Michael Clark
-
Posts
4,737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Clark
-
-
5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:
Lance, are ufo believers conspiracy people? Do they fit into your theory?
I wanted to bring that up but I didn’t want search for Lance’s paranoid or paranormal experience in which he believes he and his Volkswagen Beetle (bus?) were enveloped, and then spared, by a swarm of alien invaders. Perhaps he’ll recount the story for us.
Also, for those who don’t know, or don’t recall, Lance’s parents, or grandparents were tycoons in the United Fruit empire, IIRC. Perhaps Lance will reiterate that relationship, for the sake of accuracy.
-
On 10/23/2009 at 4:25 PM, Sherry Sullivan said:
This is Sherry Sullivan, daughter to Geoffrey Sullivan who disappeared with Alexander Rorke in 1963. My father and Alex had a secret meeting by driving from Waterbury Connecticut to somewhere along the coast, perhaps New Haven area. This occurred in the summer of 1963. They first drove to a mansion with guarded gates, went inside, then were escorted onto a boat for a secret meeting at sea. I've done some researching on who may have owned this type of property at that time. It must have been someone high up in the ranks. Any thoughts on this subject would be appreciated. My new email is sassully@roadrunner.com
I always think of William F. Buckley when I come across this thread, and your post.
-
On 8/30/2019 at 4:06 PM, Lance Payette said:
Given a patsy with a large-caliber military rifle
On 8/30/2019 at 4:56 PM, Michael Clark said:.256 “ is a very small round.
39 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:That's why the military used them to plink at tin cans, old bottles and oncoming enemy soldiers.
M-16 is a .223” round, even smaller. They don’t get much smaller in terms of caliber, which is the bullet’s diameter.
-
48 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:
Given a patsy with a large-caliber military rifle
.256 “ is a very small round.
-
On 1/9/2005 at 9:36 PM, Denis Morissette said:
Very interesting indeed.
Did you know that Brugioni wrote a book on photo fakery?
http://www.vho.org/tr/2000/4/tr04fakery.html
Here is the cover of the book and a photo of Brugioni seen on the LEFT.
Its rare to find a link this old still functional. I might as well save it as text.
Photo Fakery Exposed!
Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation Dulles, Virginia: Brassey's, 1999.
REVIEW
Richard A. Widmann
Dino Brugioni begins his study of photo fakery with a brief discussion of Arthur C. Lundahl, the first director of the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center. Lundahl always cautioned that the discovery of a photo that has been tampered with "could have the impact of exploding gunpowder." From this initial thought, Brugioni leads the layperson through the explosive topic of photo fakery with the intent that his book will serve as a reference aid to identify photo fakery and manipulation.
Brugioni, one of the founders of the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center, certainly has the credentials to write such a volume. Interestingly this CIA expert in the field of photo fakery and manipulation also co-authored the CIA report, "The Holocaust Revisited: A Retrospective Analysis of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex."
In the 1979 CIA Report, which was touted by the media as the only photographic evidence of the Holocaust, Brugioni and his co-author, Robert Poirier, analyzed aerial reconnaissance photography to determine the activities at Auschwitz-Birkenau from June 1944 to January 1945. Although Brugioni has asserted that his interest in the subject was prompted by the television mini-series "Holocaust," others have theorized that the rise of Holocaust revisionism in the late '70's may have actually been the cause.
Brugioni's first experience with photo fakery occurred shortly after the CIA hired him in 1948. He notes that "it became immediately apparent to me, even as a neophyte in the intelligence game, that the Soviets had embarked on a massive program of misinformation during the war years. On reviewing still photos, I found that the Soviets had used heavy brush techniques to delete details of their weapons. Care had also been taken to portray their leaders in the most favorable light. Reviewing Soviet newsreels, I found that many battle scenes had been deliberately staged; often, dramatic scenes of one battle would be superimposed to show up in films of other battles."
Photo Fakery takes the reader through a complete course on photo manipulation. Brugioni explains that there are four different techniques for faking photos: removing details, inserting details, photomontage, and false captioning. The last of these varies from the earlier types in that the photo itself is not manipulated, but the context of what the photo is supposed to convey is falsified.
