Paul Baker

No mystery here, as the slightest attempt at thought would disclose.

Oh good. Another blinkered moron to deal with. Why don't you consider indulging in a bit of thinking yourself, assuming that's something you're capable of?

Immediate ad hom. Way to stay classy, there Paul. You are nothing if not consistent.

Robert, I bought up what I thought was a valid point. You kicked off the school playground stuff, unprovoked, with "... the slightest attempt at thought would disclose." Grow up FFS. Don't be surprised if people get angry when you act in this way.

Those actively seeking to debunk Mercer's "incredible story" - for whatever spurious motive - need look elsewhere.

So you believe that an assassin walked up the grassy knoll carrying what was obviously a rifle case, 90 minutes before the assassination? Isn't that a bit stupid?

This is straight from the David Aaronovitch school of logic. “I can’t be arsed to do the homework necessary, so I’ll just dispense with that formality by claiming something is too ludicrous to have occurred and hope that’s sufficiently persuasive.”

Could you tell me what's wrong with dismissing something that is ludicrous? The suggestion that these professional hitmen set up a full 90 minutes before the assassination in full view of the public and police is ludicrous. It is only the blinkered CT'ers, such as yourself, that would support such a ridiculous idea.

If you have investigated the case at all, you will be struck by the number of completely counter-intuitive events that transpired. The fact that you find Mercer’s tale hard to credit doesn’t make it wrong, and you certainly haven’t proven it is.

I don't need to. What's the point of re-inventing the wheel? It's already been done. Look at McAdam's site, it's all there to see, plain as day. I merely suggested something that, I think, discredits Mercer's story even further.

By your logic, President Kennedy wasn’t slain in Dealey Plaza because it would have been “a bit stupid” for Secret Service to allow the motorcade to turn onto Houston and then Elm, given that it violated their own protocols.

And by your logic, Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t slain on TV either, because it would have been “a bit stupid” for the DPD to let just any bozo into their midst at that critical juncture; particularly a man well known to them from his multiple arrests in Dallas, including at least one pinch for packing a concealed weapon.

“Things” happen all the time, even those you might insist are too stupid to occur. Moreover, had you done your homework on this, you’d have noted that both Mercer and Arnold Rowland reported seeing presumably different gunmen in the vicinity at different times prior to the event and - surprise! - assumed they must have been Secret Service.

By their own independent accounts these two people who were unknown to each other uttered a virtually identical phrase: “The Secret Service isn’t very secret.” And why? Precisely because they assumed it would be stupid for an assassin to be so bold as to hide in plain sight. Nothing is too absurd to be true, so long as it works.

Er... do you know what logic is, Robert? I'd suggest you read up on the subject. You're taking the usual CT approach. Rather than directly addressing a single (and in this case, rather simple) idea, you prefer to load your blunderbus with xxxx and start firing.

Her story has been thoroughly discredited, so I don't need to do that.

Citation please? Hit pieces by McAdams and Reitzes, et al, don’t count. Or perhaps they will suffice for you, if you’re prepared to set the bar that low. Whomever “thoroughly discredited” the Mercer story certainly wasn’t with the Warren Commission or even the HSCA, both of which gave her a wide berth.

Look at the links under 'Julia Ann Mercer' on this page: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

You'll find this on the 'Police Statements' page:

JOE MURPHY, Patrolman, Traffic Division, Police Department,

Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was stationed at the

Triple Underpass on Elm Street to assist in handling traffic. At

approximately 10:30 - 10:40 AM, a pickup truck stalled on Elm Street

between Houston Street and the underpass. He was unable to recall the name

of the company to whom this truck belonged but stated it is the property

of the company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and

Akard in Dallas.

There were three construction men in this truck, and he took one

to the bank building to obtain another truck in order to assist in moving

the stalled one. The other two men remained with the pickup truck along

with two other officers. Shortly prior to the arrival of the motorcade,

the man he had taken to the bank building returned with a second truck,

and all three of the men left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.

