Paul Baker

[... assorted rants, removed for clarity ...]

Oh dear Jim, you really are in rant mode now aren't you? So much so that you seem to have glossed over my points about the photographs, which I thought were quite sensible and valid.

The Lindbergh baby kidnapping and murder. I think there was much more to it than just "wood evidence", wasn't there? For starters, "Jafsie" helped out a bit, by lying under oath. But lets not get into that, eh Jimbo? We might even find ourselves agreeing on a few things!

Jimbo, I am a SCIENTIST. I'm a SCIENTIST that knows that Neutron Activation Analysis is a sensitive, reliable and accurate technique. You, on the other hand, probably don't even know what a neutron is. The method has been verified and is used by the SCIENTIFIC community (a real research community, not one in which a dogmatic zany like you is revered). You, of course, are happy to ignore that and rely on the words of a few individuals because what they say fits into your skewed version of reality.

If there is such a thing as McAdams disease, then I'm quite happy to have it, since it does seem to enhance clear, logical and common-sense thinking. Do you know if it's contagious? I'd happily sneeze into an envelope and post it to you. You could obviously use some of that.

And why are you calling me a fruit? Isn't that American slang for homosexual? You're beginning to sound like your idol . You might be a bit unhinged, Jimbo, but Garrison was way off the scale.

Paul.

Paul,

I accept your points above regarding the photos, but how then does a version of the backyard picture emerge within the files of the Dallas PD with just a ghostly figure (i.e. no Oswald) in it?

If photographs have been found that just show just the background, I'd suggest they were taken to help establish the authenticity of the backyard photos (photogrammetric / shadow comparison, perhaps). I'm not sure about a copy that shows a ghostly image, can you point me in a particular direction?

One of the things that Jack White pointed out, that I did agree with, was that a background comparison of two of the photos showed an identical background, something that would be extremely difficult without using a tripod.

Personally I disregard Jack White's so-called "studies" out of hand. If not all of them, the vast majority have been debunked with relative ease in the past by people that know what they're talking about. If he wasn't mistaken on this, I'd assume he was comparing two identical images.

Also, I would view any evidence from Marina Oswald with extreme caution.

Why would she admit to taking those photos, and therefore implicate her husband, if she didn't? Some might argue that she was told to say that or face deportation or some other threat, but as far as I know she's never recanted her statement and I'm sure that if any threat was made, it's no longer applicable. It's been established that the pictures are genuine, so someone took them, and Marina is the most likely (if not the only) candidate for that task.

In addition, I believe the backyard pic shows a rifle with a scope. It's my understanding that the rifle was not shipped with a scope, and an "Oswald" had a scope fitted locally shortly before the assassination. What's your understanding of how the scope got onto the rifle?

Martin

This is something that Jimbo would harp on about as if it's important. If the rifle didn't come with a scope, but it had one when it was found, then the odds are that Oswald acquired one and fitted it.

MW: I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

[... waffle obliterated for clarity ...]

Well, EIsendrath went ahead and gave each panel member a photograph he had faked in some way. He told them IN ADVANCE that the photo had been faked. Their job was to explain to him 1.) What had been done to the picture, and 2.) How it had been faked.

The result was this:Not one of the panel got either question right. Not one.

Eisendrath went to HSCA consul Mickey Goldsmith with the disheartening results. Knowing full well that this would rob the panel of any credibility it could have, he suggested destroying the report. Well, of course, this got back to Blakey. He decided not to destroy it but to classify it. Therefore, when the HSCA report came out in 1979, all that was in it was the analysis saying the BYP were real. Not the test showing that none of these guys could figure out how a picture was faked even though they knew it was.

[... waffle obliterated for clarity ...]

Geez, Paulie, first the NAA and now this. And you didn't know about either?

What kind of researcher are you? Not a very good one.

Jim,

I can only find scant references to this so-called "Report on Fake Photography Project", but I can't find the report itself (Googling '"Report on Fake Photography Project" Eisendrath' for example, returns two results which ultimately originate from you). But reading the HSCA Photographic Panel Report, it's clear that several sophisticated analytical techniques were used to examine the backyard photographs. It's not clear to me whether Eisendrath's forgeries were subjected to the same level of examination by the panel, though I would tend to doubt it.

