We’re done. Why we came. What we learned. Thank you all.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Those who, as soon as someone disagrees with them, jump to the shill, disinfo agent, stupid, mental case, you're cheap and suspicious, you should be arrested route ... all the while completely ignoring issues raised, evidence pointed out, even documented evidence, and just twist words, lose context in their selective quoting and dodge points and issues and divert to other things to evade... nothing but froth and foam and repeating the same things over and over even though those things have already been addressed ... no, I don't find those types credible researchers, and the lack of scholarship in what they promote really shows when that is what they jump to anytime they are countered. If one has a sound claim, they should be able to defend it on point. When they can't, so go the uglies route, I see that as their ego needs being more important to them than accuracy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the following from Dave Healy backs up your above statement very appropriately Barb. LOL

quote Dave Healy: Oh-brother.... is it ANY wonder this case has languished in the hands of the Lone Nut WCR/SBT supporters. And speaking of EGO'S. You not only disagree with film-photo alteration, you disagree with how those researchers came to believe what they believe (professionals in the field) concerning the film-photo evidence? As if their belief have bearing on anything? You're sounding more like .john McAdams as time goes on..... should we be surprised.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Barb Junkkarinen

[David G. Healy]

Those who, as soon as someone disagrees with them, jump to the shill, disinfo agent, stupid, mental case, you're cheap and suspicious, you should be arrested route ... all the while completely ignoring issues raised, evidence pointed out, even documented evidence, and just twist words, lose context in their selective quoting and dodge points and issues and divert to other things to evade... nothing but froth and foam and repeating the same things over and over even though those things have already been addressed ... no, I don't find those types credible researchers, and the lack of scholarship in what they promote really shows when that is what they jump to anytime they are countered. If one has a sound claim, they should be able to defend it on point. When they can't, so go the uglies route, I see that as their ego needs being more important to them than accuracy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the following from Dave Healy backs up your above statement very appropriately Barb. LOL

quote Dave Healy: Oh-brother.... is it ANY wonder this case has languished in the hands of the Lone Nut WCR/SBT supporters. And speaking of EGO'S. You not only disagree with film-photo alteration, you disagree with how those researchers came to believe what they believe (professionals in the field) concerning the film-photo evidence? As if their belief have bearing on anything? You're sounding more like .john McAdams as time goes on..... should we be surprised.

Mr. Pointing, parole? Sometimes, Lone Nut shills make life worth living.... LMFAO!

Edited March 31, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

Mr. Pointing, parole? Sometimes, Lone Nut shills make life worth living.... LMFAO!

That's hardly the case ..... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ef04b9c31d568d#

[Peter McGuire]

Pat,

Thanks for providing that information. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just think that a child can tell something isn't right about the backyard photos by glancing at them.

No one poses for a picture with the weapons that would later be used to convict him, with subversive literature that will almost certainly provide a convenient motive for a jury thrown in for good measure. That's so over the top it's ridiculous. Not to mention the obviously fake features of the photos, visible to all non-experts- the awkward, almost impossible stance of "Oswald," the head size not corresponding to the body size, etc. Taking into consideration all the witness encounters with a fake Oswald, these photos represent, imho, a very transparent effort to frame him.

This is the bottom line on this issue. I am familiar with Mr. Whites work and bought the VCR tape some ten years ago.

That being said, a fresh look at those pictures is enough to see that they are fake, and a quick independent thought tells me NO ONE would take those pictures of themselves.

I guess some people just didn't get the memo.

[Craig Lamson]

Pat,

Thanks for providing that information. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just think that a child can tell something isn't right about the backyard photos by glancing at them.

No one poses for a picture with the weapons that would later be used to convict him, with subversive literature that will almost certainly provide a convenient motive for a jury thrown in for good measure. That's so over the top it's ridiculous. Not to mention the obviously fake features of the photos, visible to all non-experts- the awkward, almost impossible stance of "Oswald," the head size not corresponding to the body size, etc. Taking into consideration all the witness encounters with a fake Oswald, these photos represent, imho, a very transparent effort to frame him.

This is the bottom line on this issue. I am familiar with Mr. Whites work and bought the VCR tape some ten years ago.

That being said, a fresh look at those pictures is enough to see that they are fake, and a quick independent thought tells me NO ONE would take those pictures of themselves.

I guess some people just didn't get the memo.

Maybe some just don't understand how photography works.....

[Denis Pointing]

This is the bottom line on this issue. I am familiar with Mr. Whites work and bought the VCR tape some ten years ago.

That being said, a fresh look at those pictures is enough to see that they are fake, and a quick independent thought tells me NO ONE would take those pictures of themselves.

I guess some people just didn't get the memo.

No, that's not the "bottom line". The real bottom line is that although Marina Oswald may have been scared and intimidated by the CIA/government agencies back in 63 that's certainly not the case today. And yet Marina still claims to have taken those photographs, even though she could now be accurately described as a CT. Why?

