Bernice Moore Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) Kathy,The backyard photos are important because they make absolutely no sense unless one accepts the official fairy tale that Oswald acted alone. I don't think it's possible to accept the authenticity of these curious pictures and still maintain a belief in conspiracy. If someone believes that, they would have to explain why an innocent man posed for such pictures. Of course, this is without even taking into consideration the obviously fraudulent nature of the photos. Indeed, the many problems with the backyard photos are one of the strongest indications that there was an effort to frame Oswald. Josiah's statement that these photos are "probably genuine" echo the kind of changing positions Gary Mack has taken in recent years, on a variety of issues. There is nothing personal here; I don't know either Gary or Josiah. However, the reason I take Gary's about face so personally is because I used to respect all the good work he did for "The Continuing Inquiiry" and know that he can't truly believe the official nonsense. Josiah Thompson was a real celebrity to many of us as youngsters first studying this case, along with Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, etc. Thus it is especially painful to have someone of his background label these photos "probably genuine." There is no reason to believe they are genuine in any way, shape or form. I don't know what he means by not being a "true believer." Are we to take this to mean that he doesn't truly believe in conspiracy? If not, what does he mean by that statement? I don't believe in attacking anyone, but this is a crucial issue. Many of us looked up to Josiah as much as you presumably did, and it naturally disappoints us if he seems to be accepting the unacceptable official view of the backyard photos. How does he stand on some of the other aspects of this case that I mentioned- the ones that are part and parcel of the new neo-con platform? Does he think Oswald killed Tippit? Does he think the Umbrella Man was actually an innocuous guy named Steven Witt? Bill Miller, please comment on the backyard photos. ******************** Don: Putting any studies of the backyard photos aside......for now.....see below... Yes, agreed at one time many of us looked up to Dr.Thompson, through his book.SSID.. and no I do not know any involved personally either... and as one who agrees with your statement about the new neo-conspiracy peoples, who imo have been making a slow appearance now for over a year, and are obviously growing..and have posted about such,on another F...in the past...... ...and IMO some names that are surfacing are surprising....perhaps... I do not believe in all alterations, on the otherhand there are simply too many, to ignore all... I do not follow anyone blindly, hell I am too ole now to even think of doing so, and too damn stubborn, to even try....as I have been told, and therefore am quite independent within the studies.... In relation to your post Kathy......In your first paragrph you might substitute Dr.Fetzer for Dr.Thompson..."".Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably." He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that. Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining." I have read where Dr.Fetzer has used the word probably, within his studies.....and you are very correct, when you state, "Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do?.And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? "" and there have been many complaints...re Dr.Fetzer's Moorman studies..on this forum...and some were within your posts. Dr.Thompson, your attitude now towards Dr.Fetzer appears to me imo, to have taken a turn for the worse and not research..... You have stated, on this forums board, words to the effect, you are enjoying it..... So be it, and thank you for making very clear, that is what you are using this forum for.... I used to come here for research, of late all I mainly see is a "get back at you" mentality.... and imo it sucks... Don : Below.......re the backyard photos.......Putting aside anyones studies, this below is from the W/C and has been available for many years.. This tells what they truly thought of such....in photographic form......and can be considered another of their failures..... Have a good look all at the chins...from the W/C.... Thanks.. B.. Edited March 30, 2009 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 Someone I don't know asked me if the backyard photos were genuine or not. I said I thought they "were probably genuine" but that the evidence surrounding them was "a tangled mess." This gets translated into a firm belief on my part that the backyard photos are genuine. Huh!? Again, Len has emphasized the same point that concerned me... Why would Marguerite Oswald of all people lie about these photos and what she did the day after the assassination? Sometimes it seems to me that some of you are like medieval philosophers ready to excommunicate anyone who doesn't agree with the strictest interpretation of the HOLY BOOK. Let me be clear. I never did spend a lot of time studying the backyard photos. Other parts of the case absorbed my interest. What I know was expressed exactly in what I said. They are "probably genuine" and the evidence was "a tangled mess." Instead of excommunicating and labeling me some sort of neo-con (Ha!) you might start discussing just what the evidence is on both sides concerning the backyard photos. My best bet is that a reasonable person will conclude that nothing is clear about them and that the evidence is "a tangled mess." However, that means one has to actually deal with the evidence and not with the conformity or non-conformity