In any case, the fact that two of the photos can be viewed stereoscopically with no indication of fakery strongly suggests that they are authentic, given that it is almost impossible to achieve this effect with composite forgeries. Regardless of any doubt you attempt to cast on the expertise of the HSCA photographic panel, Jim, the effect is present in the extant photos for all to see. In addition, two supporting facts remain which are not affected by the study. Firstly, that Marina admitted to taking the pictures, and secondly, that Oswald signed the back of one of them.

One has to ask an important question. Why did those who had a vested interest in framing Oswald decide to produce more than one forgery? This would only increase their chances of detection, which is something I'd assume they'd want to avoid. It would make more sense to produce a single photograph, since one is all that's required to implicate Oswald. Additional and near identical copies don't augment anything; they are therefore pointless. Yet as far as you're concerned, "they" went to all the trouble of producing multiple versions, whist ensuring that two of them are viewable stereoscopically without revealing evidence of forgery (which is, as I've already mentioned, nigh on impossible). Answer that one, Jim.

Jim, please try to get this through your cantankerous skull: NAA is a very reliable and accurate analytical technique. Your statement that 'there's no real science to it' carries zero weight. As a researcher you're dubious, but you're clearly no scientist at all.

Paul.

I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

You might be wrong about that, yes.

He "might be", but he is not.

He's actually quite correct.

~Sigh~

I realise the whole concept of admitting when you've made a mistake is completely alien to the likes of you and Jimbo, but as I've already pointed out, I misinterpreted Martin's words.

I realise that alternative solutions to issues and the whole concept of curiosity are alien to you, but I had a reply box up on my PC for about 15 minutes before I actually wrote and sent my message.

If I had seen Jim's comprehensive reply [that has probably already been deleted from your brain] I wouldn't have posted.

I have edited my original response accordingly.

What a gent, thank you.

It hasn't been deleted from my brain. Life just gets in the way of things sometimes.

I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

You might be wrong about that, yes.

He "might be", but he is not.

He's actually quite correct.

~Sigh~

I realise the whole concept of admitting when you've made a mistake is completely alien to the likes of you and Jimbo, but as I've already pointed out, I misinterpreted Martin's words.

PB: You might be wrong about that, yes.

Nothing typifies Baker more than this ignorant reply.

Before I digest the latest xxxx shower from Jimbo, I'd just like to point out that I misinterpreted Martin's words. I thought you were referring explicitly to the BYP, Martin; i.e. that the HSCA panel knew they were faked but said otherwise.

Paul.

None of the manufactured evidence "helps", it was not meant to.

You got the gist of it no problem.

And none of the manufactured "evidence" has been tested .

If they were so sure they were real why not test them ?.

Governments do not baulk at the opportunity to spend vast sums of

Our money trying to convince us about thier ideas.

Except in this case the U.S. government would rather turn Ostrich.

O'Really's book is just an echo from days long gone changes are coming

Be ready for more revelations the whole year.

What can the Warrenati do ?.

BLEAT AND REPEAT!.

Oh good, another nutcase on the forum.

I look forward to the 'revelations'. In the meantime I think I'll just ignore you from now on. I'm sure you'll find someone else prepared to waste their time with you, Ian.

I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

You might be wrong about that, yes.

Also, I didn't agree with all of Jack White's claims about the BYP but if even 1 of them turns out to be true.....

Most clear-thinking people know that in terms of photographic analysis, Jack White - rest his soul - was no expert. It would be stretching the truth to describe him as an amateur. Look at the photo section in Murder In Dealey Plaza for confirmation.

They are not shots of him in the TSBD with a rifle ,

Baker logic is find a picture of anybody with a rifle !. but is it evidence

Of murder ?.

All it can ever do is imply which it has .

They prove nothing!.

I put that into Google translation and it crashed.

The photos of Oswald holding the weapon that was used to kill President Kennedy prove nothing? Ian, are you sure about that? Think about it for a while. I didn't say they prove that Oswald killed Kennedy, but, coupled with other evidence, they prove that he owned the murder weapon.

O'Reilly places stock in the rifle

You made a joke, Jimbo! Was that intentional?

In my debate with him, I continually ignored the BYP. For the simple reason that, to me, that is a cesspool. You will never get out of the multiple arguments pro and con. I used to partake in these. I don't today, since I think the newer and stronger evidence is that Oswald did not order or pick up that rifle. This preempts the photos.

The newer evidence is stronger than a set of photos of Oswald holding the murder weapon? Photos that are geniune beyond doubt, because:

• Stereoscopic studies have shown that they have not been altered. It's nigh on impossible to alter either or both images that constitute a stereo pair without the alteration being evident when the images are viewed stereoscopically.
  
