Craig Lamson Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Bill,If it looks like a winger psy-op, walks like a winger psy-op... Oh, it's possible this photographic "expert" is a non-partisan, earnest scientist with no particular agenda, but it we would be remiss if we did not note the background of the key sponsor of his chair and department. Dartmouth was also the alma mater of 1950's brothers Joseph and Peter Dryer and their classmate and good friend. Ernest Hemmingway's son, Jack. snip...because all the rest is simply more Scully paranoa... Of course all this guy did as simply employ a computer model to show the very same thing ANYONE can see by going outside with camera...or without and simply observing nature. I guess thats too much to ask for the rabid JFK ct's. Instead lets invent some narrative about the CIA and spooks instead of dealing with reality. I mean why let reality get in the way of a really good paranoid yarn? After all the 'dear leader' of photographic mis-research has labled the photos fake. (never mind he has declared ALL of the JFK phots fake) I mean we REALLY should listen to him, after all he has this shadow thing down pat.... www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Bill,If it looks like a winger psy-op, walks like a winger psy-op... Oh, it's possible this photographic "expert" is a non-partisan, earnest scientist with no particular agenda, but it we would be remiss if we did not note the background of the key sponsor of his chair and department. Dartmouth was also the alma mater of 1950's brothers Joseph and Peter Dryer and their classmate and good friend. Ernest Hemmingway's son, Jack. snip...because all the rest is simply more Scully paranoa... Of course all this guy did as simply employ a computer model to show the very same thing ANYONE can see by going outside with camera...or without and simply observing nature. I guess thats too much to ask for the rabid JFK ct's. Instead lets invent some narrative about the CIA and spooks instead of dealing with reality. I mean why let reality get in the way of a really good paranoid yarn? After all the 'dear leader' of photographic mis-research has labled the photos fake. (never mind he has declared ALL of the JFK phots fake) I mean we REALLY should listen to him, after all he has this shadow thing down pat.... www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Craig, Which head would you have put above the commie newspapers in the Oswald-holding-the-rifle photos? You're right, too...nothing to see here....guy from a department endowed with $22 million from a lawyer who was sent by the father of the now world's wealthiest man with the biggest monopoly in the world to create a corporate law department with 600 plus lawyers and who then comes back and becomes chair of a firm with proven ties to a criminal partisan extremist who plead out to ten plus years in prison....guy from that endowed department tells us his tests prove the rifle photos are most likely not fakes.... natiural thing to do is what you are doing.... post that I am paranoid .....carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Bill,If it looks like a winger psy-op, walks like a winger psy-op... Oh, it's possible this photographic "expert" is a non-partisan, earnest scientist with no particular agenda, but it we would be remiss if we did not note the background of the key sponsor of his chair and department. Dartmouth was also the alma mater of 1950's brothers Joseph and Peter Dryer and their classmate and good friend. Ernest Hemmingway's son, Jack. snip...because all the rest is simply more Scully paranoa... Of course all this guy did as simply employ a computer model to show the very same thing ANYONE can see by going outside with camera...or without and simply observing nature. I guess thats too much to ask for the rabid JFK ct's. Instead lets invent some narrative about the CIA and spooks instead of dealing with reality. I mean why let reality get in the way of a really good paranoid yarn? After all the 'dear leader' of photographic mis-research has labled the photos fake. (never mind he has declared ALL of the JFK phots fake) I mean we REALLY should listen to him, after all he has this shadow thing down pat.... www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Craig, Which head would you have put above the commie newspapers in the Oswald-holding-the-rifle photos? You're right, too...nothing to see here....guy from a department endowed with $22 million from a lawyer who was sent by the father of the now world's wealthiest man with the biggest monopoly in the world to create a corporate law department with 600 plus lawyers and who then comes back and becomes chair of a firm with proven ties to a criminal partisan extremist who plead out to ten plus years in prison....guy from that endowed department tells us his tests prove the rifle photos are most likely not fakes.... natiural thing to do is what you are doing.... post that I am paranoid .....carry on! Tell you want..lets collect about two or three dozen of your headshots through the years and compare, shall we? Yes ..you are VERY paranoid. You need to learn to read. He tested the LIGHTING and the shadows of a photo and found them consistant with what nature will produce. Legions of silly and very paranoid jfk ct's have long argued that the light and shadow were impossible. They are not. Now I know this frosts your buttons. You don't like the result NOR the source. Your long held "BELIEF" is being eroded. But instead of dealing with the actual problem you launch into your paranoid fantasy that this is all some sort of devious plot hatched in the bowlels of some agency somewhere to plant disinformation. Sheesh this is SOOOO predictable! Instead of ranting like a paranoid loon, why not actually take on the results...you can do that right? Edited November 17, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 BILL KELLY NOTES - THIS GUY IS HEAVY INTO MONEY FROM NATIONAL SECURITY - HOMELAND SECURITY - FOUNDATIONS - ETC., (SEE: NEUKOM) AND IS IN THE FOREFRONT OF A NEW FIELD - DIGITAL FORENSICS - YET - IT ISN'T THE NATIONAL SECURITY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BUGGING HIM - ASKING HIM DAILY TO LOOK INTO PHOTOS CONNECTED TO THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT - IT'S CONSPIRACY THEORISTS - Gee Bill can't you do any better than stooping to ad homs? Pretty obviously one of the principle consumers of forensic photography (or forensic anything) is going to be law enforcement And his computer science professorship was endowed by [cue in spooky music]a grant from Microsofts' the chief council [/spooky music] Perhaps you should wait for the paper to come out before bashing on it. Tom I have no idea what points you were trying to makein your over long post.What exactly is the connection between Delay and this story,why are Neukom's ties to the SF Giants relevat? Why is the firm he worked for 30 years ago relevant? Please try to avoid another War and Peace length reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 Craig, Hany Farid has said in his paper that "scientists" claimed that the shadows are one of the reasons cited that the photos appear faked." If that is the case, then what are the other items that indicate that the photos are faked. What is it that made people suspicious of the Oprah head on Ann Margret's body? Was it the shadows? Also, both you and Farid complain about "Conspiracy Theorists," him for asking him "daily" to apply his new computerized digital forensic techniques - like "double quantization," to the photo evidence in the assassination of the President. Instead, he uses a computer model to build a replica of Oswald's head and only measures the shadows on the nose, and then calls a press conference and issues a report that concludes that it validates the photos as being real. Then when you read the small print, he withdraws that statement and says that being a scientist he can't be 100% certain the photo is real, but that the "conspiracy theorists" can no longer use the argument that the shadows fall the wrong way. Does he talk about "conspiracy theorists" in any of