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

[Denis Pointing]

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?

Peter, I really think its you that needs to "gather a moment of independent thought" a few members post under the title "WHY OSWALD IS INNOCENT" and you swallow it hook line and sinker, search the site Peter and you'll be amazed how many other members have "solved" the case and "proved" Oswald's innocents. I know eventually we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Peter but before we do perhaps you could answer my question, educate me if you will and explain why Marina, even now a CT, still claims to have taken those backyard photos. Simple, yes?

[Peter McGuire]

For your information, I did not enter into this case yesterday. A demonstration about the assassination came around to my university in the mid 70's, after the Zapruder Film was "released." Since that time I have read extensively on the subject. My favorite author is Newman. I found JKF and Vietnam very informative and have believed Lansdale was involved since reading that. Newman’s latest book linking Oswald to the CIA and explaining the “virus” that was planted before the assassination to ensure cooperation in the cover-up is mind boggling material.

Regarding the backyard photos;

Is that your case? That Marina says they are real?

You are going to have to do better than that Denis. That means less than nothing. Please either offer something else in defense of the pictures or stop wasting our time.

Regarding the scenario in the building at the time of the shooting;

You are just going to have to face the fact that Oswald simply could not have been in position to fire shots at the time Kennedy was killed.

You don't understand this. Alright. Care to share why he should not be eliminated as a shooter?

Edited April 4, 2009 by Peter McGuire

[Craig Lamson]

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've convicted no one. I simply pointed out that there is no real or factual proof the photos are fake . I don't care who shot JFK.

And you are the one complainig about believing only what you are told! Sheesh, thats your entire stance on the backyard photos...pot meet kettle.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Peter McGuire]

Please defend the pictures.

Tell us why we should not be suspicious of them. Forget their intent, just focus on their validity.

[Craig Lamson]

Please defend the pictures.

Tell us why we should not be suspicious of them. Forget their intent, just focus on their validity.

What is there to be suspicious of in the first place?

[Denis Pointing]

For your information, I did not enter into this case yesterday. A demonstration about the assassination came around to my university in the mid 70's, after the Zapruder Film was "released." Since that time I have read extensively on the subject. My favorite author is Newman. I found JKF and Vietnam very informative and have believed Lansdale was involved since reading that. Newman’s latest book linking Oswald to the CIA and explaining the “virus” that was planted before the assassination to ensure cooperation in the cover-up is mind boggling material.

Regarding the backyard photos;

Is that your case? That Marina says they are real?

You are going to have to do better than that Denis. That means less than nothing. Please either offer something else in defense of the pictures or stop wasting our time.

Regarding the scenario in the building at the time of the shooting;

You are just going to have to face the fact that Oswald simply could not have been in position to fire shots at the time Kennedy was killed.

You don't understand this. Alright. Care to share why he should not be eliminated as a shooter?

Can you or cant you answer the damn question, well? Give me an intelligent explanation and I'll stop wasting your precious time. Oh, never mind, just forget it, this is like trying to debate with a Jehovah's witness.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Don Jeffries]

Craig,

I understand your innate prejudice against Jack White, but what about Bill Miller? The old JFK Lancer thread features good arguments that the photos are fake, from Miller, whom you presumably respect.

This is an old issue, and the arguments that the photos are fake haven't changed. They've never been answered satisfactorily, which is why I was so amazed that Josiah Thompson-who was in the center of all this when the backyard photos were first being analyzed by critics-could now state that they are "probably genuine."

I'd like to hear some more from Josiah about this. I'd also like to hear from Bill Miller, regarding his own astute analyis of the photos from 2003. If his strong beliefs on this subject have changed or been tempered in the past six years, I'd like to know what caused that. To my knowledge, nothing has been produced from the lone nutter side during that time to counter the old classic arguments that the photos are fraudulent.