MURPHY noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the

one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime

prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade. He described the

stalled truck as being a green pickup and noted the truck had the hood

raised during the time it was stalled. This truck had side tool bins on

it, and they had a considerable amount of construction equipment in the

back.

MURPHY futher stated it was probable that one of these men had

taken something from the rear of this truck in an effort to start it. He

stated these persons were under observation all during the period they

were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved

prior to the arrival of the motorcade, and it would have been impossible

for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of

President KENNEDY.

Is it reasonable to assert that this is the same event that Mercer witnessed? If so, there is clearly a simple and innocent explanation. For whatever reason, Mercer decided to add the rifle (and later, Oswald!)

And little wonder. The wife of a former Congressman, Mercer wasn’t so easily dispensed with as the strippers, hookers and junkies who were habitues of Ruby’s milieu. What’s more, she had the means necessary to bring legal counsel with her had she been called to testify.

Perhaps you think her story is preposterous because she maintains that statements she gave to the local cops and FBI were altered., and that her signature was forged. Were this the only instance of such allegations, one could easily agree. But numerous witnesses claimed intimidation tactics, alteration of their statements and even alteration of their WC testimony.

Oddly enough, if one catalogues each such instance of claimed alteration, the result always runs in the same direction, counter to anything suggestive of conspiracy. Were these alterations the result of mere mistakes or misunderstandings, one would expect a rather more even distribution of outcomes.[/color]

I was merely adding something that I'd never heard dealt with before. As the pictures above demonstrate, Ruby is not readily identifiable at the time of the shooting of Oswald. Mercer claimed she recognised him at that moment (as does Hill),

Citation please? Provide documentary proof that Mercer claimed she identified the shooter as the man she’d seen in Dealey Plaza at the instant the shot was fired, rather than after seeing his picture on TV soon thereafter. Your Garrison memo quote from more than four years after the fact doesn’t quite make it clear. Failure to provide same only underscores that what you’re arguing against is your own preferred assumption as to what she said, and not necessarily what she did say.

What isn't clear? "I again recognised Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald"

Since she still seems to be alive, and would only be about 70 years old by now, perhaps you could undertake the effort to locate her and find out precisely what the truth of the matter is. At least at that point you’d either be able to make your claims with some basis in fact, or be forced as a matter of honour to retract them. [/color]

and I suggest that isn't possible. I appreciate that his name was established immediately, because many of the people in the basement knew who he was (I've listened to the radio broadcasts over and over), but how could his name mean anything to Mercer? It's the face that's important here.

I again recognised Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald and I said to my family, who were watching TV with me, 'That was the man I saw in the truck.'

Mercer, I think, has to go the same way as Arnold, Hoffman and Hill.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, perhaps before you dispatch her to whatever purgatory you think appropriate, you might explain the following:

Mercer didn’t come forward voluntarily, but was apprehended by police who overheard her make a comment. If she lied as an attention-seeker, why didn’t she rush forward to capitalize on her tale?

Is it uncommon for people to augment events just to make them seem more important? Perhaps it was enough for her to garner attention from people she knows, and she had no intention of letting the police know her false version of events. She could comfortably lie to friends, but not to the authorities.

If her description of the vehicle (green Ford pickup with toolboxes in the rear) was invented, why is there precisely such a vehicle present in some Muchmore frames?

Who said she invented it? I'd suggest she simple embellished her story.

If there was no such truck broken down in Dealey Plaza prior to the event, why is there a police affidavit specifying that the reporting officer thought it was a legitimate breakdown in traffic? (CD 205, page 320)

If the men she saw in that truck weren’t real, why does her first-day description of them match exactly the description of men later seen in that area by Lee Bowers? Did Mercer and Bowers secretly collude to invent matching observations for no known reason?

That some aspects of her tale are corroborated by other facts and witnesses doesn’t automatically make her story entirely true or accurate. But one cannot simply dispose of such a problematic witness by first ignoring her in the hopes that her story will recede (WC, HSCA) and then pretending there was never any corroboration for it, as you seem intent upon doing.