• Examination of the negatives and comparison with control pictures taken using the same camera has shown that they have not been altered (as well as demonstrating that they were taken using Oswald's camera).
  
• Photogrammetric analysis of the photos gave no indication of alteration.
  
• Marina admitted to taking them.
  
• Oswald signed the back of one of them.
  

What more do you want, Jim? I think the reason you're keen to brush the BYP aside is because they obviously blow away your "newer and stronger" evidence.

Paul.

I can read Paulie. And i both read and listened to Randich and Grant. Which you did not.

And I read the Spiegelman/Tobin piece.

If you can convince anyone here that you know more about the NAA, bullet lead composition testing than two metallurgists, and two statisticians with Ph. D.'s, then please do. These guys are all certified to testify in court. You are not. And never will be.

Jimbo, you're ignorance on this subject is demonstrated by use of the phrase 'there is no real science to it'.

Maybe you have not noticed, but I have not referred to the BYP. I don't think anyone who has any experience in this debate will. They have been argued over forever, as has been the writing. Once it was said it was Marina's writing.

Of course I've noticed. As you are aware, there is more than one body of handwritten text on the back of that photo. The passage (paraphrasing) "To my friend George de Mohrenschildt* [...] from Lee Harvey Oswald" was identified as being in Oswald's handwriting. Scrutiny of the photographs and the negatives has shown that they are genuine. And, of course, Marina admitted to having taken them.

Paul

* This word is probably spelled incorrectly.

It [NAA] won't be used again because there is no real science to it.

There's no real science to it? Whoa there Jimbo, don't start getting all highbrow on us. You might get mistaken for a man of letters.

Ruth Paine didn't find the box. No-one saw the box. Therefore Oswald didn't have any ammo and couldn't have shot the President. I can just see that being taken seriously in a court of law. Really, what planet are you on Jimbo?

Violation of postal rules, blah blah blah, magic money order blah blah blah. What are you trying to prove here? That Oswald didn't get the gun, or are you merely highlighting deficiencies in the US Postal Service circa 1963? It can't be the former, because ... (deep breath) ... THERE ARE PHOTOS OF OSWALD HOLDING THE MURDER WEAPON. One of them even has Oswald's signature on the back! Not even you can ignore that particular piece of incontrovertible evidence, Shirley?

Paul.

Not unless he had further magical powers that we are unaware of. Such as the ability to fire an invisible weapon down stairways and around corners from the second floor lunchroom.

Ok, you win. Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom as the shots were being fired.

After the President's head exploded, he really didn't do himself any favours by fleeing the TSBD (the building from which the shots were fired) and murdering a police officer (and attempting to murder another), did he? Silly Oswald!

You said something about my behaviour being disrespectful to those who have spent (wasted) their lives trying to uncover the truth (which was established, more or less, in the 24 hours after the murder). I think your behaviour is disrespectful to the memories of JFK and J.D.Tippit, and I find it incredible that people like you are prepared to defend the cowardly, psychopathic little scumbag that was Oswald. Shame on you.

Paul.

This shows why Bakerism is incurable. A guy who simply does not know what he is talking about, but whose ignorance does not stand in the way of him making an ass of himself.

... crap deleted for clarity ...

Jim, why do you recycle the same crap over and over (and over) again?

What happened to the ammo boxes? Stretch your imagination here - perhaps Oswald threw the boxes in the garbage? Maybe he didn't use a box to take the ammunition he needed to kill the President to the TSBD. As Craig says, you're making something out of absolutely nothing. It's what you're good at.

You know about those backyard photos of Oswald holding his rifle, don't you? You have seen them? So, regardless of your rather pathetic attempts to cloud and obfuscate the issue, the simple fact of the matter is that Oswald owned the murder weapon. We know he ordered it and we know he received it. By all means continue firing the Bullxxxx Blunderbuss about the place, it can't alter that unassailable fact.

In the right hands, NAA is a reliable and accurate analytical technique. There were two NAA studies of CE399 and the recovered bullet fragments and they pointed to the same conclusion. Two bullets that originated from Oswald's rifle, in turn affirming the single bullet fact. But, in any case, the NAA evidence is probably superfluous. Without it, it's still an open and shut case.