the other cases he uses his new digital forensic science? Does he talk about the CTs who suspected they superimposed Ophra's head on Ann Margret's body? Does he talk about those who must have conspired to take out Goebles from the photo with Hitler? Does he test his new technology on the published backyard photo in which they air brushed the scope off the rifle? And question what the motive was for doing it? And Kathy questions why he should do these real scientific tests on these photos when "alterationists" will simply attack him? Well he shouldn't say he is going to do the tests, then not do them, and still claim the tests prove the picture authentic, and he should do the tests because they should be done, not to please the CTs who bug him on a daily basis to do the tests, or to prove the alterationists wrong. He should do the tests for the same reason he uncovered the fake photos, and he should do the tests for reasons of national security, since it is the alleged assassin of the president we are talking about. And I am not an "alterationist" but someone who believes that the Zapruder film and the backyard photos are authentic, and evidence of Oswald's innocence. And since 80% of the people are Conspiracy Theorists," they are easy to mock, as Larry Schiller did in his book "The Scavangers and Critics" and Craig seems to take pleasure in smelling their drawers. Your constant, rabid rants about CTs is almost as Bill O'Reilly's paranoia of liberals. And another thing, Scully's paranoia may be a bit far fetched, but his research certainly indicates that the millions of dollars that Neukom is spending of Bill Gate's (or is it CIA) money for his "digital forensics" studies are being well spent, but it shouldn't stop with the verification of one of a dozen known varities of the backyard photos. Now will someone please put Castro's head on the backyard photo, and send it to Farid to see if he can tell it's authentic? Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Craig, Hany Farid has said in his paper that "scientists" claimed that the shadows are one of the reasons cited that the photos appear faked." If that is the case, then what are the other items that indicate that the photos are faked. There are quite a number of items "cited" by the jkf ct flakes. Care to tell us which oone YOU "know" are true. Farid was quite specfic about what HE studied. What is it that made people suspicious of the Oprah head on Ann Margret's body? Was it the shadows? No idea, I've not studied the issue nor will I. Also, both you and Farid complain about "Conspiracy Theorists," him for asking him "daily" to apply his new computerized digital forensic techniques - like "double quantization," to the photo evidence in the assassination of the President. I complained about that where exactly? Please show me my complaint. Did Farid "complain" or did he just make a statement of fact? Or is Bill Kelly just trying to put words in Farid's..and my mouth? Instead, he uses a computer model to build a replica of Oswald's head and only measures the shadows on the nose, and then calls a press conference and issues a report that concludes that it validates the photos as being real. Sheesh Bill, now you have totally blown your cover. You are a "researcher" and you can't read exactly what Farids tests looked at? My good, you are a trip. Only the nose shadow? The hits keep coming and coming from Bill Kelly! Then when you read the small print, he withdraws that statement and says that being a scientist he can't be 100% certain the photo is real, but that the "conspiracy theorists" can no longer use the argument that the shadows fall the wrong way. \ Again he makes a vaild statement of fact. He looked at one very specfic area of the backyard photos and reports his results. His results destroy the claim that the nose shadow and the ground shadow cannot be from a single lightsource at the same point in time. Now instead of acting like a total wanker, why not refute Farid's findings...you can do that can't you? Does he talk about "conspiracy theorists" in any of the other cases he uses his new digital forensic science? Does he talk about the CTs who suspected they superimposed Ophra's head on Ann Margret's body? Does he talk about those who must have conspired to take out Goebles from the photo with Hitler? I don't know and quite frankly it has zero bearing on his findings. If this is the best you can do in your very childish attempt to taint the well...you are toast. Does he test his new technology on the published backyard photo in which they air brushed the scope off the rifle? And question what the motive was for doing it? First, it's not "new technology". 3d modeling has been around for quite some time. And exactly why would the rifle scope have any bearing on the head and ground shadows? The answer..it has none. Just another Bill Kelly strawman. In additon, his work has nothing do with "motivation". To think that it should is simply moronic. And Kathy questions why he should do these real scientific tests on these photos when "alterationists" will simply attack him? Well he shouldn't say he is going to do the tests, then not do them, and still claim the tests prove the picture authentic, and he should do the tests because they should be done, not to please the CTs who bug him on a daily basis to do the tests, or to prove the alterationists wrong. He should do the tests for the same reason he uncovered the fake photos, and he should do the tests for reasons of national security, since it is the alleged assassin of the president we are talking about. Are you delusional Bill? He claims the shadows cast are as they are found in nature..nothing else. He did EXACTLY what he said he was going to do. You want him to do more. Fine, ask him. HOtherwise you are just building more strawmen.... And I am not an "alterationist" but someone who believes that the Zapruder film and the backyard photos are authentic, and evidence of Oswald's innocence. And since 80% of the people are Conspiracy Theorists," they are easy to mock, as Larry Schiller did in his book "The Scavangers and Critics" and Craig seems to take pleasure in smelling their drawers. No, I just really enjoy watching the JFK ct's make amazingly silly statements about the JKF photo record. You are a perfect example. Your constant, rabid rants about CTs is almost as Bill O'Reilly's paranoia of liberals. You guys are a target rich environment when it comes to the JFK photography. Given that most of you have zero intellectual honesty when it comes to the photo record, its like shooting fish in a barrel. And another thing, Scully's paranoia may be a bit far fetched, but his research certainly indicates that the millions of dollars that Neukom is spending of Bill Gate's (or is it CIA) money for his "digital forensics" studies are being well spent, but it shouldn't stop with the verification of one of a dozen known varities of the backyard photos. Either you can dispute the findings or you can't. Where it comes from has zero bearing on the results. Either it's correct or its not. If it's not, show us why. You wnat more...ask. He answered my email in one day. When did send yours? Now will someone please put Castro's head on the backyard photo, and send it to Farid to see if he can tell it's authentic? Go for it Bill. you have his address. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Craig, I have no longstanding opinion about the authenticity of the photos in question, as I have only been researching the events releated to the assassination of JFK for less than 15 months. I am however, a researcher of contemporary American politics for a bit longer than that, and as I posted, it is impossible to tell where Preston Gates ends and Microsoft begins, or vice-versa. The man who endowed the chair at Dartmouth that Hany Farid now sits in, was sent by Bill Gates father from the Preston Gates lawfirm, in 1978, where Gates Sr. was a managing partner, to advise Gate's son, Bill, in legal matters related to his then non-existant software business. Within three years, Gate's software business had a contract with IBM to lease an OS that would run on IBM's new PC line....an OS which Gates at that time did not own or control the rights to. This is more of the background of the most prominent and infamous former Preston Gates law partner, employed at Preston Gates from 1994 to late 2000, the span of time during most or all of the events described below were hatched and/or transpired. No one at Preston Gates was held accountable for hiring Jack Abramoff in 1994, making him a partner of the firm with apparantly no supervision; he became the source of one of the firms largest profits and influence stream. Both Abramoff and Art Dimopolous, worked for Preston Gates when the events described below transpired. Neither man apparantly told superiors at their law firm about the conflicts of interests they planned and entered into with that firm's client, Gus Boulis. DId Preston Gates have an ethics policy? Both Abamoff and Kidan copped pleas and began long prison sentences. Isn't it amazing that Preston Gates could hire Abramoff, make a huge amount of money and leverage the power and influence he brought to Preston Gates, yet avoid any investigation of the firm to determine how Abramoff could do what he did, unchallenged by any of the firm's other partners? Draw your own conclusions, Craig, but please stop the abusive, personal attacks, please re-read this forum's TOS. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/ref/suncruz.phpThe Muckraker's Reference Section Suncruz ...Jack Abramoff purchased SunCruz with partner Adam Kidan in 2000. Both have since been indicted on charges stemming from the acquisition. Gus Boulis started SunCruz casinos in 1994. The company provided "cruises to nowhere" in which Florida's state gambling laws were avoided by taking gamblers out into international waters. Florida officials, frustrated by the company's avoidance of state gambling laws and fed up with complaints about drunken and rowdy crowds disembarking in SunCruz ports, were eager shut SunCruz down. In 1999, they finally charged Boulis with violations of the Shipping Act and forced him to sell the company. The state agreed to keep Boulis' legal troubles secret so that he would have a fair bargaining position when he sold. Boulis' lawyer, Art Dimopolous, worked with Abramoff at Preston Gates, and Abramoff suggested Adam Kidan would be interested in purchasing the company. Abramoff did not disclose to Preston Gates that he would be partnering with Kidan in the purchase. Abramoff, Kidan, and former Reagan administration official Ben Waldman bought the company in 2000. Abramoff and Kidan would each have a 40% stake the company, with Waldman taking 10% and Boulis maintaining 10%. The deal closed in September 2000. Kidan and Boulis clashed, sometimes violently, over the way SunCruz was being run, and Boulis was assassinated behind the wheel of his car in February 2001. SunCruz declared bankruptcy four months after Boulis died, with Abramoff and Kidan relinquishing their stake in the company to the Boulis estate in exchange for a release from their debts and liabilities with the company. It is currently operating under new ownership. .... ....The men arrested for Boulis' murder were on SunCruz’s payroll. James "Pudgy" Fiorillo, Anthony "Little Tony" Ferrari and Anthony "Big Tony" Moscatiello, a former bookkeeper for the Gambino crime family, were arrested for the Boulis murder in September 2005. Moscatiello had received $145,000 in payments from SunCruz, then under Abramoff and Kidan's control, for what Kidan described as catering services, consulting, and site inspections, though there is no evidence such services were rendered. Ferrari's company, Moon Over Miami Beach, received $95,000 in payments from SunCruz for "surveillance." Abramoff and Kidan were indicted in association with the SunCruz purchase. ... ... SunCruz was used to curry favor with Capitol staffers. In January 2001, Abramoff leased a corporate jet and sent Tim Berry, a DeLay staffer, Tony Rudy, and two Conrad Burns (R-MT) staffers to Florida to watch the Super Bowl and then spend a night gambling on a SunCruz ship. ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2700980_pf.htmlwashingtonpost.com Arrests Made in Case Connected to Abramoff Three Men Allegedly Killed 'Gus' Boulis, Who Sold A Casino Cruise Line to the Embattled Washington Lobbyist By James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, September 27, 2005; 2:57 PM Fort Lauderdale police have arrested three men on murder and conspiracy charges in the 2001 gangland-style killing of a South Florida businessman who sold a casino cruise line to Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, authorities said today. Police picked up Anthony Moscatiello, 67, Anthony Ferrari, 48, and James Fiorillo, 28, last night and this morning in connection with the ambush slaying of Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, who was killed in Fort Lauderdale on Feb. 6, 2001. Boulis had sold SunCruz Casinos to Abramoff and a partner, Adam Kidan, in 2000 at a time when Abramoff was one of Washington's most powerful lobbyists. Abramoff and Kidan were indicted last month on charges of wire fraud in connection with the purchase of the company. Moscatiello, known to police as a bookkeeper to New York's Gambino crime family, was brought in as consultant by Kidan when he and Abramoff took control of SunCruz. Ferrari is a business associate of Moscatiello. Abramoff is at the center of a federal investigation into lobbying for Indian tribes and influence-peddling in Washington. Abramoff used contacts with Republican Reps. Tom DeLay (Tex.) and Robert W. Ney (Ohio) and members of their staffs as he worked to land the SunCruz deal, interviews and court records show. Ney twice placed comments in the Congressional Record at key points while Abramoff and Kidan were wrangling with Boulis over the purchase and control of the company. Ney first sharply criticized Boulis and later praised the new ownership under Kidan. Ney later said he was duped into making the comments by an Abramoff aide. Also during the negotiations, Abramoff brought a lender he was trying to impress to hobnob with DeLay in Abramoff's FedEx Field skybox at a Redskins-Cowboys game. DeLay has said he did not remember meeting the lender. Fort Lauderdale homicide detectives say they have been interested in interviewing Abramoff for years, but he has repeatedly begged off, citing scheduling difficulties..... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/politics/27lobby.htmlDemotion of a Prosecutor Is Investigated By PHILIP SHENON Published: September 27, 2005 WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 - The Justice Department's inspector general and the F.B.I. are looking into the demotion of a veteran federal prosecutor whose reassignment nearly three years ago shut down a criminal investigation of the Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, current and former department officials report. They said investigators had questioned whether the demotion of the prosecutor, Frederick A. Black, in November 2002 was related to his alert to Justice Department officials days earlier that he was investigating Mr. Abramoff. The lobbyist is a major Republican Party fund-raiser and a close friend of several Congressional leaders. Colleagues said the demotion of Mr. Black, the acting United States attorney in Guam, and a subsequent order barring him from pursuing public corruption cases brought an end to his inquiry into Mr. Abramoff's lobbying work for some Guam judges. Colleagues of Mr. Black, who had run the federal prosecutor's office in Guam for 12 years, spoke on condition of anonymity because of Justice Department rules that bar employees from talking to reporters. They said F.B.I. agents questioned several people in Guam and Washington this summer about whether Mr. Abramoff or his friends in the Bush administration had pushed for Mr. Black's removal. Mr. Abramoff's internal e-mail messages show that he boasted to clients about what he described as his close ties to John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, and others at the department.......... ........The Los Angeles Times and news organizations in Guam have reported on questions about the circumstances of Mr. Black's demotion. The recent inquiries by the F.B.I. and by the Justice Department's inspector general had not been previously reported; nor had Mr. Black's contacts in November 2002 with the department's public integrity section about his investigation of Mr. Abramoff........ .......Colleagues said they recalled that Mr. Black was distressed when he was notified by the department in November 2002 that he was being replaced. The announcement came only days after Mr. Black had notified the department's public integrity division in Washington, by telephone and e-mail communication, that he had opened a criminal investigation into Mr. Abramoff's lobbying activities for the Guam judges, the colleague said. The judges had sought Mr. Abramoff's help in blocking a bill in Congress to restructure the island's courts. The colleagues said that Mr. Black was also surprised when his newly arrived bosses in Guam blocked him from involvement in public corruption cases in 2003. Justice Department officials said Mr. Black was asked instead to focus on terrorism investigations, which had taken on new emphasis after the Sept. 11 attacks. "Whatever the motivation in replacing Fred, his demotion meant that the investigation of Abramoff died," said a former colleague in Guam. The Justice Department's public integrity section is responsible for cases involving government corruption. It is now overseeing the larger investigation of Mr. Abramoff in Washington....... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2005May1.htmlUntangling a Lobbyist's Stake in a Casino Fleet With Millions of Dollars Unaccounted for, Another Federal Investigation Targets Abramoff By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, May 1, 2005; Page A01 ...In 1999, federal prosecutors charged Boulis with violating the Shipping Act by purchasing his vessels without being a U.S. citizen. Boulis agreed to pay a $1 million fine and sell his cruise line. The government gave him 36 months to do it and agreed to keep the settlement secret so Boulis would not lose money in a fire sale. To sell his business, Boulis turned to his lawyers in the D.C. office of Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP. Art Dimopoulos, a maritime lawyer, looked for buyers. Jack Abramoff, one of Dimopoulos's partners at Preston Gates, said he could find one. Abramoff, 40, was a study in contradictions. A smooth-talking political power player who was an Orthodox Jew, the former high school weightlifter produced movies in Hollywood before becoming one of the top lobbyists in town. He had built a lucrative practice by showing then-Democrat-dominated K Street and its corporate clients how to make friends in the new Republican Congress. He was especially close to Tom DeLay, then House majority whip. Abramoff had also convinced casino-rich Indian tribes that they should begin switching their copious campaign contributions to the GOP. The buyer Abramoff found for Boulis was Adam Kidan, a 36-year-old New York City businessman who had owned the Dial-a-Mattress franchise in Washington. Abramoff had known Kidan since the 1980s when Abramoff was at Georgetown Law Center and Kidan was an undergraduate at George Washington University. Both were active in the national office of the College Republicans. Abramoff and Kidan were already in business with a third partner, former Reagan White House aide Ben Waldman, who also had been a College Republican. The three men had gotten together in a fledgling venture that sought to sell advertising on water taxis that would travel the Potomac River. Dimopoulos took Kidan to Florida to meet Boulis. What was not disclosed to Preston Gates for at least eight months, according to a statement by the firm on Friday, was that Abramoff then joined Kidan in the SunCruz venture as a 50-50 partner. Such an arrangement would constitute a potential conflict of interest, because partners in the Preston Gates firm would be on both sides of the deal. The Preston Gates statement said that when the firm learned of the situation, it notified Boulis, who was already aware of it and did not object. .... http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/publ...6cyikk.asp?pg=2Money, Mobsters, Murder The sordid tale of a GOP lobbyist's casino deal gone bad. by Matthew Continetti 11/28/2005, ...n 1978 Boulis moved to Florida. At first he thought he was moving south to retire; but by 1983 he had started to put his fortune to work, buying another sandwich franchise, Miami Subs, and also buying property throughout south Florida, including apartment buildings and hotels and restaurants. Boulis started SunCruz in 1994, and sold Miami Subs--which had grown to over 150 franchises throughout the United States--to Nathan's fast-food company in 1998. The price: $4.2 million. That sum probably seemed like small fry to Boulis, whose net worth then hovered around $40 million. His was, needless to say, a success story, an example of the plasticity of American life--Boulis could reinvent himself at will, from Greek to Canadian to American, from restaurateur to Ft. Lauderdale Donald Trump to casino impresario, rising from dishwasher to powerbroker in a few decades. But there was a problem. Boulis was not a U.S. citizen. On August 3, 1998, he was indicted on charges of violating the U.S. shipping code, which forbids foreign nationals from owning American commercial vessels. Boulis had clashed with the authorities before. SunCruz boats had been raided by police, who argued that gambling had occurred in Florida waters. And community activists in Hollywood Beach, Florida--midway between Ft. Lauderdale and Miami, where Boulis had a home--had fought the basing of a SunCruz boat in their community. Boulis had won those battles. Not this time. It took over a year to reach settlement with the government, but Boulis was able to work out a deal in which he would pay a fine, sell his interest in SunCruz, and thereby escape a jail sentence. So that Boulis's selling position would remain uncompromised, the deal with the feds would be kept a secret. It was January 2000. Boulis needed a buyer. He discussed possibilities with his attorney, Art Dimopoulos. Dimopoulos worked at Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, a megafirm in Washington, D.C. One day in the winter of 2000, Dimopoulos discussed his client's plight with the firm's star lobbyist, the vice president for government affairs, Jack Abramoff. Abramoff mentioned to Dimopoulos that he might know someone who would be interested in purchasing the casino line. That person was him. Abramoff had represented Indian gaming interests for some time; why not get in on both ends of the action? After all, casinos held a lot of profit for little work, and Abramoff had many contacts in the industry. Besides, his most recent venture, Potomac Outdoor Advertising, a small company that placed ads on Potomac River water taxis, had sunk like a rock. The casino line seemed much more promising. But there was a catch. Preston Gates ethics rules prevented employees from entering into business deals with entities represented by the firm. SunCruz Casinos was such an entity. Abramoff's solution was to not tell his employer about the deal. Instead he floated the idea to his partners on the water taxi scheme, Adam Kidan and Ben Waldman. Both had known Abramoff since his days as national chairman of the College Republicans, and both were enthusiastic. So Abramoff got started. He went back to Dimopoulos and told him that Adam Kidan was interested in buying SunCruz. Dimopoulos and Kidan flew to Ft. Lauderdale to meet with Boulis. Though he was not present at this initial meeting, it was always understood that Abramoff would be an equal partner with Kidan. Waldman's share would be minor. The three began negotiations. They agreed on a price early on: $145 million. This was far more money than Abramoff and his friends could produce. They would have to seek outside financing. Meanwhile, Boulis began making demands of his own. He was behaving like a businessman, not a man under investigation by the U.S. attorney's office. At