Examples of the four types of faked photos are presented. A shocking example of the removal of details comes from a Communist Romanian newspaper in which an individual standing in the background of a photo of Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev is simply removed from the photo; a bush fills in the space where this man stood. Another key method is the insertion of details. Brugioni writes, "a good technician can also add details that were not in the original photo. An artist can add in features that may be lacking on the photo." The photomontage is a composite image. Essentially multiple photos are combined to place one object in the context of another.
The final method of faking is false captioning. Brugioni tells us, "proper captioning of a photograph includes descriptive data regarding the 'who, what, where, when, and why' of the subject or scene. In falsely captioned photos only one or more of these elements is usually mentioned." An example is shown of a FBI photo in which a murder suspect is led to believe that one of his intended victims had been killed. The photo shows a man with what appears to be a bullet wound to the back. Brugioni explains that the photo was actually staged and the blood is nothing more than ketchup.
Not only does Brugioni reveal the methods of photographic manipulation and show many examples, he also unravels the history of photo fakery. Brugioni explains that "the art of photo faking is as old as photography itself." His book abounds with faked or manipulated photos dating back to the American Civil War. Such photos show corpses inserted into battle scenes and famous Generals added to group shots.
Perhaps the most interesting chapter deals with "Spotting Fakes." Brugioni explains why photos have been faked, "Photos have been doctored for many reasons: fraud, greed, malice, humor, profit, deception, education, and to sway public opinion, to rewrite history, to sow discontent, and to waste the time of many people." Surprisingly, this chapter, which begins with reasons for fakery including "to rewrite history" and to "sway public opinion," actually concludes with a discussion of concentration camp photos and Brugioni's work on the subject.
It is important to note that Brugioni in no way claims that any aerial photos of concentration camps are faked-although it must strike many as incredibly odd that they are included in his chapter on "spotting fakes." It also strikes this writer that Brugioni may be involved in a sort of game or challenge to his readers in general and to Holocaust revisionists specifically to discover his own chicanery.
Concentration camp photos in this chapter include one of Belsen after the British burned the barracks due to fear of an epidemic of typhus and typhoid. It is followed by the same photo run through various stages of computer enhancement to "reconstruct" the camp structures from the ash left from the burned buildings. Another concentration camp photo discussed is an aerial shot of Belzec. Brugioni notes that the photo "revealed the massive pits where the bodies were buried." He also includes one shot of the Birkenau camp from 25 August 1944 and one of Auschwitz I from the same date.
In his text he notes: "In 1978, photo interpreter Robert Poirier and I discovered World War II aerial photos of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp that had inadvertently been taken on leader film during an Allied reconnaissance mission against the nearby I.G. Farben Synthetic Rubber and Fuel Plant. Using a variety of density slicing and enlargement techniques, Holocaust victims who had arrived in boxcars at Auschwitz could be seen being marched to their deaths in the gas chamber. Others could be seen lined up at a processing center for slave labor assignments."
A close examination of these two photos in comparison to the 1979 CIA report on Auschwitz-Birkenau may generate some suspicions. Neither picture in Photo Fakery matches that in the CIA report. The photo of Birkenau in Photo Fakerymight be the same photo that is labeled No. 4 on page 9 of the CIA report. The Auschwitz I photo is closest to Photo No. 2 on page 7 of the CIA report.
In Fakery the Birkenau photograph is cropped very differently (if it is the same photo). The captioning and labeling is also different. In Fakery much more of the Women's Camp is shown and the "Gas chambers" are at the very far right of the photo. Actually it is impossible to see the extreme right of Crematorium II or Crematorium III. The photo goes right into the binding of the book. Therefore the Undressing Room of Crematorium III which is clear in the CIA report is not shown at all in Fakery. In Fakery there is a label reading "Gas Chamber Crematorium" which points to the thick line which may be a fence or hedgerow behind Crematorium II. The label in the CIA report that reads "Engine Room" and points to Crematorium III is now labeled simply "Crematorium." The label in the CIA Report that reads "Prisoners on way to Gas Chambers" now reads "Group on way to Gas Chamber."