As for the wrong rifle. Hasn't it been established that Klein's ran out of the model that Oswald ordered so sent him a different one? A better one, I believe. That was standard practice. No doubt you'll continue to regurgitate that particular discrepancy over and over (and over) again as if it has some sinister significance.

I guess you'll carry on recycling the same crap over and over ... as long as you can pull the wool over the eyes of idiots.

Paul.

Oswald was being watched. Continuously.

Did they watch him murder the President?

You see, this is why you are an idiot and I will forever stand by calling you one.

By all means continue. I'd be insulted if I felt I could credit you with some intelligence.

Would you want to be convicted on this type of "evidence"?.

Of course not, but I'd fully expect to be.

So you're one of those people that thinks there wouldn't have been enough evidence to convict Oswald. Perhaps you even think, like some loonies do, that he didn't commit any crime at all.

There now exists a mountain of “credible evidence” that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the fraud and corruption of the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, the MSM and the Warren Commission.

Lee, I really hate to piss on your bonfire, but this simply isn't true.

Idiots like you stand in the way of truth and your behaviour is an insult to the likes of Bill Kelly who has spent his entire life demanding truth and justice concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy.

I'm going to tell teacher that you called me a bad name.

Then you must mean the ammo right?

Except no one could find any of this ammo in Oswald's belongings after the assassination. Even though both the FBI and DPD went through them thoroughly for days. And this would have had to have been the case since the WC says there were only four bullets used. No gun shop sells single bullets. And the FBI cased the Fort Worth-Dallas area. Nobody recalled selling Oswald that ammo. So what do you think Paulie? Someone gave him four bullets and said, "Kill Kennedy with these?"

"No gun shop sells single bullets." I'm not sure what you're getting at here Jimbo, me ol' mucker.

Let's assume that you're right, that no gun shop sells single bullets. What happens if I buy a box of bullets from one of these shops that doesn't sell single bullets, and use them all except for one. Here I am with a single bullet. Should I expect it to vanish in a puff of warped DiEugenio logic?

What happens if, say, Oswald bought the bullets somewhere other than the Fort Worth-Dallas area? What if he did buy them in the Fort Worth-Dallas area some time ago, and the seller forgot what at the time was no doubt quite a mundane experience?

So you haven't proved that Oswald didn't buy the ammo. But even then, he didn't have to, did he? He could have got the bullets by some other means.

Oh, you must mean the shells found at the scene then, even though Oswald didn't buy the ammo.

You mean the shells that were rearranged by the DPD, since they looked too suspicious there within a few inches of each other? And when the FBI tested the ejection pattern, nothing even close to that happened. Or CE 543, which could not have been fired that day and had to have been dry loaded to emerge with the dent it had on it?

Are you referring to the hulls found in a neat line on the sixth floor? I'm not sure. That's just one of those popular fallacies that you lot like to spread about the place to inject doubt. Say Jim, what did those employees beneath the sniper's nest at the time of the shooting hear hitting the floor above? Are you seriously suggesting that the conspirators took the time to move them into an unconvincing position afterwards? Not the sharpest tools in the box are they, these consiprators? It's a wonder they've managed to evade detection for half a century!

You mean the rifle with which the WC tried testing with both military snipers and FBI agents and they could not do what Oswald did?

You mean the rifle that professional rifle men could not even use to do tests on because the scope was misaligned, the pull was too hard, and the firing mechanism too fragile?

I don't think that's true, is it? Wasn't it demonstrated that it was possible to fire the weapon in the time frame that Oswald needed with the required level of accuracy. Is this something that CT'ers tend to forget? If the scope was misaligned to the extent that it was unusable, Oswald could have fired over open sights. In any case, it isn't clear whether the scope became misaligned after it was found on the sixth floor. Sure the firing mechanism may be described as 'fragile', in that it often jammed. But it didn't always jam, did it? It would be quite possible to fire three shots without jamming.

You mean the rifle which does not match up to the bullet identified by O. P. Wright, chief of security at Parkland, and former Sheriff's deputy?

I mean the rifle that ballistics matched to CE399 and other bullet fragments recovered after the assassination. Try sticking to best evidence, Jim.

Then you must mean the NAA tests right?

Except those have been exposed as being phony junk science by two teams of specialists, both including a metallurgist and statistician. So much so that the FBI will never use them in court again.

What's wrong with Neutron Activation Analysis then Jim? Enlighten us. My understanding (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that NAA studies were carried out twice on the bullet fragments, and both sets of results were valid, and both strongly suggested that the fragments came from two bullets and were fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles.