this, according to Susan Schmidt and James Grimaldi's reporting in the Washington Post, Abramoff and Kidan were annoyed. It became necessary for them to pressure Boulis. It became necessary for them to show him that he had the weak hand, they the strong. ONE DAY IN MARCH 2000, Michael Scanlon, who had moved on from his job in DeLay's office to a job with Abramoff at Preston Gates, approached Ohio congressman Bob Ney. Would Ney mind inserting some comments into the Congressional Record, Scanlon asked? Ney agreed. This is what Ney entered into the Congressional Record on March 30, 2000: Mr. Speaker, you hear many arguments surrounding the gaming industry in America. Some have merit, some do not. Some criticism is deserved, some is not. Mr. Speaker, before I make my statement today I want to make it abundantly clear that while I am not an ardent proponent of the gaming industry nor an ardent foe of the gaming industry, I am an ardent foe of illegal activity in the gaming industry. Furthermore, I am an ardent supporter of consumer rights and consumer rights is exactly what I intend to discuss today. At the heart of my comments today is how certain gaming companies treat their patrons and how they conduct business. I believe that the vast majority of casino owners play by the rules, treat their patrons fairly, and provide quality entertainment for individuals and families. I have talked with many of these businessmen over the years who have conducted themselves in such a professional manner. However, there are a few bad apples out there who don't play by the rules and that is just plain wrong. One such example is the case of Suncruz casinos based out of Florida. Florida authorities, particularly Attorney General Butterworth, have repeatedly reprimanded Suncruz casinos and its owner Gus Boulis for taking illegal bets, not paying out their customers properly and has had to take steps to prevent Suncruz from conducting operations all together. In fact, a few years ago the Broward County Sheriffs Office, under the supervision of Mr. Butterworth, raided Suncruz ships, seizing their equipment. There was more: Mr. Speaker, how Suncruz Casinos and Gus Boulis conduct themselves with regard to Florida laws is very unnerving. But the consumer rights issue is even more disheartening. On December 1, 1998, the Broward County Sheriffs department announced that they had uncovered evidence that dealers on SunCruz ships were "cheating passengers by using incomplete decks of cards." This type of conduct gives the gaming industry a black eye and should not be tolerated. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat myself again. The vast majority of casino owners and operators are good honest people, but when an owner or operator stoops to this level to make a buck it hurts the public and it hurts the industry as a whole. I believe we can strike a balance here and our first step is to ensure that the average citizen is not hoodwinked by a dishonest casino operator. And more: There should be clear codes of conduct that are adhered to by every casino owner and operator. On the Ohio River we have gaming interests that run clean operations and provide quality entertainment. I don't want to see the actions of one bad apple in Florida, or anywhere else to affect the business aspect of this industry or hurt any innocent casino patron in our country. Mr. Speaker, I hope that steps will be taken by the industry, and in the case of lawbreakers by the appropriate authorities, to weed out the bad apples so that we can protect consumers across the country. One day in early November, I called Rep. Ney's office to discuss how these comments came to be, why an Ohio congressman felt it necessary to comment on a Florida casino, and what, exactly, Ney stood to gain from entering this speech into the record. Ney's staff declined to speak on the record. They referred me instead to past statements the congressman has made in which he regrets his association with Jack Abramoff and says he has been "duped." Ney's apologists--there aren't many--claim that he did not know Abramoff had anything to do with SunCruz when Scanlon approached the congressman with the prefabricated speech. That it might be questionable for a congressman to enter into the record whatever a lobbyist hands him is a possibility left unmentioned. Congressmen do this all the time, I was told. It's perfectly ordinary. The Ney speech was meant to demonstrate to Boulis both the seriousness with which Abramoff treated the purchase of SunCruz Casinos, and the power of Abramoff's connections in Washington. It seems to have worked on both counts. In June 2000, Abramoff and Kidan--Waldman, it would seem, was more or less passive in the deal--approached Foothill Capital, a lending company based in California, to provide financing. Foothill, in turn, brought in Citadel Equity, another lender based in the Cayman Islands. The parties began to work on a financial arrangement that would allow Abramoff, Kidan, and Waldman to purchase SunCruz without getting into too much debt. In the meantime, Abramoff continued to use his political connections to gain favor with his new targets, Boulis and Foothill Capital. Congressional records show that on June 9, 2000, six days after House majority whip Tom DeLay returned from a golf junket to Scotland with Abramoff, the whip's office sent an American flag that had flown atop the Capitol to Boulis. Less than a week later, on June 15, Abramoff, Kidan, DeLay's deputy chief of staff Tony Rudy, and Joan Wagner, Boulis's chief financial officer at SunCruz, flew on SunCruz's private jet from Ft. Lauderdale to Pebble Beach, California, to watch the U.S. Open golf tournament. (Rudy never mentioned the trip in his congressional disclosure reports.) In order to obtain a loan, Abramoff and Kidan would have to meet a certain financial threshold. On June 20, Abramoff faxed a financial statement to Kidan, who by this time had moved to Florida. A month later, on July 25, Kidan sent his own financial statement to Foothill offices in California. According to the indictment filed against Abramoff and Kidan, both statements were riddled with errors. Abramoff said that he was worth $13 million and provided a list of references including California Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher. ("I don't remember it, but I would certainly have been happy to give [Abramoff] a good recommendation," Rohrabacher told the Post last spring. "He's a very honest man.") Kidan said that he was worth $26 million. But Kidan specifically accounted for only about $874,000, and said the rest of his money was in "closely held corporations." Such errors seem to have been intentional. The indictment alleges that Abramoff and Kidan repeatedly misled representatives from Foothill Capital and Citadel Equity. The indictment specifically mentions an August 8, 2000, meeting in New York City at which Abramoff told the bankers that he was a partner at Preston Gates (he was not) and Kidan claimed to have had experience in running a casino (he had none). But none of the money lenders knew that. On September 18 there was another meeting in New York. There, Foothill Capital and Citadel Equity agreed to extend a $60 million loan if Abramoff and Kidan put up $23 million of their own money. Everyone seemed pleased at this arrangement. To celebrate, Abramoff, Kidan, and Foothill Capital vice president Greg C. Walker flew to Washington, where they watched the Redskins play the Dallas Cowboys from Abramoff's skybox at FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland. The skybox that night had been reserved for Tom DeLay. Walker later told the Washington Post he had met the majority whip at the game. DeLay's office says the congressman doesn't remember the encounter. Three days later, Abramoff and Kidan signed an Asset Purchase Agreement that outlined, in detail, how they would buy SunCruz for $147.5 million. Here, according to the agreement, is how the deal was supposed to have been structured: At the Closing, Buyer shall pay to Seller the amount of Buyer's financing plus Buyer's equity contribution in the sum of Twenty Three Million