You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say something like "what is there to be suspicious about in the first place?" Stating that there is nothing strikingly strange about these photos is completely ridiculous. In the old days, it was conspiracy believers vs. apologists for the official story. Now we have self- proclaimed "fence sitters" and what I call the new "neo-cons," whose beliefs are less clear and often confusing. I don't think everything is black and white (as my agnosticism on Zapruder film alteration shows), but not everything can be a gray area, either.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Don Jeffries

[Don Jeffries]

Jim,

I too am struck by Josiah Thompson's disregard for the witnesses who claimed to have seen a hole in the windshield of the limousine. I fear that his strong stance against film alteration is effecting his common sense here; if he thinks the Altgens photo doesn't show a hole, then all those witnesses must have been mistaken.

I am noticing a disturbing trend here. Numerous doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital all describe a huge gaping wound in the same area on the back of JFK's head. Since the x-rays and photos show no such gaping hole in the back, those witnesses were all mistaken in the exact same way for no logical reason. Several different witnesses described a hole in the windshield of the presidential limousine, one you could "put a pencil through," yet because the Altgens photo supposedly shows no such hole, these witnesses were all mistaken in the exact same way for no logical reason. Many, many different witnesses described the limousine coming to a stop or dramatically slowing down just before the shots were fired. Since the film footage of the assassination appears to show no such dramatic slowing down or stopping, then all those unconnected witnesses were all mistaken in the same way for no logical reason.

Let's be reasonable here. I understand eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. However, it defies common sense to think that all of these people could be so glaringly wrong in the exact same way. To me, this is the strongest argument in favor of the films being altered. I haven't heard a logical answer regarding why all these people were mistaken, in the exact same way, about these crucial details. In particular, how can we accept that all those doctors reported seeing a huge hole in the back of the most famous patient any of them had ever had, if it really wasn't there? I'd like to think that trained medical professionals were a little more competent than that.

Finally, those of us who believe in conspiracy can find quite logical reasons why the authorities would claim these witnesses were "mistaken." After all, some of us think these authorities were involved in the crime and coverup, so this would be expected. However, what is the logical explanation as to why so many of these witneses-including professional medical personnel-made so many glaring errors in observation that day? The exact same glaring errors. While I don't have the greatest faith in the intelligence and competence of my fellow human beings, that defies all logic.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I understand your innate prejudice against Jack White, but what about Bill Miller? The old JFK Lancer thread features good arguments that the photos are fake, from Miller, whom you presumably respect.

I respect correctness and have little use for the incorrect. I give neither Bill nor Jack or anyone for that matter any quarter in that regard. If you have it wrong and refuse to have the intellectual honesty to admit it, and continue to push that which has been [roven wrong via experimental empirical evidecne, you are pretty much worhtless in my book.

This is an old issue, and the arguments that the photos are fake haven't changed. They've never been answered satisfactorily, which is why I was so amazed that Josiah Thompson-who was in the center of all this when the backyard photos were first being analyzed by critics-could now state that they are "probably genuine."

Who says they have not been answered satisfactorily? What you mean is that they have not been answered to YOUR satisfaction. If you are ignorant of the principals involved how the world could you ever know? Unless its just a BELIEF on your part. Quite franky your satisfaction is really not my concern.

I'd like to hear some more from Josiah about this. I'd also like to hear from Bill Miller, regarding his own astute analyis of the photos from 2003. If his strong beliefs on this subject have changed or been tempered in the past six years, I'd like to know what caused that. To my knowledge, nothing has been produced from the lone nutter side during that time to counter the old classic arguments that the photos are fraudulent.

Exactly what IS your knowledge and again how in the world would you ever know what is correct and what is not?

You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say something like "what is there to be suspicious about in the first place?" Stating that there is nothing strikingly strange about these photos is completely ridiculous. In the old days, it was conspiracy believers vs. apologists for the official story. Now we have self- proclaimed "fence sitters" and what I call the new "neo-cons," whose beliefs are less clear and often confusing. I don't think everything is black and white (as my agnosticism on Zapruder film alteration shows), but not everything can be a gray area, either.