[David G. Healy]

This is the bottom line on this issue. I am familiar with Mr. Whites work and bought the VCR tape some ten years ago.

That being said, a fresh look at those pictures is enough to see that they are fake, and a quick independent thought tells me NO ONE would take those pictures of themselves.

I guess some people just didn't get the memo.

No, that's not the "bottom line". The real bottom line is that although Marina Oswald may have been scared and intimidated by the CIA/government agencies back in 63 that's certainly not the case today. And yet Marina still claims to have taken those photographs, even though she could now be accurately described as a CT. Why?

Ahhh, before your why.... you no doubt can cite for the above, correct? Or, is this just more Lone Nut/WCR supporter opinion?

[Denis Pointing]

Ahhh, before your why.... you no doubt can cite for the above, correct? Or, is this just more Lone Nut/WCR supporter opinion?

Marina Oswald Porter, interview with author Vincent Bugliosi and lawyer Jack Duffy, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 30, 2000, reported in Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 794. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Os...Backyard_photos

The "backyard photos," which were taken by Marina Oswald, probably around Sunday, March 31, 1963, show Oswald dressed all in black and holding two Marxist newspapers—The Militant and The Worker—in one hand, a rifle in the other, and carrying a pistol in its holster. The backyard photos were shot using a camera belonging to Oswald, an Imperial Reflex Duo-Lens 620. [121] When shown the pictures at Dallas Police headquarters after his arrest, Oswald insisted they were fakes.[122] However, Marina Oswald testified in 1964,[123] 1977,[124] and 1978,[125] and reaffirmed in 2000[126] that she took the photographs at Oswald's request. These photos were labelled CE 133-A and CE 133-B. CE 133-A shows the rifle in Oswald's left hand and newsletters in front of his chest in the other, while the rifle is held with the right hand in CE 133-B. Oswald's mother testified that on the day after the assassination she and Marina destroyed another photograph with Oswald holding the rifle with both hands over his head, with "To my daughter June" written on

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you can no doubt tell me "why", correct Dave? Or are you just going to insult and run as usual?

Edited April 2, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[William Kelly]

Ahhh, before your why.... you no doubt can cite for the above, correct? Or, is this just more Lone Nut/WCR supporter opinion?

Marina Oswald Porter, interview with author Vincent Bugliosi and lawyer Jack Duffy, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 30, 2000, reported in Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 794. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Os...Backyard_photos

The "backyard photos," which were taken by Marina Oswald, probably around Sunday, March 31, 1963, show Oswald dressed all in black and holding two Marxist newspapers—The Militant and The Worker—in one hand, a rifle in the other, and carrying a pistol in its holster. The backyard photos were shot using a camera belonging to Oswald, an Imperial Reflex Duo-Lens 620. [121] When shown the pictures at Dallas Police headquarters after his arrest, Oswald insisted they were fakes.[122] However, Marina Oswald testified in 1964,[123] 1977,[124] and 1978,[125] and reaffirmed in 2000[126] that she took the photographs at Oswald's request. These photos were labelled CE 133-A and CE 133-B. CE 133-A shows the rifle in Oswald's left hand and newsletters in front of his chest in the other, while the rifle is held with the right hand in CE 133-B. Oswald's mother testified that on the day after the assassination she and Marina destroyed another photograph with Oswald holding the rifle with both hands over his head, with "To my daughter June" written on

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you can no doubt tell me "why", correct Dave? Or are you just going to insult and run as usual?

Since the Worker and the Militant were both known to be in Oswald's hands, as well as the assassination rifle and pistol said to be used to kill Tippit, has anybody bothered to actually read the two issues of the papers the accused assassin is holding?

Were the issues ever recovered? Were they entered into evidence?

Did they contain any articles regarding Castro or Cuba, or the maritime operations against Cuba that have been connected to Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff?

BK

[David G. Healy]

Ahhh, before your why.... you no doubt can cite for the above, correct? Or, is this just more Lone Nut/WCR supporter opinion?

Marina Oswald Porter, interview with author Vincent Bugliosi and lawyer Jack Duffy, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 30, 2000, reported in Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 794. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Os...Backyard_photos

The "backyard photos," which were taken by Marina Oswald, probably around Sunday, March 31, 1963, show Oswald dressed all in black and holding two Marxist newspapers—The Militant and The Worker—in one hand, a rifle in the other, and carrying a pistol in its holster. The backyard photos were shot using a camera belonging to Oswald, an Imperial Reflex Duo-Lens 620. [121] When shown the pictures at Dallas Police headquarters after his arrest, Oswald insisted they were fakes.[122] However, Marina Oswald testified in 1964,[123] 1977,[124] and 1978,[125] and reaffirmed in 2000[126] that she took the photographs at Oswald's request. These photos were labelled CE 133-A and CE 133-B. CE 133-A shows the rifle in Oswald's left hand and newsletters in front of his chest in the other, while the rifle is held with the right hand in CE 133-B. Oswald's mother testified that on the day after the assassination she and Marina destroyed another photograph with Oswald holding the rifle with both hands over his head, with "To my daughter June" written on

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you can no doubt tell me "why", correct Dave? Or are you just going to insult and run as usual?

not exactly hon.... ya see, those backyard photos would not even make it into a court of law if a trial were held today. Simply, fand or one reason, they're fraud. I mean, even a elementary school grader can tell that. And please, when you quote Bugliosi as the source for ANYTHING, please post your proof that it was indeed him. Ya see hon, we don't know who wrotespecific parts of Reclaiming History. The only for sure fact we know about its authorship is, David Von Pein didn't write a damn thing and he's STILL pissed....