Although the labels are different and the cropping is very different, the "prisoners" themselves match up exactly. Therefore it appears that Brugioni chose to use the same photo in both books but to alter its appearance in the more recent one. The odd "Zyklon openings" in Crematorium III clearly visible in the CIA report are now off of the photo entirely. It's not that they don't appear, it's that the photo is cropped to exclude them. The four "dots" that line up behind Crematorium II are still visible in Fakery. Note that the photo under discussion appears to be the same photo in John Ball's Air Photo Evidence on page 40. The new book crops it from "Prisoners undergoing disinfection" and cuts off at the vents of Crematorium II and Crematorium III.
The Auschwitz I photo is similar to Photo 2 from the CIA report. However in the CIA report it is claimed that the photo is from 4 April 1944 while in "Fakery" it is labeled 25 August 1944. Also, the photo in Fakery is on an angle. In the CIA report the barracks are straight up whereas they appear at an 11:00 angle in Fakery. All of the photo labels are different. Otherwise the photos cover the exact same section of the camp. This photo is similar to the one in John Ball's book on page 44. However the photo in Fakery is upside down and cropped to only show the far right of this view. Actually there are details in Fakery which go further to the right than the photo in Ball's book.
Considering the photographs in Fakery in relation to John Ball's Air Photo Evidence is important. Ball theorizes in his book that a number of the photos in the CIA report have been faked. The particular method of fakery that he identifies is the adding of details. In Ball's work he concludes that "every mark which the authors of the CIA report used to conclude that homicidal gas chambers were in operation on the August 25th photos had been added to the photos after they were exposed in 1944."
One should wonder whether it is plausible that Brugioni altered the presentation of the photos in his new book due to the revisionist work of John Ball. In personal communication with Ball, he explained confidently, "I sent Brugioni my book in 1993 so his cropping has been done to cover up my expose of the drawn-on marks."
The most obvious example of photo faking by Brugioni is in regard to the "prisoners" in the Birkenau photo. John Ball is convinced that these marks were drawn on the photos. Recall that Brugioni admits that a good technician can add details to photos. We must also remember the fourth method of photo faking identified by Brugioni-false captioning. Brugioni claims in his CIA Report that the marks are "prisoners on [the] way to gas chambers" and similarly in Fakery as a "Group on way to [the] gas chamber."
A good understanding of false labeling should make the reader question if indeed that group is on its way to the gas chambers or in fact are they merely on their way to the barracks or for that matter out for a morning jog. A single photograph of course can not reveal where the prisoners were headed. Only a long series of photos or a film could reveal such information. Surely an expert such as Brugioni knows this. But then again he himself admits that photos are doctored to "rewrite history" and to "sway public opinion."
Brugioni concludes his book by noting that "when a photo is manipulated in any way, truth is compromised; when truth is compromised, distrust begins." He is also quick to comment that "Communist and other nations often rewrote history by removing people and events from photos, despite the fact that copies of the original photos were usually available throughout the world." It's intriguing to wonder if this book might be a secret challenge to revisionists, or perhaps a private struggle of conscience for its author.
We may never know Brugioni's motives for writing such a revealing book on photographic fakes, nor his motive in writing the CIA report on Auschwitz over 20 years ago. Perhaps Brugioni has considered Lundahl's warning that the discovery of a faked photo "could have the impact of exploding gunpowder." Is Brugioni having second thoughts about his CIA report? The answers to these questions may be explosive indeed.
-
Lee, if you still get notifications, you presence is missed.
In relation to this/a particular, present situation, it was claimed/insinuated (elsewhere) that some number of your posts were deleted. I think that I read that you deleted them. Can you clarify, or, perhaps, return?
On 4/29/2004 at 2:37 PM, Lee Forman said:Hello. My name is Lee Forman. Born in 1966, I had written several reports on the JFK assassination back in my High School days in the early 1980s, concluding that a conspiracy was unquestionable. My interest in the case began in part due to my older brother's curiousity, as he had been born November 23, 1963.
