He's really showing his intellectual ignorance here and his willingness to spread the old barnyard "organic fertilizer.") 2 ) Leopoldo and Angel's visited Silvia Odio in Dallas and asked her for money. (Here, of course, Trejo'ss just showing his laziness and unwillingness to fact check before he posts.) I think it's important to diplomatically correct errors of fact by any so-called "researcher," but in Word Twister Trejo's case I must say that it's a particularly enjoyable thing to do, and frankly folks, I do it as diplomatically as I can. LOL. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21547&page=22#entry296497 --Tommy "I know Paul Trejo, and he's as honest as me. Yeah! And I'm as honest as a Denver man can be." With apologies to the Grateful Dead edited of course, and bumped Note to Trejo: "1 member and 7 guests" reading this now.

Thank you for that reminder, Paul (Brancato). Sometimes it is worth noting, not only the nature and details of inconsistencies that crop up within a researcher's work, but also to notice how that researcher responds to well founded criticism of their methodology. Of particular concern--because it is so easily demonstrable--is Paul Trejo's response (or lack thereof) to peer review in which he chooses to ignore the significant effect that egregious FACTUAL errors do to his pet theory. Such monumental errors can only weaken it, at best, and often will weaken it to the point of nullification. I agree with you, Paul, that when a researcher carries on as if the errors he committed are of no consequence or were not committed--when proof of their commission has been provided--it speaks directly to that researcher's intellectual honesty. Excellent posts, guys, and very well-written, too, so a joy to read on two counts. Regarding the Walker Incident, Word Twister Trejo reminds me of someone who was trained as a lawyer. "Tell the truth and nothing but the truth (sometimes), but for cryin' out loud don't tell the whole truth." It is interesting isn't it that he refuses to respond to my recent post on the "Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?" thread in which I point out just two of the more glaring errors of fact he has made on this Forum: 1 ) that since Oswald was a "dialectical materialist" Marxist, he must have been "materialistic" in his personal life and therefore overly susceptible to the offering of cash and "big buck" career advancement opportunities supposedly made by Guy Banister. He's really showing his ignorance and willingness to "BS" here. 2 ) that Leopoldo and Angel's asking Silvia Odio to write a fund-raising letter for them was tantamount to their asking her directly for money. Here, of course, he's just showing his laziness and unwillingness to fact check before he posts. I think it's important to diplomatically correct errors of fact by any so-called "researcher," but in Word Twister Trejo's case I must say that it's a particularly enjoyable thing to do. --Tommy

From the HSCA http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=40211 Phil Willis: http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/05/page-10.html Who are you going to believe -- the people who were actually in the Plaza, or a bunch of Pet Theorists? I don't suppose it's reasonable to assume that an innocent bystander (or bysitter) would automatically duck their head (and their baby) below the top of a wall upon hearing nearby gunfire? Personally I'd much rather believe that "Black Dog Man" was a shooter. But I guess I'm just too open-minded. --Tommy

Thank you for that reminder, Paul (Brancato). Sometimes it is worth noting, not only the nature and details of inconsistencies that crop up within a researcher's work, but also to notice how that researcher responds to well founded criticism of their methodology. Of particular concern--because it is so easily demonstrable--is Paul Trejo's response (or lack thereof) to peer review in which he chooses to ignore the significant effect that egregious FACTUAL errors do to his pet theory. Such monumental errors can only weaken it, at best, and often will weaken it to the point of nullification. I agree with you, Paul, that when a researcher carries on as if the errors he committed are of no consequence or were not committed--when proof of their commission has been provided--it speaks directly to that researcher's intellectual honesty. Excellent posts, guys, and very well-written, too, so a joy to read on two counts. It is interesting isn't it that he refuses to respond to my recent post on the "Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?" thread in which I point out just two of the more glaring errors of fact he has made on this Forum: 1 ) that since Oswald was a "dialectical materialist" Marxist, he must have been "materialistic" in his personal life and therefore overly susceptible to the offering of cash and "big buck" career advancement opportunities supposedly made by Guy Banister. He's really showing his ignorance and willingness to "BS" here. 2 ) that Leopoldo and Angel's asking Silvia Odio to write a fund-raising letter for them was tantamount to their asking her directly for money. Here, of course, he's just showing his laziness and unwillingness to fact check before he posts. I think it's important to diplomatically correct errors of fact by any so-called "researcher," but in Word Twister Trejo's case I must say that it's a particularly enjoyable thing to do. --Tommy

I'm ready to believe that Black Dog Man was in fact a black dog. It ran away when the shooting started. You're so "dog gone" funny, Ronnie! In fact, you're makin' me howl right now. (Get it? Howl? - Black Dog Man Sniper Dude? - Howl???...) --Tommy edited and bumped

I'm ready to believe that Black Dog Man was in fact a black dog. It ran away when the shooting started. You're so "dog gone" funny, Ronnie! In fact, you're makin' me howl right now. (Get it? Howl? - Black Dog Man Sniper Dude? - Howl???...) --Tommy

It appears that the thread I recall was on the Lancer Forum, and the study was done by Bill Miller, who used to post here. The following EF thread revisits the subject. Note particularly Miller's posts 6 and 13. Also of interest is post 20 by Cliff Varnell, which suggests that BDM was someone dressed as a cop. That would at least make it more understandable that he would be in such an open position if he was a shooter. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16688&hl What about the possibility that Mrs. Chism was holding her baby there and that they were photo-misinterpreted as "Black Dog Man Sniper Dude"? In the same photo there was a soda pop bottle on top of and near the end of the "retaining wall", too, right? Or at least close by? --Tommy

You mean like Texas-based General Dynamics and Bell Hellicopter stock right before the Gulf of Tonkin "incident?" --Tommy

Welcome, Dan. Just thought I'd let you know that being clinically paranoid (preferably with delusions) is a prerequisite to being a member of this, or any other, JFK assassination "forum." --Tommy PS It helps to believe in the genetically-engineered or separated-at-birth Harvey and Lee (and Henry) look-alikes, as well. LOL Just read your bio. Your psychology background should help you deal with most of us.

The average Marine is an excellent marksman? --Tommy