Sigh. Jim's reloaded the Bullxxxx Blunderbus.

You mean the rifle that Marina never saw until she changed her testimony for the WC? Prior to this, she said she never saw a rifle with a scope before. (BTW, she changed her testimony on Mexico CIty also for the WC.)

How about those backyard photos? Proven to be geniuine, beyond any doubt. The rifle in the picture tallies with the weapon found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on the day of the assassination. Marina admitted to taking the photographs. So to say that Marina never saw the rifle, just because she's expressed doubt about the scope, is you doing what you always do Jim.

You mean the rifle that no one at the post office recalls giving Oswald? Even though the FBI had assets there reporting on him?

Forgive me, but why is this important? There is evidence which shows that Oswald ordered the rifle. There's an order form and postal order in Oswald's handwriting in the name of A. Hidell, the very same name on the forged service card found on Oswald when he was arrested. There are genuine photos of him holding the rifle sometime after he received it. Why does it matter if no-one remembers giving it to him? That proves approximately bugger-all. Oswald ordered and received the rifle, and no amount of you picking little holes here and there is going to change that.

You mean the rifle that ordered in one name, yet got in a PO box made out in another? Thereby breaking the rules of firearms delivery at the time?

Oswald had fake ID he could have used to authorise a certain 'A Hidell' to collect from his PO Box, no? Either that or someone broke the rules! Deary me. Big f**king deal. That's like arguing that Oswald couldn't have killed JFK because it was against the law. You're clutching at straws here, Jimbo.

You mean the rifle that there were no proper forms filed for delivery, even though this was a national law at the time and Klein's was a huge arms dealer then.

Sigh. You mean the rifle that Oswald ordered (order form and postal order in his writing) and received (photos of him holding it) ... ?

You mean the rifle that somehow Oswald paid for with a money order that never went through the Federal Reserve system, yet the WC says was processed from Dallas to Chicago and into Klein's bank account within 24 hours? (We should call this the Magic Money Order.)

Sigh. You mean the rifle that Oswald ordered (order form and postal order in his writing) and received (photos of him holding it) ... ?

It never occurred to me that the Internet might allow lonely, irrational, and psychotic people to clutter up the chat rooms and discussion boards. And God knows, the Kennedy assassination is one big magnet. - Dale K . Myers

You just reinforced this statement, Ian.

No credible evidence to contradict the WC ?

LOL, ROTF

.... etc ...

Its you who is not credible. The only jury that would find the WC case credible is one made up on you, DVP, McAdams, Reitzes and Rahn. And that jury only exists in the imagination of you fruit cakes.

Hi Jim,

What do you know about credibility? You believe that Jim Garrison was credible! That ol' Jolly Green Nutcase just couldn't make his mind up, could he?

I'm sure most level-headed people would agree that there is a significant amount of chaff amongst the witness testimony, some of it augmented and some just plain invented. You're quite happy to rely on that, and even to manipulate what remains to suit your own ends. Lee Bowyers is a good example. What did he really see, Jim?

Over the past fifty years, a tornado of crap has been fueled by a long list of people, including yourself and your aforementioned idol. All the while, in the calm eye of the storm, at the heart of this case, has stood a body of hard, physical evidence that is unimpeachable. That's what I'm talking about Jim.

Of course, there's no point trying to argue with someone like you because you seem incapable of listening to anyone who isn't prepared to tell you how wonderful you are. I do like it when you read listeners' questions on Black Op Radio. You only read the ones that have some complimentary preamble, don't you? The ones from the kind of people that are so stupid they still believe that you won the debate against John McAdams. Crrr-azy!

Paul.

And it has a chicken shop too!.

Eh?

In Bakerville, the Hillsborough disaster happened because of drunken Liverpool supporters without tickets and everyone who died there was dead by 3:15pm. Why would anybody believe anything else? That's what the statements and death certificates say.

Lee, I think you've thrown common sense, logic and rational thought out of the window.

The abomination that is the Hillsborough Disaster isn't the same as the JFK assassination. In the case of the former, with time and persistence, the truth has begun to emerge. In the case of the latter, which surely has come under more scrutiny over a much longer period of time, no-one has yet presented an iota of credible evidence that contradicts the basic conclusion of the Warren Commission. How come?

I've no doubt there are such things as cover-up, consipiracy and corruption. That's why there are words for them, I suppose. It's just that they're not applicable to the JFK assassination.

Paul.