I am at present a Sales Director working in the Telecom sector. I received my Bachelors in Political Science at Messiah College in Pennsylvania in 1991.
My interest in the JFK assassination debate was renewed following my learning of letters which had been sent to A&E by Ladybird Johnson, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, criticizing the airing of "The Guilty Men" on the History Channel, due to it's implication of Lyndon Baines Johnson as a conspirator.
-
Dhttps://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/GEHRICH%2C INGE MARIE_0041.pdf
BKTRUST Not in MFF
MHHARSH Not in MFF
WOCORK Not in MFF
AEGLOBE Not in MFF
ARST acronym for Activen, Reservisten, Soldareund, Traditionsverbaende
It looks like BKTRUST is the CIA
According to: http://fliphtml5.com/nevd/hgko/basic ...
BKTRUST is CIA
-
-
-
A thread for surfacing Pseudonyms and Aliases
-
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10256-10020.pdf
259910. Mitch Werbell
-
On 8/28/2019 at 12:11 AM, James DiEugenio said:
And now he has chosen to leave. Doesn't that tell you something about why he was here in the first place.
That is the heart of the matter, soup to nuts. It really was an an interesting event. It revealed what his motive was. Preservation of his posts could have been achieved without publishing them. He is not interested in debate, or he would still be here. He did not value being part of this community. He does not respect the community. I think a by-line in the terms and conditions should be that that you “value and respect the forum and the community and demonstrate it. If you do not, you are not welcome”
-
I think that this forum has some fantastic content and writing, some of it from brilliant minds. I think an anbsulutley successful website could be made from selecting portions of it. I think it would be completely legal and not imoral to do so (I’m no lawyer). I also fear that the contents of this site could be lost. But, I would not even think of doing what you do simply because other people would not like me for having done it. I KNOW that I would be marginalized by the community and I would EXPECT to be unwelcome, or banned.
I don’t understand why you don’t get it, David. I actually think you are feigning your astonishment. I have to think that you have wondered, for years, how stupid we must be to put up with it.
-
15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
I have merely copied the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS I have put on the table here over to my own site (for the reasons stated). The arguments that I have archived at my site are NO DIFFERENT than they are here. For some reason, the CTers here seem to think otherwise. But they're wrong.
You made a choice. You chose your trophy wall over being welcome.
You said “too bad” to those who don’t want to be mounted on your wall.
I can’t imagine making that decision. However I like to think that I am incorruptible.
-
4 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
I think Jim and others were and still are bringing up a legal point. Can someone publish their work without a license? That is the issue and I think they have answered the question. I was willing to help all involved but was told apparently I was wrong lol. So, let the chips fall where they might. Mr. Gordon made a tough call but gave his reasons. David perhaps you should consider finding a compromise that makes everyone happy?
Well put, and I agree. I think I was the only one making a case outside of rules and law. I don’t think your book would lose in court. Yet, there are courts that stand outside of a court of law. I can’t imagine having the gall to carry-on like DVP did, and happily walk among it’s members. If earning the respect of your peers is the definition of self-actualization, then David has sunk pretty low. He may have earned respect for his debate skills, but his website, as attested here, is a stab in the back to everyone that did not appreciate his self-promotion and pernicious proclivities.
-
8 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
Mr. Gordon, would the forum care if i published a book called "a collection of forum posts". This book would verbatim quote debates between members. I would adf my commentary regarding the posts. I would charge $29.99 and of course give no one any royalties or license payments. If the forum is ok with this, I will get my book published asap. Is there a difference between publishing a book or on a web site? There is some dangerous ground here.
It’s a matter of decorum, not legalese, IMO. Some may argue, and win, the argument presented here, but no-one can argue that the forum owners have the right to make such a decision.
Heck, I was given a vacation by James and he was clear that I had not broken any rules. I accepted that and moved on. David made a choice here. His pathetic forum-debate trophy wall was more important to him than engaging in debate.
-
44 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
...........
Bye.