It never fails to amuse me that those who rail against Jim Garrison as being incapable of tying his shoes nevertheless cite him as gospel when it suits their purposes. [/color]

Hmm... more flawed 'logic'. Why shouldn't I believe that this is what Mercer told Garrison, whilst still believing that Garrison seemed to accept any and every story that towed the conspiracy line?

Assume, presume and suppose whatever you please. Don’t insist that others share your bias without offering something more persuasive than "it's been done so I don't need to."

Thanks for posting the pictures Bernice.

And thanks for the whimsical bitch-slap, Greg Parker.

Paul.

I agree that we'll never discover the truth about the assassination of JFK, for one simple, pedantic reason. We already have.

'

Paul, even those who think they "know" Oswald fired the shots that killed Kennedy, should be able to recognize the unique aspect of this case--that NO ONE can honestly say they know why he did it, or if anyone else put him up to it.

The question of motive even haunted the Warren Commission...

I'm not sure if 'haunted' is the right word, Pat. It's not neccesary to establish motive in order to prove guilit, as I'm sure you're aware, but naturally it is something that demanded attention. The attempted murder of General Walker is a significant waymarker. Lee had no qualms about killing somebody, and in a sneaky, cowardly way. Months later, when Lee learnt that the president was going to pass right by his workplace, the temptation was too much. Here was an opportunity. Who knows, really, what was going on in his tiny mind? I'm not even sure it would be that interesting.

I'm sure you've seen the documentary, Beyond Consipiracy, in which Robert Oswald gives us a useful insight into his brother's personality. Robert is convinced that his kid brother killed the President, and acted alone. That's about as close to the horse's mouth we can get, thanks to one Mr Rubenstein.

Paul.

I agree that we'll never discover the truth about the assassination of JFK, for one simple, pedantic reason. We already have.

No mystery here, as the slightest attempt at thought would disclose.

Oh good. Another blinkered moron to deal with. Why don't you consider indulging in a bit of thinking yourself, assuming that's something you're capable of?

Those actively seeking to debunk Mercer's "incredible story" - for whatever spurious motive - need look elsewhere.

So you believe that an assassin walked up the grassy knoll carrying what was obviously a rifle case, 90 minutes before the assassination? Isn't that a bit stupid? Her story has been thoroughly discredited, so I don't need to do that. I was merely adding something that I'd never heard dealt with before. As the pictures above demonstrate, Ruby is not readily identifiable at the time of the shooting of Oswald. Mercer claimed she recognised him at that moment (as does Hill), and I suggest that isn't possible. I appreciate that his name was established immediately, because many of the people in the basement knew who he was (I've listened to the radio broadcasts over and over), but how could his name mean anything to Mercer? It's the face that's important here.

I again recognised Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald and I said to my family, who were watching TV with me, 'That was the man I saw in the truck.'

Mercer, I think, has to go the same way as Arnold, Hoffman and Hill.

Thanks for posting the pictures Bernice.

Paul.

Howdy,

I was reading JFK and The Unspeakable over the weekend. In the section that covered the 'control' of Dealey Plaza by mock Secret Service agents (dependent on the usual suspect witnesses), something occurred to me. Julia Ann Mercer claimed she recognised Jack Ruby on the TV when he murdered LHO (Jean Hill said so too). But in the TV footage I've seen, I don't believe it's possible to ID Ruby. So I was wondering, is he clearly identifiable at some point in the footage, and I just haven't seen all of it, or is this yet another reason to doubt Mercer's incredible story?

Paul.

I know all about image compression. It is not selective to a single area of an image to create a ball with

a stripe when there was no ball and stripe. This is a single frame of the movie captured just as it appears

on the screen without compression or manipulation. The shape would NOT appear there unless it is on the

film. It is NOT a compression artifact. If that were true the entire image would be affected, not just this

one area.

Jack, you are wrong. Compression can affect different areas of a picture in different ways. The algorithms used to compress an image are quite complex. And compression of all but the simplest of images results in loss of detail. Please take time to compare the relevant frame in Duncan's post with your own. There is no ball in the former. But even if there was, it beggars the simplest question: Why?

