David Von Pein

If you can't figure that one out, Charles, I feel sorry for you. That's an easy one.

This is probably just like the Elmer Todd/CE399 controversy. For years, CTers insisted Todd's initials weren't on the CE399 bullet. But when hi-def photos emerged of the bullet, Todd's initials are plainly visible: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html I'd be willing to bet that this Lt. Day/CE573 episode is exactly the same as Todd & 399. And some high-resolution photos would no doubt prove it (just as they did with Elmer Todd).

That's absolute nonsense, Pam. If we were to completely eliminate and disregard all of Marina's testimony, Lee Oswald's guilt would still be ironclad in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases (based on the available evidence).

Thanks, Pat. Point taken.

FYI / FWIW.... Here's another excerpt from Vince Bugliosi's book regarding George DeMohrenschildt, the CIA, and J. Walton Moore (who, btw, is also referred to by Bugliosi as Walter Moore; and both DeMohrenschildt and Albert Jenner refer to him as Walter Moore during DeMohrenschildt's WC session [at 9 H 235]).... Click to enlarge: ------------------------------------------------------------------ Related Link: http://DVP's JFK Archives / George DeMohrenschildt's Suicide ------------------------------------------------------------------

Your point isn't confirmed at all via the book excerpt I provided. In fact, just the opposite. Because (via Bugliosi's research) the only "Moore/DeMohrenschildt" timeframe involved was from 1957 to 1961, which was BEFORE DeMohrenschildt ever even met Lee Oswald. So what makes you think there was any discussion about Lee Oswald between Moore and DeM. during that 1957-1961 time period mentioned by Bugliosi (which was a period when Oswald was either in the Marine Corps or in Russia)?

Yes.

Of course this shouldn't be on your list, since it never happened.

David Von Pein said: You think Marina's testimony was the sole basis for the WC finding LHO guilty of two murders? Come now. Let's not forget about the dozens of other things pointing to Lee Oswald's guilt, outlined here:

No, she didn't. She just changed her opinion about whether LHO killed JFK (after she had been inundated, no doubt, with various crackpot [and unsupported] conspiracy theories over the years). But Marina never "recanted" any substantive facts relating to Lee Oswald -- such as the two major facts that many conspiracy theorists, still to this day, think Marina was lying about: 1. Lee admitting to Marina that he had taken a shot at General Walker. and 2. Marina confirming that she took the backyard photos of LHO. What a silly statement that is.

Main Street, Dallas, Texas, in 1895....

It's incredible how the JFK case makes the most obvious things the subject of controversy and debate. (The obviousness of the SBT being yet another example of this tendency.) It couldn't be more obvious that Oswald's basic posture is virtually the same in both of these pictures....and yet there are people (such as Chris B.) who are actually willing to argue the exact opposite. Fascinatingly bizarre behavior indeed.

I would, therefore, suggest you get some new eyeglasses. And focus on the position of Oswald's feet in both images. Notice anything similar there?

More CTer excuses in order to deny the obvious, I see. Main Point: Oswald's general posture is virtually identical in both of these photographs. And that's telling me that Lee Oswald stood in this manner routinely (i.e., placing more weight on his right foot than his left)....

On the contrary, Robert Stone's "Oswald's Ghost" is a very good film.* DVP Review: "Oswald's Ghost" (2007) * IMO.

I think you'll want to change Anniversity to Anniversary, Charles. (I knew a guy who once attended Harvard Anniversity.) 😛

FYI / BTW / FWIW.... Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo of LHO on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos. I wonder if there are now CTers who think the picture on the left is a fake too? .... DVP's JFK Archives / The Backyard Photos (Part 1)

I totally agree with your points above, Gerry. And, in fact, after reading Pat Speer's last post and before reading yours, I was thinking to myself --- Fred himself is probably funding his own video promotions. Seems logical to me.

February 2014. (Verified via the date on the first comment.) Odd that Morley's posts themselves aren't dated in any way on that site. Not even in the URL.

You mean the exact same kind of "black patch" that appears on Clint Hill's head in the same Z-Film?.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/ Was JFK's Head "Blacked Out"?