Dollars ($23,000,000), reduced by Buyer's closing and acquisition costs, by means of a cashier's check or wire transfer . . . Abramoff and Kidan then put their names to a Loan and Security Agreement containing similar language: agent [Foothill Capital] shall have received evidence satisfactory to it that Adam Kidan and Jack Abramoff have made an equity contribution to [sunCruz] in cash in an amount no less than $23,000,000 on terms and pursuant to documentation satisfactory to the lender group. This was the deal--before Abramoff, Kidan, and Boulis began to alter it. On September 22, in secret, Abramoff and Kidan convinced Boulis to accept IOUs for $20 million in exchange for a 10 percent interest in the newly reorganized SunCruz Casinos. The deal was doubly illegal: Abramoff and Kidan were violating the terms of their purchase agreement with their financiers, and Boulis was violating the terms of his settlement with the government, which required that he separate himself entirely from his company. They would have to move quickly to escape detection. According to the indictment, there was a flurry of activity on September 22. That day, Abramoff and Kidan put their names to an "Equity Contribution" document, which stated, "they have made a cash equity contribution to SunCruz Casinos LLC . . . in an aggregate amount of not less than $23,000,000." They sent a fax containing "closing documents" signed by Abramoff to their lenders' offices in New York. And they couriered the hard copies of these documents to their lenders' offices in New York. Finally, Kidan created two promissory notes, one for $5 million and another for $15 million, and sent them, via fax, to Boulis's representatives in New York. But there was more work to do. On September 26 Kidan drew up another "closing statement" that read, in part, "CASH FROM BUYERS in the amount of $23,000,000 . . . has been received by the Sellers," which "closing statement" Kidan then faxed to New York City. And which "closing statement," it now appears, was only one part of an elaborate fraud. The next day, according to the indictment of Abramoff and Kidan, "the defendants" forged a document purporting to show evidence of a $23 million wire transfer from an account at Chevy Chase Savings bank in suburban Maryland to Boulis's account at Ocean Bank in Miami Beach, and faxed that forgery to Foothill representatives in Boston. The forgery was titled, clumsily, "Funds Transfer Notification." But no such transfer occurred. No such funds existed. Nothing had happened--nothing, that is, except the transmission of forgeries and two flimsy IOUs. Upon receipt of the forged documents, Foothill Capital and Citadel Equity released a $60 million line of credit towards the purchase of SunCruz Casinos. Jack Abramoff was in the casino business. IT IS HARD TO SAY how much involvement Abramoff had in the day-to-day operations of SunCruz Casinos. We know that he remained in Washington while Kidan moved to Florida. We know that Abramoff and Kidan began to pay themselves salaries of $500,000 a year, that Kidan bought a 30-foot boat and a Mercedes S 500 and moved into a condo for which he paid $4,300 a month. We know that SunCruz quickly hired Michael Scanlon as its "public affairs specialist" and spokesman, and that the company began to pay for Abramoff's $230,000-a-year skybox at FedEx Field. We know that Kidan soon fired many of Boulis's hires, members of the Boulis family and the larger South Florida Greek community who depended on their benefactor's largesse. "We fired his friends, we fired his family, and he wasn't happy with it," Kidan would later tell the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. We know that Boulis and Kidan did not get along. Boulis loudly voiced his opposition to his new partners' way of managing the business, and on October 24, 2000, Boulis wrote a letter demanding those partners pay him the $20 million they had promised. The letter was a flop. Boulis never saw any money. But he did see, a few days later, the following statement, which Rep. Bob Ney entered into the Congressional Record on October 26: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I felt it necessary to speak out against alleged abuses in the gaming industry. I did so not to express disapproval of the gaming industry as a whole but to express my frustration with those in the gaming industry who may unfairly take advantage of their patrons. My earlier statement was related to the previous actions of SunCruz Casino at the time and based on the findings of Florida Attorney General Robert Butterworth and several news reports. I was concerned that some individuals who participate in gambling for entertainment and recreation can unwittingly fall prey to unethical practices by a few rogue casino owners. I said then and will repeat now that I am not anti-gaming, and I would not call myself pro-gaming either. I do, however, strongly believe in the concept that those who choose to gamble should be able to do so in the establishments of respected gaming interests who treat their customers and their communities fairly. Given the Attorney General's findings and the record of SunCruz under the previous owner, I did not believe that the casino was operating a fair and responsible establishment. But things change: Since my previous statement, I have come to learn that SunCruz Casino now finds itself under new ownership and, more importantly, that its new owner has a renowned reputation for honesty and integrity. The new owner, Mr. Adam Kidan, is most well known for his successful enterprise, Dial-a-Mattress, but he is also well known as a solid individual and a respected member of his community. While Mr. Kidan certainly has his hands full in his efforts to clean up SunCruz's reputation, his track record as a businessman and as a citizen leads me to believe that he will easily transform SunCruz from a questionable enterprise to an upstanding establishment that the gaming community can be proud of. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my statement is not to criticize or promote the gaming industry or to favor one casino owner over another, but rather stand by the consumers who patronize casinos as a form of entertainment. I believe that every individual who visits a gaming vessel in Florida, should know that they are gaming in an establishment that represents the community well, and gives every individual a fair shot. I hope that all casino owners and operators share in this philosophy. I look forward to the positive changes Mr. Kidan is more than capable of bringing to the gaming industry and I hope that others will follow his lead when he brings positive changes to SunCruz. Once again Michael Scanlon had approached Rep. Ney with a statement that he wanted entered into the Congressional Record. And once again Ney had done exactly what Scanlon had asked him to do. And yet at no point did anyone think it necessary to ask: Just who is Adam Kidan? KIDAN IS 41. He grew up in New York, and went to college at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He was a young conservative. At GW he joined the College Republicans, and got to know the group's national chairman, Jack Abramoff, who was studying law at Georgetown. The two became friends. After graduation, Kidan returned to New York, and began taking classes at Brooklyn Law School. He seems to have known exactly what he wanted to do in life: go to school, get good grades, work in politics, make a whole lot of money. He volunteered on George H.W. Bush's presidential campaign, got his law degree in 1989, and took a job as president of the Four Freedoms Foundation, a New York City-based nonprofit or "private sector initiative" meant to "assist Eastern Europe and other democratically emerging nations around the world." The foundation appears to have been a tax shelter disguised as an exercise in conservative benevolence. "Government cannot be expected to bear the financial burden of assisting countries that have chosen to adopt democratic principles," Kidan said in the February 14, 1990, press release announcing the venture. "The private sector must assume some responsibility