Paul Baker

Can I have your autograph please, David? I'd be interested to know whether you're able to sign your own name, or whether I'd get a palm print or a spidery cross instead.

Why don't you post the relevant images?

THUD! NAA analysis? There's still someone out there who thinks that's serious stuff? Jimbo thinks that neutron activation analysis is junk science. He's wrong of course, but he never admits that he's wrong. I say David, you have a Ph.D in Junk Science. Why don't you educate Jimbo?

I read and considered the entire entry on David Von Pein's website, Bob. Why don't you?

Well well well, what do we have here? Oh ... just another conspiracy theorist selectively quoting a source in order to affirm a baseless assertion. And another two blindly agreeing. How unusual! Paul.

He helped made a difference by misleading the watching nation. Any widespread doubt that ensued was seeded by the opinion of a layman. In fairness, his misinterpretation of the film was probably not an intentional effort to deceive, but I do find it incredible that he was allowed to repeat his nonsense to the HSCA.

"Junk science", you mean? If Groden really is getting unjustly harrassed, that's bad. However, I don't believe it can be because anything he says (or preaches) is going to make a blind bit of difference.

I do get that Jimbo, I was simply making a point. Just like Garrison, it seems that you're attempting to discredit the official version of events by ignoring most of the hard, physical evidence that supports it. This is my impression so far, I hasten to add. It's like you're facing the wrong way. This may be akin to Groden's approach, assuming he's aware of the relatively simple high school physics that destroys his interpretation of the headshot. Paul.

Congratulations Jimbo, you've finally reached a conclusion that may have some validity! I'm reading your book, by the way. I haven't got to the chapter about the assassination yet.

For some sinister reason? Groden has had books published, he has expressed his opinions on live TV and in documentaries, acted as a consultant to the HSCA, advised Oliver Stone, etc. This censorship machine of yours is a bit xxxx, Greg.

Jimbo, that's a bit over the top, isn't it? Even for you! In spite of anyone yet being able to construct a coherent theory of conspiracy that is able to retain water, even given half a century, it nevertheless remains an unfortunate fact that most people agree that there was a conspiracy. So, Martin, I think someone is probably wasting their time and energy.

It never ceases to amaze me how this fallacy is still bandied around, as if it is proof of a shot from the front-right. That if someone is shot, they will inevitably be pushed violently in the direction of the bullet, away from the shooter. A couple of minutes with a pen and the back of a cigarette packet can prove otherwise. Yet - it seems - the majority still believe this nonsense. The fallacy will never die, as long as there are conspiracy theorists like Groden et al to propagate it. I'm sure that the first public airing of the Zapruder film convinced most Americans who saw it that JFK was shot from the front. Seeing the President slam backwards and to the left, that's a natural, instinctive conclusion to reach if you've watched too many make believe films. However, Groden should know better by now. Does he? He must be aware of the forward movement of JFK's head just before his brains exploded out of the front of his head, which is entirely consistent with a shot from behind. If Groden keeps getting arrested or ticketed, is it because he's a threat? Of course not, because if he really were a threat he wouldn't keep getting arrested or ticketed, would he? I imagine there are public nuisance laws being enforced. That's probably too simple an explanation for most folks here. Paul.

There's little point in putting together a sensible response. You're one of those unbending, blinkered folks that make up about 95% of all conspiracy theorists. You and your bigoted cohorts, flaming torches in hand, burn the Church of the Bleeding Obvious.

You seem to have changed your mind. I'm no photographic expert, so can you explain why you would expect Lee's ears to move up or down the side of his head between photographs? By the way, Paul, Robert Groden is not a photographic expert. I'm not sure what he's an expert in. I believe he still rants on about the back-and-to-the-left headsnap to whoever will stop and listen, as if that proves a shot from the front, so he's definitely no physics expert either Paul.