I reckon I could grab a high quality image related to the assassination and compress it to prove my point. Do you think that would be a worthwhile exercise? I'm not sure whether anyone's demonstrated this already.

Kind Regards,

Paul.

Are you going to admit that you need to see an eye doctor? That you cannot see a "ball" with a stripe?

Go ahead, admit it. You are wrong.

Jack, I have near perfect vision. Of course I can see the shape you describe. When I first saw the image you posted (and have posted several times now) I could see that it was compressed. I looked at the file type, and could see it was in jpeg format - a compressed image format. Designed to minimise the size of images that are sent back and forth over the Internet. Under most circumstances this compression isn't important. However, when it comes to finding anomalies in the photographic record it is imperative that high quality images are used. Your work in Murder In Dealey Plaza appears to me to be all jpeg based. It's not good enough. The 'ball' in that image is a result of compression. Look at Duncan's images. You get the merest hint of that shape in his rendition. In your picture, it's obvious. Why? Not because of some whistleblower that decided to put a bowling ball in a specator's hand in the hope that some time later you would notice and blow the whole operation apart, but because of the file format.

Jpeg is not a static format. You can adjust settings to trade off image size against quality. Look here: Jpeg. Do you use Photoshop? Are you aware that you can tweak the settings so that images are larger (in terms of storage space) but of higher quality. I'd be more than happy to help you with this, if you don't already know about it.

Kind Regards,

Paul.

Jack,

Are you going to admit that you've made yet another mistake? Once again you've presented a "study" using a crop of a compressed (jpeg) image. Duncan has shown - unequivocally - that your bowling ball is a combination of your imagination and compression artefacts. His presentation doesn't suffer from the flaws that yours does.

Go on Jack, admit it. You are wrong. Can you do that, or will you simply keep putting up pointless threads? If the truth hasn't already been established by the work of the Warren Commission, how much closer to reality do you think your work has moved anyone? I know the answer, do you? Someone wrote here that even if 5% of your work is accurate, it indicates that something is amiss.

Here's a simple question for you Jack: What's 5% of nothing?

Paul.

... the woman in the blue dress and red coat (or sweater) with her right arm raised in the air ...

It's a red cape. I think it's Superwoman, just about to take off.

I am really disappointed with those of you who like to offer so much critical advice.

How come you do not notice and call to my attention that the man's bowling ball which

nobody noticed has a PERFECTLY HORIZONTAL STRIPE AROUND IT? Now you math guys

surely know that random chances of this happening by "accident" are 1 in 180....pretty

long odds, huh? So would you conclude the 1/180 "chance" happened, or that a human

hand with a T-square may have helped? Com'on people...help with this photoananysis.

Jack

Jack, I'm astonished that you haven't noticed that the man has three legs and is on skis.

Oh how dull, Todd.<g> How can a hum drum ordinary jacket compete with a giant stuffed dog with an enormous head ... that morphs into a crying baby in a different film? LOL

For a certain people here, the blindingly obvious is hidden in the shadows just beyond the ends of their noses.

We once had a perfect, *perfect* I tell you, likeness of Abraham Lincoln's face, complete with stove pipe hat, in the grain of a cupboard door in a bathroom. One had to be enthroned just so to appreciate him though ...

One frame anomaly.

Jack, that "yellow object" sure looks to me to the building on the right side of the street that the car is passing. I'm with Robin on the "little girl" analysis too. That doesn't look like any little girl I've ever seen before.

Since you are unfamiliar with little girls, I will point this one out to you.

Jack, yet again you are hallucinating. Please stop posting nonsense, it just gets in the way of serious research.

Paul.

Jack, it appears to be a coat.

I find it difficult to disagree with these sentiments. Lemkin is a rock, and perfectly justified in breaking the rules he occassionally enforces.

xxxx xx xxx Lemkin woz ere xxx xxxx xxxxxx x xxxxx

Peter, you do seem to be very selective in your moderation.