What I expect is for people to do the actual work and learn the required skillset to determine FOR THEMSELF if a claim has merit or not. Its simply not good enough to look and say, yea I believe that guy because it fits my worldview. Its a cool thing about the photography is one of the few aspects of this case where you can actually test the claims of alteration and see if th y hold water and you can also prove claims one way or the other, via experimental empirical evidence. Even cooler yet is that you don't have to be a photographer to check out many of hteise claims, you can find the answer by just observing. You don't have to "BELIEVE " anyone else. Have you made ANY attempts to do any of this?

[Bill Miller]

Jim,

I too am struck by Josiah Thompson's disregard for the witnesses who claimed to have seen a hole in the windshield of the limousine. I fear that his strong stance against film alteration is effecting his common sense here; if he thinks the Altgens photo doesn't show a hole, then all those witnesses must have been mistaken.

Will you guys please keep in mind that for many of us it is not that there wasn't a hole in the windshield for I believe that there was. Its just that Josiah is right in saying that up to the time Altgens took his photo there was no damage to the windshield. In a good Altgens print there is a black woman holding a rolled up newspaper and her thumb is what is being called a hole. Do a search under 'nebula' on Lancer and you might find some of those scans I took from a good print. And what ever you do - just keep in mind that the witnesses mentioned seeing a hole in the glass as the car sat at Parkland to start with. This does not mean the glass was already hit when Altgens took his photo.

Bill Miller

[Don Jeffries]

Thanks for clarifying, Bill. My main point was that witnesses did see an actual hole in the windshield, regardless of when a bullet struck it.

I may have misunderstood Josiah's position- does he accept, then, that witnesses did see an actual hole in the windshield? Also, does he accept that there was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as described by all those medical personnel? If so, does he think the autopsy x-rays and photos are fraudulent? I realize you may not know how he feels about all this, but Josiah hasn't posted on this thread in a while, and I'm curious.

[David G. Healy]

...

I realize you may not know how he feels about all this, but Josiah hasn't posted on this thread in a while, and I'm curious.

it's called dump-n-run, Don. Wild Bill is left to clean up the thread. A distinction usually left to the lone nut newbie Considering Miller is the low man on the 6th Floor totem pole seniority list, makes sense!

[Craig Lamson]

...

I realize you may not know how he feels about all this, but Josiah hasn't posted on this thread in a while, and I'm curious.

it's called dump-n-run, Don. Wild Bill is left to clean up the thread. A distinction usually left to the lone nut newbie Considering Miller is the low man on the 6th Floor totem pole seniority list, makes sense!

Whats to clean up davie? You have ignorants seeing all sorts of funny business in perfectly fine backyard photos and fetzer seeing dumbo in the back seat of the limo.

Sniff, sniff...is that you again davie?

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for clarifying, Bill. My main point was that witnesses did see an actual hole in the windshield, regardless of when a bullet struck it.

I may have misunderstood Josiah's position- does he accept, then, that witnesses did see an actual hole in the windshield? Also, does he accept that there was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as described by all those medical personnel? If so, does he think the autopsy x-rays and photos are fraudulent? I realize you may not know how he feels about all this, but Josiah hasn't posted on this thread in a while, and I'm curious.

One of the best evidences for me about the windshield being swapped out is like I said before ... The White House Garage photos of the defect in the glass IMO do not match the damage on the glass seen in Altgens #7.

[Bill Miller]

it's called dump-n-run, Don. Wild Bill is left to clean up the thread. A distinction usually left to the lone nut newbie Considering Miller is the low man on the 6th Floor totem pole seniority list, makes sense!

David, you are the published one who has said that he has seen no proof of alteration ... the 6Th Floor would most likely hire you over me if we apply the logic of you past insane ramblings.