Enjoy your fickleness until this forum goes belly-up in the near future.
That’s ironic. It sounds like a death wish for a platform that gave you such enjoyment for so long.
Remember, David, that your flaunting of your foul behavior is what raised the ire of the membership...
On 8/19/2019 at 10:20 PM, David Von Pein said:Edit: multiple links to DVP’s forum have been deleted in this quote from this forum.
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
David says my assertions have been explained numerous times in reasonable ways, but so far he hasn't explained or countered a single one. In my view, that's very telling.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, quite frankly, after doing this back-and-forth "CTer vs. LNer" thing at various forums for about 16 years now, it gets tiresome and repetitive to type in the same answers time and time again (year after year). Which is one of the main reasons I created my link deleted page at my "JFK Archives" website/blog, so that I can quickly access information about a particular assassination sub-topic being discussed (which is what I did in my first post above). It sure saves a lot of time (and typing).
But, quite obviously, Mr. Zartman didn't like any of my Lone Assassin arguments in those links at all. Oh well, such is life when talking to a conspiracy advocate.
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
David's interpretation of events is, in my opinion, not reasonable. He seems to be trying to convince us of the single bullet theory by using a simplistic and flawed logic based upon the fundamental refusal to believe that evidence could ever be suppressed, altered, or destroyed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But CTers don't ever seem to want to admit that ANY non-SBT theory involves far more complications, implausibilities, and incredible coincidences than does the Single-Bullet Theory --- e.g., the perfect "lining up" of the bullet wounds on the two victims. CTers don't think it's a bit odd or incredible that THREE different bullets would have had to cause those three bullet wounds in Kennedy and Connally (and have the wounds line themselves up in a perfect "SBT"-like manner) if their conspiracy theory is correct about JFK's throat wound being a wound of entry.
And then there's the disappearing bullets that the conspiracy theorists say entered JFK's body but never exited---and then those bullets were never seen again.
I guess I'm supposed to think that those two incredible things I just mentioned are more believable and more reasonable than to just believe that one single bullet went through both victims simultaneously (which is, of course, precisely what the zapruder film shows (link deleted) based upon the reactions of Kennedy and Connally seen in the film).
Link deleted
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
He [DVP] is also completely ignoring the experienced (at least in terms of Parkland) medical professionals who were there at the time and examined the President's wounds in person.
The doctors at Parkland knew the difference between a bullet entrance wound and a bullet exit wound; they had seen and treated them many times. In my opinion, it is arrogant to try and imply that they didn't know the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound and that your flawed and biased logic trumps their real world medical expertise. They saw an entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck. I'm not going to trust David's simplistic, immature, and what I view to be fundamentally flawed "logic" over the doctors who had experience in seeing that kind of wound in person and who all reported seeing a bullet entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck at Parkland.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Among the few doctors who actually saw the throat wound at Parkland Hospital before Dr. Malcolm Perry cut through it to start the tracheotomy, there were at least two physicians (Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico) who said that the throat wound could have been "either" an entrance or an exit wound.
Do CTers think that Perry and Carrico are lying to the Warren Commission here?:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"
DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MR. SPECTER -- "Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?"
DR. CARRICO -- "Yes."
MR. SPECTER -- "Or, did it look to be more one than the other?"
DR. CARRICO -- "No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck."
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
The doctors at the Bethesda autopsy examined the back wound and felt the end of it. It was a shallow wound. It did not traverse the body. The single bullet theory ends there. LN's have not and can not provide one piece of evidence that CE 399 did traverse JFK's body except with what I feel is immature "logic" that willfully rejects any notions that any evidence could be suppressed - even if there are multiple instances where evidence WAS suppressed in this case.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The fact that there was NO WHOLE BULLET IN PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ENTIRE BODY is strong evidence (all by itself) that the bullet went clean through his body.
Plus, there's the fact that the autopsy doctors knew that JFK had one bullet hole of entrance in his upper back and one bullet hole of either entrance or exit in his throat, with very little damage in-between those two cutaneous wounds.