Jack's work xxxxx. Truths really can be that simple.

Paul, if you think that the inaccuracy of some of Jack's studies in any way supports the "truth established by the Warren Commission", you really need to study the evidence with blinders off...

Every one of Jack White's studies is false. Every single one. Look at MIDP for starters. People like him, and Fetzer and Healey for starters, are so ignorant it defies belief. Eight, nine, ten shots were fired. Mary Poppins was the spotter. If you want to find the truth, start at the evidence. LHO went home on a Thursday to get some "curtain rods". His rifle in the Paines' garage disappeared at about the same time. LHO walked to the TSBD on Friday morning carrying his rifle in a bag. Later on that day the Chief Executive of The United States Of America was shot as he passed that building. I could go on. Work it out, it's not rocket science. The fact that not a single piece of real evidence suggests otherwise tells me that your average CT is a moron.

What's wrong with the single bullet theory? Sixth floor window, straight line ... oh take your sunglasses off. Anyone here know anything about physics?

Let's bounce this one up.

Jack, any comeback from you? No, of course not. This thread has "too many problems".

Lemkin, why wasn't this moderated. Is it because you are a GOON? Yup.

Everyone knows that Moorman's photo was taken by an automated camera. The Umbrella Man had the remote. Why was he standing on one leg?

Jack - fart us an answer.

I ALWAYS TALK HONESTLY ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Yes Jack. It's just a shame it's out of your xxxx. Or xxx, whatever you call it over there.

Every single one of your xxxxx xxxxxx studies has been proven to be the product of an xxxxxxx or biased mind. You cannot respond to those criticisms. Rather than move towards the truth (which the Warren Commisson established over forty years ago) you seem intent on veering away from it. Then your supporters, like Fetzer (read my books, read my books), Healey (dur, dur, dur, dur) jump in to steer the car towards the curb.

Jack, feel free to type AD HOMINEM in capital letters (there you go, I've saved you the job - copy and paste). I'm sure you're a loveable, wonderful man, and I'd be happy to talk to you over a pint of real ale, but .... well, give up. Find something more useful to do. Do you have a garden?

Lemkin - ban me, I don't care. By the by, you're an utter nutter. I told my friend about you (injured in the fake London tube attacks) and she burst into tears. Do you have any grip on reality?

Why normal people waste their time on something called "The Edukashun Forum" is beyond me. There are good people here - and you know who you are. Give it up, ignore these morons.

Paul.

Edited by Peter Lemkin - next time I won't be so easy on you Paul. I suggest you examine your anger and apparent hate. Ad homs and constant attacks are not allowed. Just as the sun is having increased solar activity now, you seem to be exuding increased ad hom activity.

Excellent

I'll go 50-50.

If you read witness statements, or even listen to the news recordings on the day, you'll find the general consensus is that three, evenly spaced shots were fired.

Jack or Jim, could you explain the reason that this picture may have been faked?

(Incidentally, the reason people aren't waving or clapping is because it's a static picture, rather than a film).

Douglass - JFK and the Unspeakable

I bought this last week, and was disappointed to find - yet again - reliance on the usual incredible witnesses. Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffmann, etc. I immediately gave it one star on Amazon as a result.

fake London Tube bombings

Peter, I know someone who was badly injured in one of those attacks. I saw her injuries, there was nothing fake about them. You're a lunatic.

It is entirely likely

that the CIA, assuming they were in charge of the operation, had the

plaza area LITERALLY LOADED with AUTOMATED CAMERAS.

Another lump of smelly BS is added to the steaming mountain.

Then "Murder In Dealey Plaza" came out and I bought it right away and read Jack Whites section before anything else

I did exactly the same Dean. Does it not bother you that all of Jack's "studies", including those in that particular book, do not stand up to close scrutiny? Take a long hard look at The Zapruder Waltz, for example. Jack draws outlines around things that he thinks are there, and Marilyn Sitzman becomes some giant lurching monster. I've seen her, and she's not that shape at all. That's my favourite study, because my ten year old nephew saw it and managed to effectively debunk it.