of someone else's views with your own. Josiah Thompson Kathy,The backyard photos are important because they make absolutely no sense unless one accepts the official fairy tale that Oswald acted alone. I don't think it's possible to accept the authenticity of these curious pictures and still maintain a belief in conspiracy. If someone believes that, they would have to explain why an innocent man posed for such pictures. Of course, this is without even taking into consideration the obviously fraudulent nature of the photos. Indeed, the many problems with the backyard photos are one of the strongest indications that there was an effort to frame Oswald. Josiah's statement that these photos are "probably genuine" echo the kind of changing positions Gary Mack has taken in recent years, on a variety of issues. There is nothing personal here; I don't know either Gary or Josiah. However, the reason I take Gary's about face so personally is because I used to respect all the good work he did for "The Continuing Inquiiry" and know that he can't truly believe the official nonsense. Josiah Thompson was a real celebrity to many of us as youngsters first studying this case, along with Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, etc. Thus it is especially painful to have someone of his background label these photos "probably genuine." There is no reason to believe they are genuine in any way, shape or form. I don't know what he means by not being a "true believer." Are we to take this to mean that he doesn't truly believe in conspiracy? If not, what does he mean by that statement? I don't believe in attacking anyone, but this is a crucial issue. Many of us looked up to Josiah as much as you presumably did, and it naturally disappoints us if he seems to be accepting the unacceptable official view of the backyard photos. How does he stand on some of the other aspects of this case that I mentioned- the ones that are part and parcel of the new neo-con platform? Does he think Oswald killed Tippit? Does he think the Umbrella Man was actually an innocuous guy named Steven Witt? Bill Miller, please comment on the backyard photos. ******************** Don: Putting any studies of the backyard photos aside......for now.....see below... Yes, agreed at one time many of us looked up to Dr.Thompson, through his book.SSID.. and no I do not know any involved personally either... and as one who agrees with your statement about the new neo-conspiracy peoples, who imo have been making a slow appearance now for over a year, and are obviously growing..and have posted about such,on another F...in the past...... ...and IMO some names that are surfacing are surprising....perhaps... I do not believe in all alterations, on the otherhand there are simply too many, to ignore all... I do not follow anyone blindly, hell I am too ole now to even think of doing so, and too damn stubborn, to even try....as I have been told, and therefore am quite independent within the studies.... In relation to your post Kathy......In your first paragrph you might substitute Dr.Fetzer for Dr.Thompson..."".Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably." He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that. Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining." I have read where Dr.Fetzer has used the word probably, within his studies.....and you are very correct, when you state, "Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do?.And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? "" and there have been many complaints...re Dr.Fetzer's Moorman studies..on this forum...and some were within your posts. Dr.Thompson, your attitude now towards Dr.Fetzer appears to me imo, to have taken a turn for the worse and not research..... You have stated, on this forums board, words to the effect, you are enjoying it..... So be it, and thank you for making very clear, that is what you are using this forum for.... I used to come here for research, of late all I mainly see is a "get back at you" mentality.... and imo it sucks... Don : Below.......re the backyard photos.......Putting aside anyones studies, this below is from the W/C and has been available for many years.. This tells what they truly thought of such....in photographic form......and can be considered another of their failures..... Have a good look all at the chins...from the W/C.... Thanks.. B.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Josiah, You may not know me, but you know my name. I'm the one who asked you the question (and please call me Don- there's no need to be formal). With all due respect, I don't see the backyard photos as a "transparent mess." On the contrary, they seem to be clear and obvious fakes. You must know all the old arguments; shadow problems, the heads are the same size on bodies that were different sizes, etc. Then there is the question of why anyone-aspiring lone nut assassin or not-would pose for such pictures. Do you agree that it is impossible to reasonably maintain a belief in conspiracy if the pictures are genuine? If you disagree, how would you explain an innocent man posing for such photos? Also, I'd really like a response to my other questions. Do you think Oswald killed Tippit? Do you think that any witness deaths were connected to the assassination? Do you think that the Umbrella Man was a harmless guy named Steven Witt? Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are genuine? I apologize if it seems I'd badgering you for answers. I'd simply like to know your opinion on some aspect of this case other than film alteration and Jim Fetzer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Bill Miller, Have you changed your views about the backyard photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Bill Miller,Have you changed your views about the backyard photos? I still believe that there are problems in the back-yard photos. I have raised those points in the past and detailed what I see wrong with them. This doesn't necessarily mean they are fake because I may be missing something or not understanding something that could explain them away. Its just that so far I have not been able to get past what I believe they are telling me based on what knowledge and common sense that I possess. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably." He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that. Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? Peter, you are done with him and won't believe him anymore for the Z film studies, and Moorman? Although I have the greatest amount of respect for him, I won't believe what he says until I see the evidence. And I think this speaks much better of him- that he would not want us to believe anything just because he said it. He, as well as others, want us to look for ourselves. Isn't that what research is? Why would you disbelieve him if he was honest with you on the question of the photos? How does that negate what he has done before? Kathy Don, as for folks poo-pooing the limo slowing, I don't think that is the case--recall Shaneyfelt gave an average speed of 11.2 mph, and stated that it was just an average--even he didn't say it was at constant speed. Greer was out for a Sunday drive. http://76.89.77.141:8400/D016A/GREERS_HAND.mov He looks back at JFK( for a second time) and takes his left hand off the wheel before the shot at 313. Standard Operating Procedure I guess. Take a look at the other films and photos to see how many times one hand is off the steering wheel. I haven't found it, yet. chris Edited March 30, 2009 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 In relation to your post Kathy......In your first paragrph you might substitute Dr.Fetzerfor Dr.Thompson..."".Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably." He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that. Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining." I have read where Dr.Fetzer has used the word probably, within his studies.....and you are very correct, when you state, "Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do?.And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? "" and there have been many complaints...re Dr.Fetzer's Moorman studies..on this forum...and some were within your posts. Bernice, I make no apology for disagreeing with Dr. Fetzer. Honestly, I don't think his study follows a logical path. I thought the Moorman study that was presented by Josiah et al, was clear and concise, and his response to the question of the backyard photos was a fair evaluation of how he felt based on his lack of study of it. I was merely stating in my post, albeit it was not word for word, just meant by what I wrote, that the one item (his phrase "probably genuine") seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back with respect to being considered a conspiracy theorist. I don't think anyone has questioned whether Fetzer is or not. I see these as two completely different things. The underlying idea, best I can tell, is that there must exist some set of beliefs that one must ascribe to in order to be a CT, and a member in good standing of the "party line'. Evidently, if one falls short of harboring the set of beliefs, one is looked at suspiciously. I assume the backyard photos' fakery is part of that set. Kathy BTW, I have always thought that they looked fake, but I haven't really studied them either. Haven't got around to it yet. Surely you jest. You claim to be a JFK researcher and have never studied the backyard photos? Just cause to look at you suspiciously! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably." He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that. Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? Peter, you are done with him and won't believe him anymore for the Z film studies, and Moorman? Although I have the greatest amount of respect for him, I won't believe what he says until I see the evidence. And I think this speaks much better of him- that he would not want us to believe anything just because he said it. He, as well as others, want us to look for ourselves. Isn't that what research is? Why would you disbelieve him if he was honest with you on the question of the photos? How does that negate what he has done before? Kathy Don, as for folks poo-pooing the limo slowing, I don't think that is the case--recall Shaneyfelt gave an average speed of 11.2 mph, and stated that it was just an average--even he didn't say it was at constant speed. Greer was out for a Sunday drive. http://76.89.77.141:8400/36182/GREERS_HAND.mov He looks back at JFK( for a second time) and takes his left hand off the wheel before the shot at 313. Standard Operating Procedure I guess. Take a look at the other films and photos to see how many times one hand is off the steering wheel. I haven't found it, yet. chris Thanks for the nice loop, Chris...which CLEARLY shows that the "nickel-plated gun" is the top of Kellerman's head. Oh, yeah...as you say, the left hand also, which supposedly held the gun. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 What crass nonsense! What self-aggrandizing malarkey! So being "a researcher" is to be taken as some sort of honored title, a title that cannot be awarded without a full study of Jack White's contribution to the understanding or misunderstanding of the backyard photos. Let me say for a lot of folks who have full busy lives... because we have interest in one thing does not mean that we have interest in another. We pick and choose what we choose to have interest in. To say you have to have studied any particular thing in the Kennedy assassination to be credible is nonsense. Josiah Thompson In relation to your post Kathy......In your first paragrph you might substitute Dr.Fetzerfor Dr.Thompson..."".Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably." He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that. Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining." I have read where Dr.Fetzer has used the word probably, within his studies.....and you are very correct, when you state, "Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do?.And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? "" and there have been many complaints...re Dr.Fetzer's Moorman studies..on this forum...and some were within your posts. Bernice, I make no apology for disagreeing with Dr. Fetzer. Honestly, I don't think his study follows a logical path. I thought the Moorman study that was presented by Josiah et al, was clear and concise, and his response to the question of the backyard photos was a fair evaluation of how he felt based on his lack of study of it. I was merely stating in my post, albeit it was not word for word, just meant by what I wrote, that the one item (his phrase "probably genuine") seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back with respect to being considered a conspiracy theorist. I don't think anyone has questioned whether Fetzer is or not. I see these as two completely different things. The underlying idea, best I can tell, is that there must exist some set of beliefs that one must ascribe to in order to be a CT, and a member in good standing of the "party line'. Evidently, if one falls short of harboring the set of beliefs, one is looked at suspiciously. I assume the backyard photos' fakery is part of that set. Kathy BTW, I have always thought that they looked fake, but I haven't really studied them either. Haven't got around to it yet. Surely you jest. You claim to be a JFK researcher and have never studied the backyard photos? Just cause to look at you suspiciously! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 So why exactly would LHO's mom have perjured herself by falsely confessing to having committed a felony (destroying evidence i.e. an unseen "backyard photo") and implicate her son in the process? Who knows? We are talking about physical evidence here. The physical evidence has inconsistencies. Imagine you bought one of those digital thermometers that people put outside their windows facing in so they know what the outside temperature is. It's January cold and snowing fiercely when you hook it up but it tells you it's 70*F/21*C would you conclude 1) due to some secret experiment it's unseasonablly warm that day but for reasons unexplained feels cold and is snowing or 2) the thermometer isn't working properly. A better analogy would you bought two thermometers and one says it's 70*F and the other says it's 25*F/-4*C. Some experts said there are inconsistencies others beg to differ. So until someone can come up with a reasonable answer to my question I'd say the former group of experts are wrong. I have yet to see a study that led me to believe they were fake. Besides the testimony of his mom and estranged wife we also have that of DeMordashildt (sp?) and Roscoe White's widows about the photos and Ruth Paine's that he owned a rifle as well as the Klein's documents. You could chalk the above up to purjury by all four women and claim the order forms were forgaries but this would add up to a small part of a very complex conspiracy. I'm not sure if LHO shot JFK or not, if he did I don't think he acted alone. However I don't believe theories that involve dozens of conspirators either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The backyard photos are important because they make absolutely no sense unless one accepts the official fairy tale that Oswald acted alone. I don't think it's possible to accept the authenticity of these curious pictures and still maintain a belief in conspiracy. If someone believes that, they would have to explain why an innocent man posed for such pictures. I disagree one could conclude that someone found the perfect looser/rube/patsy - a Communist gun nut estranged from his wife and living alone. Actually apart from the reading material the photos might not have so strange in Texas in the early 60's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Bill, Thanks for responding. I do detect, however a slight backing off on your formerly strongly held conviction that the backyard photos are fake. I recall being very impressed with your detailed arguments about this issue some years ago (can't recall whether it was on here or on Lancer). Still, it's nice to know that you don't agree that they're "probably genuine." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Josiah, I can certainly understand why you, or anyone else, would pick particular areas of interest in this case. However, the questions I asked you are fundamental in nature. I'm curious as to how you feel about these aspects of the case, because it appears to me that you don't fully believe that a conspiracy took the life of John F. Kennedy. If I'm wrong, please correct me. That's just a suspicion I have, and I could easily be wrong about that. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm very sensitive about this subject because so many former believers in conspiracy appear to have become what I call "neo-cons" or even outright lone nutters. Among these would be Gary Mack, Todd Vaughn, Dave Perry, Dale Myers, Vince Palamara, Gus Russo and Dave Reitzes. All these individuals are very knowledgable and once did good work on the subject. Their transformation into lone nutters or neo-cons is mysterious and unexplained. I attempted to ask some of them about this on forums in the past, and none was able to give me any kind of logical answer. My guess is that you once thought, as nearly everyone associated with this case did, that the backyard photos were amateurish and obvious forgeries. Now you say that they are "probably genuine." What makes you believe this? You wrote one of the early essential books on this subject. You regularly frequent this forum and Lancer (don't know about any others). Thus, surely you must be interested in something else besides film alteration and/or Jim Fetzer. I do respect your work, and value your opinion. Please share your views with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Josiah,I can certainly understand why you, or anyone else, would pick particular areas of interest in this case. However, the questions I asked you are fundamental in nature. I'm curious as to how you feel about these aspects of the case, because it appears to me that you don't fully believe that a conspiracy took the life of John F. Kennedy. If I'm wrong, please correct me. That's just a suspicion I have, and I could easily be wrong about that. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm very sensitive about this subject because so many former believers in conspiracy appear to have become what I call "neo-cons" or even outright lone nutters. Among these would be Gary Mack, Todd Vaughn, Dave Perry, Dale Myers, Vince Palamara, Gus Russo and Dave Reitzes. All these individuals are very knowledgable and once did good work on the subject. Their transformation into lone nutters or neo-cons is mysterious and unexplained. I attempted to ask some of them about this on forums in the past, and none was able to give me any kind of logical answer. My guess is that you once thought, as nearly everyone associated with this case did, that the backyard photos were amateurish and obvious forgeries. Now you say that they are "probably genuine." What makes you believe this? You wrote one of the early essential books on this subject. You regularly frequent this forum and Lancer (don't know about any others). Thus, surely you must be interested in something else besides film alteration and/or Jim Fetzer. I do respect your work, and value your opinion. Please share your views with us. Don, the vast majority of Americans believe in conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The problem still remains "who was behind the conspiracy" and what was their "motive"? Few Americans can do more than regurgitate the same old laundry list of bogey men. They simply don't know, and the thousands of conspiracy books, articles, TV specials have only helped to cloud the issue. That's the intent of most conspiracy books in my opinion. It is far easier to switch sides when the murder itself has been used as a "parlor game" for all these many years. In truth the JFK assassination signaled the demise of the United States as the single leading power for progress and good in the world. Most of the time the JFK murder is used to blame and discredit the US Government. I wouldnt worry too much about all the defections from conspiracy to the "lone nut" argument. Americans will continue to see the JFK murder as a case of conspiracy. The problem remains however the nature of the conspiracy. That has never been addressed with all the thousands of articles, books etc. pumped out by the media all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 In relation to your post Kathy......In your first paragrph you might substitute Dr.Fetzerfor Dr.Thompson..."".Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably." He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that. Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining." I have read where Dr.Fetzer has used the word probably, within his studies.....and you are very correct, when you state, "Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do?.And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? "" and there have been many complaints...re Dr.Fetzer's Moorman studies..on this forum...and some were within your posts. Bernice, I make no apology for disagreeing with Dr. Fetzer. Honestly, I don't think his study follows a logical path. I thought the Moorman study that was presented by Josiah et al, was clear and concise, and his response to the question of the backyard photos was a fair evaluation of how he felt based on his lack of study of it. I was merely stating in my post, albeit it was not word for word, just meant by what I wrote, that the one item (his phrase "probably genuine") seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back with respect to being considered a conspiracy theorist. I don't think anyone has questioned whether Fetzer is or not. I see these as two completely different things. The underlying idea, best I can tell, is that there must exist some set of beliefs that one must ascribe to in order to be a CT, and a member in good standing of the "party line'. Evidently, if one falls short of harboring the set of beliefs, one is looked at suspiciously. I assume the backyard photos' fakery is part of that set. Kathy BTW, I have always thought that they looked fake, but I haven't really studied them either. Haven't got around to it yet. Surely you jest. You claim to be a JFK researcher and have never studied the backyard photos? Just cause to look at you suspiciously! Jack Jack, I have never claimed to be a researcher. I am a student here, with a long way to go before I'd ever consider myself a researcher. Kathy and your teachers/professors are.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now