Two bullet holes. No bullets in the body. No major damage in the body that would have caused a bullet to stop dead in its tracks. Hence, we got this conclusion from the autopsy surgeons (which is the only reasonable conclusion the autopsy physicians could have logically reached):
"The missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Warren Report; Page 543
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
And I am sure that my last post about Admiral George Burkley was going to go nowhere, because LN's can't explain it. I understand why they wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. If I were an LN, I would be ashamed to have to stand behind the Warren Report as well.
To recap for those just joining us, Burkley was the President's personal physician. Burkley was the only medical professional to see Kennedy at Parkland and Bethesda, and Burkley directed the President's autopsy. Burkley was not called to testify in front of the Warren Commission. And LN's think this failure of the WC to call Burkley to testify was entirely reasonable and that the WC did a thorough and fair investigation of JFK's murder.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There were several witnesses who could have been called by the Warren Commission to testify, but weren't. Dr. Burkley was one of them. Bill Newman was another. Gayle Newman another. Charles Brehm another. And James Chaney. And on and on.
But, in my opinion, none of the people I just mentioned are key "conspiracy" type witnesses at all. Not even Bill and Gayle Newman (link deleted), who have been touted for decades by CTers as critical witnesses that prove a conspiracy in JFK's murder. But they actually don't prove any such thing.
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
Lee Harvey Oswald was seen on the second floor of the TSBD at 12:25 PM, the exact time when JFK's motorcade was scheduled to pass the building and 5 minutes before the assassination, and he was also seen there in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:32 PM, calm, collected, not sweaty, possibly even holding a soda, two minutes after the assassination and seven minutes after he was last seen.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're placing way too much faith in Carolyn Arnold....
Link deleted
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
Is it reasonable to assume that Oswald ran up four flights of stairs, ran a maze of boxes from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the 6th floor, politely forwent shooting JFK or Connally in their faces as they moved toward him on Houston, shot the president and Connally with the only rifle ammunition remaining in his possession, while his vision was obscured by tree branches, ran another maze of boxes to stash the rifle, ran back to the stairwell, ran down four flights while not being observed by others who were also descending the stairwell at the time, and arrived back in the same place, not appearing suspiciously sweaty or even breathing hard, all in seven minutes? Is that reasonable?
Or is it truly unreasonable to even entertain the possibility of the explanation of why Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:25 PM and seven minutes later at 12:32 PM was that he was in the lunchroom the whole time.
That kind of thought enrages Lone Nutters. Their proof that Oswald did all that running and shooting and running was the shooting itself. They know he did it because they know he did it. They know Oswald is guilty, so they know that anything suspicious that can't be explained in a non-conspiratorial way CAN be explained in a non-conspiratorial way, because they know that Oswald did it. It's this circular, fundamentally flawed logic Bugliosi relied upon.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, you're starting out with a false premise in the first place---Oswald being on the second floor at 12:25 PM (based on Carolyn Arnold's 1978 tale about having seen Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25, which is almost certainly a false story).
I'm not going to type out all this material yet again, so it's "Link Time" again. Click if you so desire. If not, so be it:
..... links deleted
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
Why did Oswald go back to his boarding house for his revolver? Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to have carried it into the TSBD with him when he went to work that morning, on the chance that he might have to shoot his way out afterward?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I touched on this issue almost exactly 9 years ago at The Education Forum:
--- Quote On: ---
"Oswald also knew that nobody at the TSBD had his Beckley address, so that fact would buy him some extra time to go get his revolver (and, no, I don't know why he would not have taken his Smith & Wesson revolver with him to work on 11/22; the reason there, IMO, is likely because he would have needed to take the revolver into work at the Depository Building TWICE [and transport the gun in Wes Frazier's car TWICE too], because of his unusual Thursday trip to Irving; perhaps he thought Frazier might see it and start asking questions, with Frazier possibly putting 2 & 2 together and then saying something to somebody about LHO having a gun; I really don't know).