Paul T., my understanding is that the photographs have been proven to be genuine, beyond any shadow of doubt. The studies undertaken to reach that conclusion have been extensive. So quite how any photographic expert can read those studies, yet nevertheless reach the opposite conclusion baffles me. Presumably the experts you refer to used different techinques, whilst completely disregarding those opposing studies. Who are the experts you refer to and what techniques did they employ? You need to look more closely. Oswald's facial expression is different in each of those photos. In CE133-A he is wearing a smug grin. In CE133-B he isn't; his countenance is more akin to a frown. You don't even have to have high quality blow-ups to be able to see the difference. They are not identical. If Lee could produce a convincing fake, I've no doubt he could have produced multiple copies of that fake in order to sate his desires. He didn't need to spend what would have presumably been an inordinate amount of time creating additional, different fakes. By doing that, he would have also increased his chances of being discovered. Paul.

Paul, You've attempted to negate some of the points in favour of the backyard photos being genuine by suggesting that Oswald himself faked them. However, your theory has no foundation because the backyard photos have been proven to be genuine. Not beyond reasonable doubt, rather beyond almost any doubt. Your idea, imaginitive as it is, holds no water. It requires Lee to have been almost an untouchable expert in the field of photographic manipulation and analysis, which you happily and somewhat arbitrarily assume he must have been. Even if this Gigantic leap of faith is a safe one to make, it still wouldn't explain how he was able to manually alter two of the photographs such that they are stereoscopically viewable without giving any indication of forgery. That is virtually impossible. It's also unnecessary in your scenario and another question remains unanswered: Why take the time and efffort to produce multiple fakes? Paul.

Martin, I assume, since the bottom photo is a portrait, that you're comparing differences in facial characteristics. If the top backyard photo is a fake, then it's Oswald's head superimposed on someone else's body, isn't it? Or are you suggesting it's a straight, unaltered photo of an Oswald lookalike? Paul.

Ok, but I still don't understand what would motivate her to say she took the pictures (thereby confirming their authenticity and implicating her husband) if she didn't. Then why create the signed forgery at all, if it was to be witheld? That makes no sense to me. And why, in addition to producing another fake that wasn't needed, did they go one step further and forge Oswald's writing and signature on the back? Again, it makes no sense. As for Groden, he has no expertise in the field of photography or photographic anaylsis. That's not me discrediting him - he's admitted as much himself. Confidence is one thing, stupidity another. We're talking about the possible exposure of a conspiracy and cover-up in the assassination of JFK. So it's certainly the case that those behind any fakery would not want to increase their chances of exposure, however small they perceive that additional risk to be, do you agree? But for argument's sake, let's say they could produce convincing fakes, one after the other. Photographic comparison between copies could expose forgery (stereoscopic analysis, for example), without each copy being detected as a fake in its own right. You've overlooked the stereoscopic analysis. How on earth did the forgers pull that off? Jim D believes a lot of crazy things, but that's a different thread No problem, but conclusions can be invalidated when evidence to the contrary comes to light. Paul.

Hi Martin, Consider these questions: If the backyard photos were faked, why were multiple versions made, when only one would be required to incriminate Oswald? i.e. Why did the forgers deliberately increase the odds of their handiwork being exposed? How did the forgers ensure that two of the photographs can be viewed stereoscopically without any evidence of fakery being visible? This is nigh on impossible. How was Oswald coerced into signing the back of one of the photos? Why did one copy (the signed copy) surface in 1977, 13-and-a-half years after the assassination? Wouldn't those people that wanted to incriminate Oswald do what was required to ensure that particular copy was 'discovered' during the Warren Commission investigation? Why did Marina admit to taking the photos if they were in fact faked? Now couple these questions with the studies undertaken on the photographs and negatives, which have failed to unconver any evidence of tampering. What conclusion do you reach? I think they're genuine. I'd bet my house on it. Paul.

Do you have someone who looks after you, and can read things for you?

