Craig Lamson Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0505b.htmMost likely merely some more of those mysterious light reflections. Onc can see it in the extremely poor black and white of the WC's initial photo's, yet it has disappeared in the film versions which we now are told are valid. Nope just another poor attempt at photo analysis.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Marina Oswald's testimony portrayed her husband in a terrible light, and is full of inconsistiencies and obvious lies. She is the sole source for Oswald taking a shot at General Walker, for instance. Those I call "neo-cons" now accept this as true, for no logical reason. Then there is her totally absurd story of keeping Oswald locked in the bathroom so he couldn't take a shot at Nixon. Her testimony is laughable. The fact that she claims to believe in conspiracy now, but still clings to the backyard photos cover story, and has never retracted even the most ridiculous parts of her testimony, destroys any credibility she has, imho. Bill, I'm glad you're commenting on this thread. Would you please re-post some of the fine arguments you made in the past for the backyard photos being faked. Thanks. I'm sorry Don but I'm just not prepared to dismiss Marina Oswald's testimony because you find it to be "obvious lies" and "totally absurd". If you have any proof to back that up I may change my mind but if it's just your opinion then, whilst I'll respect it, I dont agree with it. Below is a letter written by Marina, its quite self explanatory. If after reading it you still belive Marina would not have admitted lying in former testimony because she was afraid or intimidated, if that had indeed been the case, then.....well lets just say you're a hard man to convince. Marina Oswald Porter, letter to John Tunheim (19th April, 1996) I am writing to you regarding the release of still classified documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy and to my former husband, Lee Harvey Oswald. Specifically, I am writing to ask about documents I have learned of from a recent book and from a story in the Washington Post by the authors of the same book (as well as other documents they have described to me). The book reviews Dallas police, FBI, and CIA files released since 1992, and places them in the context of previously known information. I would like to know what the Review Board is doing to obtain the following: 1. The Dallas field office and headquarters FBI reports on the arrests of Donnell D. Whitter and Lawrence R. Miller in Dallas on November 18, 1963 with a carload of stolen US army weapons. I believe that Lee Oswald was the FBI informant who made these arrests possible. I would also like to know what your board has done to obtain the reports of the US Marshal and the US Army on the same arrests, and the burglary these men were suspected of. 2. The records of the FBI interrogations of John Franklin Elrod, John Forrester Gedney and Harold Doyle (the latter men were previously known as two of the "three tramps") in the Dallas jail November 22-24, 1963. All of these men have stated that they were interrogated during that time by the FBI. 3. The official explanation of why the arrest records for Mr. Elrod, Mr. Gedney and Mr. Doyle, as well as for Daniel Wayne Douglas and Gus Abrams were placed "under federal seal" in the Dallas Police Records Division for 26 years as described by Dallas City Archives supervisor Laura McGhee to the FBI in 1992. 4. The full records of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, including his interrogation in the presence of John Franklin Elrod as described by Elrod in an FBI report dated August 11, 1964. 5. The reports of army intelligence agent Ed J. Coyle on his investigation of Captain George Nonte, John Thomas Masen, Donnell D. Whitter, Lawrence R. Miller, and/or Jack Ruby. I am also requesting that you obtain agent Coyle's reports as army liaison for presidential protection on November 22, 1963 (as described by Coyle's commanding officer Col. Robert Jones in sworn testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations). If the army does not immediately produce these documents, they should be required to produce agent Coyle to explain what happened to his reports. 6. Secret Service reports and tapes of that agency's investigation of Father Walter Machann and Silvia Odio in 1963-64. 7. Reports of the FBI investigation of Cuban exiles in Dallas, to include known but still classified documents on Fermin de Goicochea Sanchez, Father Walter Machann and the Dallas Diocese Catholic Cuban Relocation Committee. These would include informant files for Father Machann and/or reports of interviews of Father Machann by Dallas FBI agent W. Heitman. 8. The full particulars and original of the teletype received by Mr. William Walter in the New Orleans FBI office on the morning of November 17, 1963, warning of a possible assassination attempt on President Kennedy in Dallas. I now believe that my former husband met with the Dallas FBI on November 16, 1963, and provided informant information on which this teletype was based. 9. A full report of Lee Harvey Oswald's visit to the Dallas FBI office on November 16, 1963. 