I also think it's quite possible that Oswald just simply forgot his revolver when he left for work on Thursday, the 21st. His plan to murder JFK was, indeed, slipshod and half-assed in some ways. And it certainly reeks of being "last minute" (or nearly so, relatively-speaking).
But, hey, it's hard to argue with success, isn't it? He achieved his primary goal of killing the President, despite a slipshod getaway plan.
Too many people criticize the way Oswald did things on Nov. 21 and 22, 1963. But, as mentioned, it's hard to knock perfection. And Oswald achieved "perfection", from his point-of-view -- he assassinated the person he was attempting to assassinate." -- DVP; August 21, 2010 (link deleted)
--- Quote Off ---
My 2010 comment about Oswald needing to take the revolver into the TSBD twice assumes, of course, that Oswald would not have wanted to leave his revolver somewhere inside the Book Depository overnight on November 21-22. But hiding the gun someplace overnight within the TSBD would certainly have been an option for Oswald had he brought the revolver to work with him on Thursday morning.
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
Why didn't Oswald go to the bus station, or take a taxi to an airport, or have any plan whatsoever after the assassination? According to the official story, Oswald gave up a taxi to a lady, and then boarded a bus that was heading back in the direction he came, and then took another taxi. I don't know if he boarded that first taxi, but that's TWO motor vehicles that he was able to get on, yet his very best plan for escaping after the crime of the century was to... go to the movies. Reasonable, right?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Oswald didn't have a car of his own. So how else would you expect this Lone Assassin to get from Point A to Point B on November 22nd? He'd have to either walk, take a bus, or a taxicab, or hitch a ride with someone. And LHO did three of those four things right after the assassination. All three of which seem logical to me from the POV of Oswald as the lone killer who was trying his best to get away from the crime scene in Dealey Plaza as quickly as possible.
And his plan most certainly did not include going to the movies. He ducked into the movie theater merely because the theater was handy and nearby, and at that point in time he was desperately trying to avoid capture after killing Officer Tippit. And what better place than a dark movie theater to hide out and get off the sunny streets? Makes perfect sense to me. Which means, of course, it won't make a lick of sense to a JFK conspiracy theorist. (What's new there?)
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
Is it reasonable to assume Oswald planned out the assassination, but gave absolutely no thought at all to escape, especially since he had over $180 at his disposal and a demonstrated ability to leave the country?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
As I've said in the past, I don't think Oswald really thought he would have a chance to shoot JFK from the Depository on November 22. He took his rifle to work that day, yes. (There's no question about that fact, IMO.) And he wanted to shoot Kennedy that day, yes. But he knew that the odds would probably be against him as far as being able to secure total privacy at the exact moment when JFK passed by the building. And it's my opinion that if LHO had not had the total privacy that he ended up having on the sixth floor at exactly 12:30 PM on 11/22, he would certainly not have attempted the assassination at all. And if Bonnie Ray Williams had not vacated the sixth floor when he did at about 12:20 PM that day, Oswald would have abandoned his assassination plan.
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
Is it reasonable for Louie Steven Witt to have had his first and only political protest of his entire life right next to a stranger with a handheld radio precisely in front of the president being assassinated? A specific type of protest/heckling that no one else seemed to have ever engaged in before, invoking Neville Chamberlain, a man whose visual trademark was using a closed umbrella not an open umbrella.
Is it reasonable to be suspicious of Witt when he claims to have had his vision blocked by the umbrella, when we can all clearly see with our own eyes that the umbrella was over his head at the time of the shooting? What is the reasonable explanation for his lie? When is being suspicious going to be appropriate?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, certainly not when we're talking about Umbrella Man. Because being "suspicious" of Umbrella Man means that I'm going to have to start believing in some really crazy conspiracy s-h-i-t --- like poisoned darts coming from that umbrella in broad daylight and in front of hundreds of witnesses. Or: having the umbrella being used as some sort of signaling device to tell the shooters when it's okay to fire. And neither of those conspiracy theories comes close to measuring up on the "Reasonable" or "Believable" scales.