I'm sorry to hear that Jim, and I apologise unreservedly for not blindly agreeing with you about NAA. It's a proper can of worms, that. As for the backyard photos, I hope you don't mind but I'm going to continue to believe that they were not faked. Your failure to address a pertinent question on that subject has helped in that regard. Given that most information churned out about the assassination is pro-consipracy, and most of that is simply misleading, I think there is a definite imbalance here that needs to be countered. Let people make up their own minds without brainwashing them, that's what I say. Paul.

Jimbo, It's unbelievable, isn't it? How on earth do the mods let people on this forum that don't conform to the warped world view you store in your addled brain? And you have the gall to call other people arrogant and ignorant! You're a joke, Jimbo, as far as I'm concerned. You are incapable of entering into sensible, balanced debate. How do you spend most of your time 'debating'? By ridiculing others. That is what you generally do in order to 'win' an argument. Anyone who expresses an opinion that is different to yours becomes a target for mockery. One just has to listen to you on Black Op Radio, in particular the debate you had with John McAdams (during which he wiped the floor with you) and the shows in the immediate aftermath. It's clear that you're quite frightened of NAA. This is probably because, if the studies are valid, the case is nailed shut, and you discover that you've wasted most of your adult life searching for the 'truth'. You must know that you can't invalidate the NAA data by simply attempting to discredit people, or are you really that stupid? Incidentally, there is no strict correlation between NAA and metallurgy. In additon, as a meterologist, I'm pretty sure Rahn would require a good grasp of statistics. I'll ask once more, just in case you stop sulking. Here's an opportunity, Jim, for you to come up with a sensible answer and earn some credibility, because currently your credibility rating isn't good (in the real world, that is; don't panic, you're still God in your personal private universe). You believe the backyard photos are fakes. Let's not get into the reasons for that again, because my crapometer is already going doo-lally. Why were muliple fake backyard photos made, which was unnecessary and would only serve to increase the odds of the conspiracy and cover-up being exposed? You've finished with me, Jim? Don't flatter yourself, you didn't even start. Paul.

Jim, you wrote this, in reference to Neutron Activation Analysis, in what was presumably an attempt to completely discredit it: Which is wrong. Laughable even. Of course, I don't expect you to admit that, because in your mind and in the minds of your cronies it's not possible for you to be wrong. Jimbo is always right. Who won the DiEugenio - McAdams debate on Black Op Radio? Jimbo did. Quite why you believe the sun shines out of your elbow is a real mystery. You seem to be concentrating on trashing Guinn's study, whilst conveniently passing over the FBI study that predated it by over a decade. These pages make for interesting reading which shows that the story regarding NAA is not as clear cut as you would have us believe: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/Milam_and_heterogeneity.html http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/Key_problem.html http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/Resolving_the_logical_incompatibility.html There's a lot of information here, but a key quote is: Jimbo, you've selected the opinions of particular scientists that seem to invalidate the NAA studies on CE399 and the bullet fragments recovered. But there are other opinions on the data. In your little private universe you are all-knowing, but outside that you don't really have the expertise to categorically state that one interpretation is correct and the other wrong. Rahn's analysis of the results from both NAA studies (each of which produced comparable results) is quite comprehensive, and really doesn't deserve to be disregarded out of hand on the whim of someone who doesn't understand the subject. You are, after all, the same person that believes that cavitation caused the ejection of brain and blood matter out of the front of JFK's head, and its reactive movement back and to the left. As I've already said, a scientist you ain't Jimbo. Can I remind you of a question I asked earlier, which you failed to address? Why did 'they' produce muliple forgeries of the backyard photos, which would of course increase their chances of being exposed? Paul.

Exactly, Martin. NAA in itself is a viable technique. The real question is, were the conclusions drawn from the analysis viable? As usual there are differing opinions about this (look here, for example: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/NAA.html). Jimbo likes to make blanket statements that are stupid and fundamentally false ("there's no real science to it") in order to steer his arguments in the direction of his own preferred conclusions. Like using a hammer to drive in a screw Paul.