10. A full account of FBI agent James P. Hosty's claim (in his recent book, Assignment Oswald) that Lee Harvey Oswald knew of a planned "paramilitary invasion of Cuba" by "a group of right wing Cuban exiles in outlying areas of New Orleans." We now know that such an invasion was indeed planned by a Cuban group operating on CIA payroll in Miami, New Orleans, and Dallas - the same group infiltrated by Lee Oswald. We know this information only from documents released since 1992, as described in the book I have mentioned. On what basis did agent Hosty believe Lee "had learned" of these plans, unless Lee himself told him this? I am therefore specifically requesting the release of the informant report that Lee Oswald provided to agent Hosty and/or other FBI personnel on this intelligence information. The time for the Review Board to obtain and release the most important documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy is running out. At the time of the assassination of this great president whom I loved, I was misled by the "evidence" presented to me by government authorities and I assisted in the conviction of Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin. From the new information now available, I am now convinced that he was an FBI informant and believe that he did not kill President Kennedy. It is time for Americans to know their full history. On this day when I and all Americans are grieving for the victims of Oklahoma City, I am also thinking of my children and grandchildren, and of all American children, when I insist that your board give the highest priority to the release of the documents I have listed. This is the duty you were charged with by law. Anything else is unacceptable - not just to me, but to all patriotic Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 (edited) Denis, I'm familiar with Marina Oswald's belated views on the assassination. That makes her refusal to explain the most ridiculous parts of her Warren Commission testimony all the more incredible. Those of us that believe the backyard photos are obvious fakes are naturally going to be suspicious that Marina still claims to have taken them. Those of us who are living in the real world find such things as her tale about locking her husband in the bathroom so he wouldn't shoot Nixon to be outlandish fabrications. Harold Weisberg did a great job of analyzing her testimony in great detail in his "Whitewash" books. I've stated before that I understand completely what kind of pressure Marina must have been under to cooperate with the authorities in 1964. Since she's felt comfortable in publicly stating there was a conspiracy for at least 25 years now, she apparently doesn't fear speaking out any longer. It's long past time for her to explain the curious relationship she enjoyed with Ruth Paine, and to acknowledge that much of her testimony was fabricated in an effort to convict her husband in the public eye. Remember that most of the negative things we "know" about Oswald come directly from the testimony of Marina or Ruth Paine, neither of whom are credible, imho. Until she admits lying about things like the Nixon/bathroom incident, I will doubt everything she says about the subject. Edited April 4, 2009 by Don Jeffries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned) Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. speaking of fantasy, photographing dry goods and appliances, turning same is into objects-de-art is what I call neo-fantasy photography: presenting imagery thats as boring a popcorn fart and making the sale, yet! Your not selling refrigerators here... its film forensics of the simplest order.... could you fill us in as to what real world observation has to do with a possibly altered Zapruder film? Or is this exchange one of those photo desk two-step sales shuffle? I'll take my answer off-the-air Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Bill, Through a search on the JFK Lancer forums, I was able to find the old thread about the backyard photos I mentioned. Here is the link for those interested: Bill Miller On The Backyard Photos- 2003 As is very evident, you have a thorough knowledge of this subject. Maybe you ought to enlighten Josiah Thompson; I'm sure he'll agree with you (and ironically, Jack White) that the photos are defiinitely not "probably genuine" after reading your comments on that old thread. I'm also confident that Barb can change her contention that she "hasn't seen any evidence that they aren't real" after considering your work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned) Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. speaking of fantasy, photographing dry goods and appliances, turning same is into objects-de-art is what I call neo-fantasy photography: presenting imagery thats as boring a popcorn fart and making the sale, yet! Your not selling refrigerators here... its film forensics of the simplest order.... could you fill us in as to what real world observation has to do with a possibly altered Zapruder film? Or is this exchange one of those photo desk two-step sales shuffle? I'll take my answer off-the-air And the rodaaaayo vidoegrapher speaks. I guess that is tinny a step up from boring corporate training vids. In any case. its not "film forensics"at all daive, its the boring old stuff like the standard principal sof photography and lighting, you know, the stuff the sad , little "experts" on your silly team have so much trouble understanding, and Tom too it seems. Oh wait, how would you know that? It appears you lack the intellectual skills to even UNDERSTAND the arguments let alone be able to actually TEST any of them to see if they hold water. No David Healy, simly chooses to BELIEVE, which I must say speaks volumes about your lack of intellectual honesty. So have you found a PEER who can debunk the work I produced that trashes your pal Costella? We are still waiting? I'm sure you can dig up a competent expert SOMEWHERE.... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Bill,Through a search on the JFK Lancer forums, I was able to find the old thread about the backyard photos I mentioned. Here is the link for those interested: Bill Miller On The Backyard Photos- 2003 As is very evident, you have a thorough knowledge of this subject. Maybe you ought to enlighten Josiah Thompson; I'm sure he'll agree with you (and ironically, Jack White) that the photos are defiinitely not "probably genuine" after reading your comments on that old thread. I'm also confident that Barb can change her contention that she "hasn't seen any evidence that they aren't real" after considering your work. What tests have you done to confirm Bill Millers work to make the conclusion that he is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Craig, What tests would you have me perform? I'm not a photo expert, but some things are glaringly obvious to the layman. The backyard photos fall into this category. I'm also not a ballistics expert, but feel confident in statnig that an almost completely pristine bullet (CE399) cannot cause 7 wounds without significant visible damage. I am also not a medical professional, but feel qualifited in stating that if numerous professional medical people describe a bullet wound in the exact same way, and the x-rays and photos of the head where the wound is located don't show it, then either all those professional medical people were lying for inexplicable reasons or the x-rays and photos are not genuine. While I may sometimes lack common sense, I have enough to know that no aspiring lone assassin would pose for such gratuitously incriminating photos and then vehemently declare his innocence once he was apprehended. Why would he pose in such an absurdly egotistical manner and then deny everything afterwards? I understand why you would maintain the photos are genuine, as you appear to believe Oswald was the assassin. However, as I've stated before, these photos are unfathomable if Oswald was not shooting at anyone on November 22, 1963. If he was innocent, what was he doing posing for such pictures? This question, plus the cartoonish overkill of including the commie literature for good measure, was what immediately drew the suspicions of so many of us years ago. Jack White-in great detail-and Bill Miller have both provided sound reasons why these photos cannot be genuine. There really has been nothing credible to refute their arguments, thus I can't understand why any conspiracy believer would have new doubts about this issue. If you're a lone nutter, you discount the backyard photos, second Oswald sightings and all other indications that he was being set up in advance as the patsy. If you doubt the official story, however, the backyard photos, especially in conjunction with all the witness encounters with apparent Oswald imposters, provide strong circumstantial evidence of conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Craig,What tests would you have me perform? I'm not a photo expert, but some things are glaringly obvious to the layman. The backyard photos fall into this category. I'm also not a ballistics expert, but feel confident in statnig that an almost completely pristine bullet (CE399) cannot cause 7 wounds without significant visible damage. I am also not a medical professional, but feel qualifited in stating that if numerous professional medical people describe a bullet wound in the exact same way, and the x-rays and photos of the head where the wound is located don't show it, then either all those professional medical people were lying for inexplicable reasons or the x-rays and photos are not genuine. While I may sometimes lack common sense, I have enough to know that no aspiring lone assassin would pose for such gratuitously incriminating photos and then vehemently declare his innocence once he was apprehended. Why would he pose in such an absurdly egotistical manner and then deny everything afterwards? I understand why you would maintain the photos are genuine, as you appear to believe Oswald was the assassin. However, as I've stated before, these photos are unfathomable if Oswald was not shooting at anyone on November 22, 1963. If he was innocent, what was he doing posing for such pictures? This question, plus the cartoonish overkill of including the commie literature for good measure, was what immediately drew the suspicions of so many of us years ago. Jack White-in great detail-and Bill Miller have both provided sound reasons why these photos cannot be genuine. There really has been nothing credible to refute their arguments, thus I can't understand why any conspiracy believer would have new doubts about this issue. If you're a lone nutter, you discount the backyard photos, second Oswald sightings and all other indications that he was being set up in advance as the patsy. If you doubt the official story, however, the backyard photos, especially in conjunction with all the witness encounters with apparent Oswald imposters, provide strong