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
Oswald didn't want to be tied to the rifle, so he ordered it under an alias that ended up tying him to the rifle. More luck, in this case good luck for the LN's and bad luck for Oswald. Is it reasonable to wonder why Oswald didn't just go into any gun store in Texas and pay cash for a rifle if he truly didn't want to be associated with it? If he truly, truly didn't want to be associated with the rifle or take credit for JFK's assassination, why did he pose for a picture with it?
How many times had Oswald posed for photographs with his weapons before?
How many boarders had Ruth Paine ever taken in, before and after the assassination?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In my opinion, it was crazy for Lee Oswald to keep the rifle in his possession for seven months after he tried to kill somebody with it on April 10, 1963. But the fact remains: he did exactly that. He shot at General Edwin Walker in April, and he held on to that same Carcano rifle for seven more months and then killed John F. Kennedy with it in November.
I guess maybe my point here is: The mindset of an assassin is a hard thing to figure out.
DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:
I could go on and on, but the LN's hand wave it all away. Luck, coincidence, mistakes...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In a case the size and scope of the JFK/Tippit/Ruby case, there is bound to be quite a bit of all three of those things --- Luck, Coincidence, and Mistakes. And there are. No doubt about it.
But what I want to know is:
How much evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald are the conspiracy theorists willing to "hand wave" away?
And, where is that link that you say that you provide to the gentle reader, for that thing called “context”? That is what the embedded forum “quote” feature is for.
-
I think everyone is getting ground-down in minutiae (sound familiar?). Members are saying that they don’t like it. David says too bad.
His lifting of this material is taking these items out of a context of debate and mounting them on his wall, for his own benefit, in a context of ridicule.
He says he is saving his material. He doesn’t need a website to do that.
It’s akin to being a guest of a guest at a party, recording their conversations, publishing them out of context, and then asserting his right to attend the next one.
No rule is necessary to tell the boy to bugger-off when he shows up at the next one.
-
-
Bill’s list is wide open. I am sure they could have packed it full over a lunch break. But they left it wide open for the participation of others. And they are generous about giving credit to participants.
-
8 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
The thing is, Wilcott is the only source of the hearsay information and even he wasn't sure. He testified under oath that he couldn't remember the crypt or who told him. Before the supportive audience at the Cuban Tribunal he repeated that the crypt was "something like" RX-ZIM "or a crypto of this kind with 2 consonants and 3 or 4 pronounceable letters." So, Mary Ferrell is being very prudent when they call it speculative.
Tracy, if you please, don’t derail this thread. It has nothing to do with RXZIM or Wilcott. It’s not even about Cryptonyms. It actually a very cool opportunity to get in a very fun and interesting endeavor.
-
-
1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:
Enough with this BS David.
Remove my content.
David, remove my content from your site.
-
On 8/25/2019 at 5:29 PM, David Von Pein said:
Why on Earth do you have a problem with it, Bart?
And....
Why the sudden about-face from this stance you took just two days ago?....
"No need to delude yourself any longer. Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway. 😁😝😂 " -- Bart Kamp; 8/23/19
It's obvious from that quoted remark that you couldn't have cared less about this matter on August 23rd. And yet, just two days later, you're acting as if you care very deeply. A most curious quick switch.
(But maybe I hit the nail on the head when I used the word "acting" just now. Ya think?)
I wouldn’t do what you do David.
if I knew that people didn’t like it, I would take it down.
It wouldn’t matter if I was legally entitled to do it.
If I Was asked to a members posts down, I would.
Its an absolutely pernicious act to do what you do when you know members don’t like it and you continue to do it.
Lastly, it’s an abuse to the EF membership to continue doing it.
A Beginner's Guide to the Conspiracy Game
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Michael Clark
Some of these people, I have to believe, have a conscience. When they join in a flock it must aleviate the guilt of turning a blind eye towards the cold blooded murder of good people, to some extent. But, it doesn’t work, entirely, for all of them. They know it and they feel it. It is not our work to force them to face their cowardice. The truth does that. It is our job simply to seek the truth. There is no shame in brushing them aside, and there is no obligation to, and nothing to be gained by saying that Lance is such a nice boy, on the surface.