Oswald's mother testified that on the day after the assassination she and Marina destroyed another photograph with Oswald holding the rifle with both hands over his head, with "To my daughter June" written on...

you're the only one east of Manhattan that believes that nonsense, how long have you been at this, AGAIN?

[Denis Pointing]

Ahhh, before your why.... you no doubt can cite for the above, correct? Or, is this just more Lone Nut/WCR supporter opinion?

Marina Oswald Porter, interview with author Vincent Bugliosi and lawyer Jack Duffy, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 30, 2000, reported in Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 794. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Os...Backyard_photos

The "backyard photos," which were taken by Marina Oswald, probably around Sunday, March 31, 1963, show Oswald dressed all in black and holding two Marxist newspapers—The Militant and The Worker—in one hand, a rifle in the other, and carrying a pistol in its holster. The backyard photos were shot using a camera belonging to Oswald, an Imperial Reflex Duo-Lens 620. [121] When shown the pictures at Dallas Police headquarters after his arrest, Oswald insisted they were fakes.[122] However, Marina Oswald testified in 1964,[123] 1977,[124] and 1978,[125] and reaffirmed in 2000[126] that she took the photographs at Oswald's request. These photos were labelled CE 133-A and CE 133-B. CE 133-A shows the rifle in Oswald's left hand and newsletters in front of his chest in the other, while the rifle is held with the right hand in CE 133-B. Oswald's mother testified that on the day after the assassination she and Marina destroyed another photograph with Oswald holding the rifle with both hands over his head, with "To my daughter June" written on

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you can no doubt tell me "why", correct Dave? Or are you just going to insult and run as usual?

not exactly hon.... ya see, those backyard photos would not even make it into a court of law if a trial were held today. Simply, fand or one reason, they're fraud. I mean, even a elementary school grader can tell that. And please, when you quote Bugliosi as the source for ANYTHING, please post your proof that it was indeed him. Ya see hon, we don't know who wrotespecific parts of Reclaiming History. The only for sure fact we know about its authorship is, David Von Pein didn't write a damn thing and he's STILL pissed....

Oswald's mother testified that on the day after the assassination she and Marina destroyed another photograph with Oswald holding the rifle with both hands over his head, with "To my daughter June" written on...

you're the only one east of Manhattan that believes that nonsense, how long have you been at this, AGAIN?

C,mon Dave, I gave you the cite....now you tell me WHY Marina STILL claims she took those photos...can you or cant you? Simple question even for you.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Bill Miller]

C,mon Dave, I gave you the cite....now you tell me WHY Marina STILL claims she took those photos...can you or cant you? Simple question even for you.

Denis ... you may as well be asking a rock to walk.

[Denis Pointing]

Since the Worker and the Militant were both known to be in Oswald's hands, as well as the assassination rifle and pistol said to be used to kill Tippit, has anybody bothered to actually read the two issues of the papers the accused assassin is holding?

Were the issues ever recovered? Were they entered into evidence?

Did they contain any articles regarding Castro or Cuba, or the maritime operations against Cuba that have been connected to Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff?

BK

I cant imagine they were ever entered as evidence Bill, why would they be?

I once read, but cant cite, that they express totally opposing views of communism. Only guessing but its hard to imagine that they didn't contain articles concerning Cuba, giving the time they were written.

[Denis Pointing]

C,mon Dave, I gave you the cite....now you tell me WHY Marina STILL claims she took those photos...can you or cant you? Simple question even for you.

Denis ... you may as well be asking a rock to walk.

Yes, your right Bill. Healy doesn't seem to like answering straight forward questions does he. I think they confuse him. I notice he never replies when you ask if his sent a request to examine the Zapruder film yet. LOL

[Peter McGuire]

This is the bottom line on this issue. I am familiar with Mr. Whites work and bought the VCR tape some ten years ago.

That being said, a fresh look at those pictures is enough to see that they are fake, and a quick independent thought tells me NO ONE would take those pictures of themselves.

I guess some people just didn't get the memo.

No, that's not the "bottom line". The real bottom line is that although Marina Oswald may have been scared and intimidated by the CIA/government agencies back in 63 that's certainly not the case today. And yet Marina still claims to have taken those photographs, even though she could now be accurately described as a CT. Why?

Do the photos look fake? That is the question.