circumstantial evidence of conspiracy. So, in other words you just believe? Thats fine, but it leaves you in a pretty bad place. I've stateed more than onece I don't really care WHO killed JFK nor do I think it matters at this point in time. I'm only interested in the photography. And in that light I'm only interesed in good, solid analysis of the photography. I don't give a hoot where it leads. In that light, how can you state, with conviction, that the photos are fakes, when you yourself sgate you don't have the skillset to establish that, nor the skillset to investigate the work of those who claim they are fakes. Take the silly notion of the chin, as put forward by WHite and others. White make a grade A rookie mistake on that one, and the amusing thing is, in his video , the announcers chin changes shape for the very same reason...the change in relationship of the chin and the camera. Would YOU expect the shape of a chin to remain the same when photographed from above, and then from below? Or the shadows? Do you REALLLY find them impossible? Yet to prove they are possible is a simple task, you just go out and observe. WHite has a fantasy that he shadows werer added by retouching , and yet if that is hte case they got them exactly perfect! Have you ever done something as simple as that? Or do you just perfer to believe? You don't need to be a photo expert to see either of these things, you just need to look. And on and on it goes. I'm not here to "believe" anything. Either the photography claims fit reality or they don't, I don't care who is pushing them. And I don't relly care where the results lead. So far, all I have seen that fits reality is that the many claims of fakery just don't hold water. Take it or leave it , I really don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 In that light, how can you state, with conviction, that the photos are fakes, when you yourself state you don't have the skillset to establish that, nor the skillset to investigate the work of those who claim they are fakes. Take it or leave it , I really don't care. The skillset are a pair of eyes and the common sense to know that nobody would have these pictures taken of themselves. Considering that it has been proven here that Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter, why are you even bothering with this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 In that light, how can you state, with conviction, that the photos are fakes, when you yourself state you don't have the skillset to establish that, nor the skillset to investigate the work of those who claim they are fakes. Take it or leave it , I really don't care. The skillset are a pair of eyes and the common sense to know that nobody would have these pictures taken of themselves. Considering that it has been proven here that Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter, why are you even bothering with this issue? Well, there is no proof that can wihtstand muster that the photos have been altered, so that puts you position is a bit of a quandry don't you think. The fact that some "expectation" that is unmet on your part has any bearing on this is simply silly. I must say I LOVE watching guys like you throw around the word PROVEN. proven: established beyond doubt I guess you are one of those who "believe" LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 The skillset are a pair of eyes and the common sense to know that nobody would have these pictures taken of themselves. Considering that it has been proven here that Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter, why are you even bothering with this issue? I presume you mean "nobody would have these pictures taken of themselves" if they intended to kill a president but has it occurred to you that maybe Oswald had not even thought of killing Kennedy when those photos were taken? As for your belief that its "been proven here that Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter" well I'm not so easily convinced, although I do envy your faith. You asked earlier if the photos looked fake. I admit they certainly look odd, even unnatural but if you really want to see some odd/unnatural poses then maybe you should take a look at my wedding album. I'm sorry Peter but you need far more than "a pair of eyes and common sense" to prove those photos are fakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Jack, These guys--Miller, Lamson, Barb, Tink and the rest of the gang--are not interested in evidence. All they want to do is create enough doubt and uncertainty, no matter how they produce it, that everything about JFK is believable and nothing about JFK is knowable, as Marty Schotz observed a long time ago. Your studies of the backyard photos are conclusive, but you won't hear it from them. Now Thompson is even denying the through-and-through bullet hole in Altgens #5, which is also substantiated by a statement made by a Secret Service agent. The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue. What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes. This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help! It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim, including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember, piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur- pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation. His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case, would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends. Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht, Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters, David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions! Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered, which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet- job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality. That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake-- many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say, is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire. Jim ________________________ Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT] From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net> To: gum226@sbcglobal.net Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu> Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts" Josiah Thompson You write: " In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see damage to the windshield at the location later described as a non-through-and-through hit from the rear." "Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the windshield which was examined in March, 1964? As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small hole just left of center in the windshield. . . " This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of Commission Document 80. And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you, Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas, published in 1967, Now I have a few questions: (1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the windshield? And . . (2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . . (3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did). Finally. . . , you write: QUOTE: "Fetzer keeps making up these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he contaminates the field with non-facts." In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei= r examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team conducting the examination. Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with "non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain: You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield. Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new evidence"which caused this change? DSL ____________________ [Hide Quoted Text] --- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@ wrote: Gee! Let's see. What could possibly be going on here? The team of Thompson, Lamson, and Miller insists that something is wrong with the studies of the Moorman LOS by Mantik, Fetzer, and White. They seek to support it with manipulated images that they insist show that Mantik, Fetzer, and White were wrong all along. There is no good reason to believe it, but they persist--ad nauseum. Why? The whole purpose of the study is to determine whether or not there is internal evidence that impeaches the Zapruder and other films, none of which show Mary was standing in the street. Do Thompson, Lamson, and Miller accept other proofs that show the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films have been recreated to conceal the true causes of death of JFK? Not on your life! * They do not acknowledge that JFK's brains being blown out to the right-front demonstrates the film is a fabrication. * They do not acknowledge that the blood and brains were in fact "painted in", as Roderick Ryan has observed. * They do not acknowledge that Willliam Greer pulled the limo to the left and stop to make sure that JFK would be killed. * They do not acknowledge that Officer Chaney rode foreward to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot. * They do not acknowledge that Secret Service agents grew nauseated and vomited seeing brains and gore on the limo. * They do not acknowledge that Homer McMahon reported see- ing six to eight impacts from at least three directions. * They do not acknowledge that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has established that the autopsy X-rays were altered. * They do not acknowledge that Mantik has shown that JFK was hit four times (from the front and from the back). * They do not acknowledge that Governor Connally was hit from one to as many as three times from the side. * They do not acknowledge that Erwin Swartz reported see- ing JFK's brains blown out to the left and rear. * They do not acknowledge that the Parkland physicians reported cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding. * They do not acknowledge that Connally's left turn has been excised from the extant version of the film. * They do not acknowledge that driver William Greer's head turns were twice as fast as humanly possible. * They do not acknowledge that JFK was hit in the right temple by a frangible or exploding bullet. * They do not acknowledge that the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head is visible in Z-frame 374. * They do not acknowledge that LIFE published frame 232 with physically impossible features. * They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven the Stemmons Freeway sign was improperly inserted. * They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven the lamppost was likewise improperly inserted. * They do not acknowledge that no witnesses in the plaza reported the back-and-to-the-left motion. * They do not acknowledge that anyone has seen the original version of the film before editing. Under these circumstances, why would anyone, in their wildest dreams, not also anticipate that * They will not acknowledge that Mary stepped into the street to take her famous photograph; and, * They will not acknowledge that Mantik/Fetzer/ White have proven she was in the street; and attempt to belittle efforts to demonstrate that they are wrong about this rather minute proof of alteration, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary enumerated here? Yet they would claim that Mantik, Fetzer, and White are the ones who are perpetrating fraud and deceiving the public about the authenticity of the film and true causes of the death of JFK! Who's fooling who? Who's out to pull the wool over the eyes of the public? Who are the real liars, cheats, and frauds? Is this too hard for anyone here to figure out? You have heard of "disinfo ops" that take place now and then. You are now in the midst of living one through. P.S. For those who may be unfamiliar with the available evidence: The shot to the throat passed through the windshield (Doug Weldon in MURDER has the most extensive analysis, with which I agree) on pages 129-158 of MURDER; the Altgens is on page 149; the Secret Service substitute is on page 157; another on page 158; there are shards of glass hit his face (the mortician noticed the "shrapnel wounds" and Mantik explained them); you can see the hit on the windshield in the film at frame 225. Jim Lewis has been traveling around the south and visiting junkyards to fire high-velocity rounds through old cars and they make the sound of a "firecracker" when they pass through (also see page 436 of HOAX). Bob Livingston noted that the Secret Service had obtained multiple windshields "for target practice" on pages 165- 166 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE; and Richard Dudman wrote about the hole in the windshield in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, on page 167. So I am not buying what you are selling. You can dupe lots of people, but you can't dupe me over this. The shot passed through the windshield. 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. Thanks, Don. Watch my videos FAKE and MANY FACES OF LHO. http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html Jack Those who believe the backyard photos are genuine should look at my videos. http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html"]http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html Free. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 (edited) Posting the same drool again in ANOTHER thread? Sheesh. Your desperation is showing Fetzer. Now how about YOU giving us the lowdon on Whites backyard photo work, WITHOUT someone else telling you want to think. YOU can do that...right? Or are you just all hot air (fetzering) Edited April 4, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 (edited) Well, there is no proof that can withstand muster that the photos have been altered, so that puts you position is a bit of a quandry don't you think? The fact that some "expectation" that is unmet on your part has any bearing on this is simply silly. I must say I LOVE watching guys like you throw around the word PROVEN. This, from someone who has convicted a dead man for two murders without the benefit of a trial, which created an injustice that depended on all kinds of “evidence” in order to convict the man in the public eye and in the history books. No, I don’t just “believe,” as you put it. There is a mountain of evidence which points to a conspiracy in this case. It’s too bad that you don’t believe in anything except for what you are told. But like I said; I guess you just didn’t get the memo. Or you just don't get it. I presume you mean "nobody would have these pictures taken of themselves" if they intended to kill a president but has it occurred to you that maybe Oswald had not even thought of killing Kennedy when those photos were taken? As for your belief that its "been proven here that Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter" well I'm not so easily convinced, although I do envy your faith. You asked earlier if the photos looked fake. I admit they certainly look odd, even unnatural but if you really want to see some odd/unnatural poses then maybe you should take a look at my wedding album. I'm sorry Peter but you need far more than "a pair of eyes and common sense" to prove those photos are fakes. Oswald never thought of killing President Kennedy and he did not. The pictures are incriminating and the point was that no one would take incriminating pictures of themselves. Get it now? You say they look odd yet you can not get yourself to believe that they are not just odd, but rather fake and were used to frame Oswald. This is a common mindset in deniers but I have faith in you Denis; you can do it; that is gather a moment of independent thought and see these pictures are not only odd, but are in fact most likely fake and were used to frame the man. This isn't the only piece of non-evidence that points to the framing of Oswald, so this possibility didn't just arrive on the scene yesterday. Why would I not be surprised that you are not convinced that Oswald was not the 6th Floor shooter when you can not even see the photos are fake? Edited April 4, 2009 by Peter McGuire 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