if these countries are expected to compete in today's world market." Kidan's association with the foundation was short-lived. In the early 1990s he went into business for himself, starting a chain of bagel joints in ritzy neighborhoods on Long Island. Kidan's partner in the bagel business was one Michael Cavallo, now deceased. In October 2005, NYPD officials told the Miami Herald that Cavallo was "an associate" of known gangsters. In all probability one of those known gangsters was Anthony Moscatiello, aka Big Tony, who began to frequent Kidan's bagel shops. "I had advice from him occasionally because I was in the food business," Kidan told lawyers for the Boulis estate in a 2001 deposition. Moscatiello owned a catering company, Gran-Sons Inc., in Queens. "This is someone I know who has experience in feeding large groups of people," Kidan has said of Moscatiello. In fact some of the large groups of people that Moscatiello had experience feeding were members of the Gambino crime family, including legendary mob boss John Gotti, who would often hire Big Tony to cater family weddings. Moscatiello has a relationship with the Gambinos going back at least two decades. On August 23, 1983, he was indicted on charges of heroin trafficking, along with several others, including Gotti's brother Gene. Gene went to jail. The charges against Moscatiello were dropped. In 1989 the New York Times printed excerpts of a phone conversation between Moscatiello and Gotti recorded eight years earlier by the FBI: Gotti: Listen, I called your [expletive deleted] house five times yesterday; now if your wife thinks you are a [expletive deleted] dunsky or if she's a [expletive deleted] dunsky and you're gonna disregard my [expletive deleted] phone calls, I'll blow you and that [expletive deleted] house up. Moscatiello: I never disregard anything you . . . Gotti: Well you call your [expletive deleted] wife up and you tell her, or I'll get in the [expletive deleted] car and I'll go over there and I'll [expletive deleted] tell her. Moscatiello: All right. Gotti: This is not a game. I'm not gonna have to reach for you for three days and nights here. My [expletive deleted] time is valuable. Moscatiello: I know that. Gotti: And you get your [expletive deleted] ass down here and see me tomorrow. Moscatiello said he would be there tomorrow. Gotti: Yeah, never mind you'll be there all day tomorrow. And don'ma, [sic] let me have to do this again, cause if I hear anybody else calls you and you respond within five days I'll [expletive deleted] kill you. It was a stormy friendship. But the two persevered. In 1991 Moscatiello was photographed accompanying Gotti into court. Kidan denies ever having known about Moscatiello's involvement in organized crime. Whether that is true or not--and it probably isn't--the mob is a recurring motif in Kidan's life. CONSIDER KIDAN'S MOTHER, Judy. Remarried to one Samuel "Sami" Shemtov, she lived with her husband in a stately home on Staten Island. Shemtov was a businessman with interests in New York and Miami. He had fought in the Israeli Army. Although Judy didn't know it, a substantial part of his fortune was in pornography and sex shops, including a chain of stores called "Sensations." ("It's very clean, very nice," Shemtov told the Miami Herald in 1995.) One night in February 1993, a Mercury sedan sat outside the Shemtovs' house, the engine running. The driver, Chris Paciello, aka "Binger," aka Christian Ludwigsen, was a low-level associate of the Bonanno crime family. A few weeks earlier he had heard from a friend, Joe Eisenberg, who had heard from a former girlfriend, Carol--former wife of Sami Shemtov--that the pornographer kept thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in a safe in his house. Shemtov had not told his second wife about the safe, where he kept the money he had made in his sleaze shops. Paciello and a few of the boys from his crew wanted to break into the house and find the safe. But the job went horribly awry. While he waited outside, three of Paciello's associates stormed the house. In the chaos that followed, a member of Paciello's gang shot Kidan's mother in the face. She died on the spot. Her murder made the front-page of the New York Daily News. The headline: "Death at the Door." At her funeral at New York City's Temple Emanu-El, according to Michele McPhee's Mob Over Miami, Kidan delivered the eulogy: My sisters, our stepfather, and I are all completely emotionally distraught by all this. It's getting worse rather than better. It's bad enough losing someone close, but then to lose them in this way, and even worse, not to know why it happened. . . . If there was one aspect of my life that I always relied on to be there for me, it was my mother. She was very happy with Sami. She had a great marriage and great friends. She was never happier. Shemtov put up a $15,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of his wife's killers. But the killers remained free until 1999. By the time of his arrest, incidentally, Paciello had become semi-famous for co-owning and operating a series of Miami Beach nightclubs with pretentious one-word names like "Liquid" and "Joia." He had dated Madonna and MTV-deejay-turned-model Daisy Fuentes and was once seen with his hands on Jennifer Lopez's behind. He is now in prison. Within a few months of Judy Shemtov's death, Kidan's bagel business had gone under. He looked for other opportunities. In 1992 he had started to do legal work for Dial-a-Mattress, the famous New York City company that rush delivers bedding to people's homes. The company wanted to expand. On February 14, 1994, a few months before the Republicans took over Congress, Dial-a-Mattress announced the opening of its first Washington, D.C., franchise--Adam R. Kidan, proprietor. The press release marking the occasion is notable mainly for Kidan's use of exclamation points and lame puns. "I went to school at the George Washington University and always dreamed of coming back to D.C. to work. Now, I'm actually helping other people dream a little easier with a good night's sleep!" Kidan said. "We knew the D.C. area was a great choice. This was a decision we didn't have to sleep on!" Kidan did his best to become a local celebrity. He cut his own radio advertisements, 30-second-long exercises in commercial sadism in which Kidan would holler at potential customers and repeat, mantra-like, the Dial-a-Mattress slogan: "Leave off the last 'S'--that's for 'Savings'!" He made philanthropic contributions, donating $25,000 in bedding to southern Virginia charities. ("We like to help the shelters as often as we can," he told the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot. "We do this on a regular basis.") And he became a fixture of D.C. nightlife. He attended for example the 1995 Bartender's Ball, a charity event noted for its trashiness. A February 7, 1995, Washington Times article on the ball reported that Kidan had offered a "great" pickup line--"I can have a mattress here in two hours"--and then told a story about the Clintons: "The Clintons ordered a mattress and then didn't pay us for six months, but things are picking up with the new Congress. We sold 34 new Republican congressmen mattresses, and they all paid on time. Sonny Bono bought four!" Kidan liked this story so much that he told it to the Washington Times's "Inside the Beltway" columnist John McCaslin two weeks later: "A funny thing about the Clintons," [Kidan] disclosed. "The White House told us we could not use their purchasing a mattress from us for press purposes, and we agreed. But when six months went by and I didn't get paid I called the White House and said not only will I tell the press the Clintons bought our mattress, but that we didn't get paid. The next day I got a check." That this story was in all likelihood apocryphal was beside the point. It satisfied a dual need: Kidan's need for press, and the press's need for stories that made the Clintons look cheap. He reappeared in McCaslin's column on March 14, 1997, peddling another fiction: Adam Kidan, the chairman and chief executive officer of Dial-A-Mattress, tells us that the queen-size Serta Perfect Sleeper his company sold to the White House in January 1993 for $549 is obviously holding up well for all the wear and tear. "When the White House called our 800-number, they told us it was for the Lincoln Bedroom and Mr. Clinton's mom would be sleeping on it," Mr. Kidan reveals. He quips: Dial-A-Mattress' slogan "has always been 'Leave off the last S, that's for savings,' but maybe it should be changed to 'Leave off the last S, that's for solicitations." Note the date. There was no Dial-a-Mattress franchise in Washington when the Clintons moved into the White House in 1993. What may seem like a small error or a little white lie is in fact indicative of a broader truth: Kidan's public demeanor was increasingly at odds with private reality. Behind the press mentions and charity drives, behind the appointments to the Greater Washington Urban League and the D.C. Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee, behind the radio commercials and the speeches to undergraduates at George Washington and the rose-tinted business projections, by the end of the '90s Kidan was mired in litigation, and his business was at risk. In 1995 Kidan had filed a 29-count lawsuit against the Dial-a-Mattress franchiser in New York. He lost. In 1995 Kidan had declared personal bankruptcy. In 1999 he was forced to sell his Dial-a-Mattress franchise, and his online mattress company, eMattress.com, collapsed. The same year, Sami Shemtov sued Kidan for stealing $250,000 from a business deal as well as the $15,000 Shemtov had put up as reward money after Judy Shemtov was murdered. Kidan was forced to repay him. In 2000 New York state had Kidan disbarred. Kidan told people that he had founded Dial-a-Mattress. He had not. Kidan told people that he had been a "principal" in and "general counsel" to the St. Maarten Hotel Beach Club and Casino. No such establishment exists. Kidan told people that he was a "former partner" at the law firm "Duncan, Fish, Bergen & Kidan." I have found no evidence that there was ever such a firm. Kidan told people that his friend Anthony Moscatiello was a graduate of the Culinary Institute of America. Moscatiello was not. Adam Kidan is a bold and unapologetic xxxx. This is the man whom Rep. Bob Ney described as having a "renowned reputation for honesty and integrity." IT IS UNCLEAR why Foothill Capital and Citadel Equity lent over $60 million to, as the Washington Post put it, "someone such as Kidan." It has been reported that Foothill Capital performed a background check on Kidan that confirmed his many failed businesses, lawsuits, and bankruptcies. Why take such a chance? Perhaps Foothill Capital chose instead to focus on Kidan's partners, Abramoff and Waldman. In September 2000 Abramoff was at the height of his power in Washington. Earlier that year he had been the subject of a celebratory front-page profile in the Wall Street Journal. Tom DeLay had described him as one of his "dearest friends." His lobbying clients brought his firm millions of dollars in revenue. Waldman also must have seemed a sure bet. Like Kidan, Waldman met Abramoff in College Republicans, but unlike Kidan he went into government. He worked in the Reagan administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and in the West Wing as the head of the Office of Public Liaison. In the mid-'80s he ran some outside nonprofits--the Foundation for the Private Sector, the Reagan-Bush Jewish Coalition--and in the 1988 Republican presidential primaries he flacked for Pat Robertson. After Robertson's candidacy failed Waldman moved to West Virginia. He ran twice--in 1992 and 1994--as the Republican candidate in that state's third congressional district. He lost. After his losses he went into the computer business. He had never worked in a casino. Last May, Susan Schmidt and James Grimaldi of the Washington Post asked Greg Walker, the vice president of Foothill Capital, why he extended the loan to Abramoff, Kidan, and Waldman. Well, Walker replied, "You'd have to be there at the time." The SunCruz deal collapsed in the space of a few months. The company was fraught with infighting. By December 2000 Kidan and Boulis were no longer speaking. On December 5 Joan Wagner, Boulis's lieutenant, called a meeting. All the principals attended except Abramoff, who was traveling overseas. The meeting was a disaster. Witnesses later told police that Kidan began to scream, threatening and insulting Boulis and Wagner. Furious, Boulis assaulted Kidan. Someone called 911. Kidan filed a police report in which he accused Boulis of stabbing him in the neck with a pen. That night Wagner sent Abramoff an email: The crisis at suncruz took on new meaning today with gb [Gus Boulis] and ak [Adam Kidan] getting physical. Money is being wasted and lost and it shouldn't continue. . . . I'm telling you that you must address the issue asap. Your delay is only emboldening Adam and he is really on the edge. I liked Adam and thought I would be working with all of you to build an empire to be proud of and make us all alot of money too. At the end of her email Wagner suggested that Abramoff join Boulis and Ben Waldman to vote Kidan out of SunCruz. Abramoff forwarded Wagner's email to Kidan. "We need to shut her down," Kidan replied. To which he added: "Jack, you need to act above all of this." And here we reach something of an impasse. While the Washington investigation into Abramoff and his dealings with Indian tribes has opened a gusher of material to the public--emails, documents, testimony, and so forth--the Florida criminal investigation has not. A few emails have been published here and there. Documents are hard to come by. Testimony so far is nonexistent. It is difficult to reconstruct events. HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW. After the December 5, 2000, meeting Kidan and Abramoff exchanged a flurry of emails. Kidan suggested a "concerted press effort" targeted at Boulis. "I was the victim of family violence before," Kidan wrote. "Let's use that in our favor (my mother wouldn't mind) to show how we can't tolerate violence and the likes of criminals. Let's get the protective order. By painting the picture we box him. The negative is that his profile shows that he will retaliate against me." Abramoff replied: "I agree with this completely." Then Abramoff sent an email to Boulis's attorney Anthony Damianakis: "It is my belief that Gus and Adam need to resolve the issue of what Gus is owed and Gus needs to move on out of the company." Kidan began to behave as though his life were in danger. He obtained the restraining order against Boulis that he had mentioned to Abramoff. He hired bodyguards. He purchased a $180,000 lease on an armor-plated Mercedes. And in his emails to Abramoff, Kidan began to refer to a "friend in NY," who he said was "acting out of concern for my safety." "By sending security I am afraid it will make things worse," Kidan wrote Abramoff, somewhat cryptically. "And I will ask him today to remove them. I appreciate his efforts, but the situation is at a critical point." Meanwhile, Kidan's media strategy took shape. When he obtained the restraining order against Boulis in January 2001, Kidan made sure to contact Jeff Shields, a reporter at the Sun Sentinel covering SunCruz. "This guy is violent--he's sleazy," Kidan said. Later, describing his December 5 fight with Boulis, Kidan would tell Shields, "If someone's going to jump across at me in a business meeting, that's when someone shows they're violent--they don't care. That's when what happened with my mother hits home with me." Around this time Kidan put Anthony Moscatiello--presumably his "friend in NY"--on the SunCruz payroll. In December 2000 he sent $20,000 in checks to Jennifer Moscatiello, Big Tony's daughter. Between December 13, 2000, and June 8, 2001, Kidan authorized $145,000 in checks to Anthony Moscatiello's daughter and his company Gran-Sons Inc. Also in December 2000 Kidan sent $40,000 in checks to Moon Over Miami Beach, a mysterious company incorporated by one Anthony "Little Tony" Ferrari, who was known around town for bragging that he was John Gotti's "cousin." Ferrari had been arrested several times, most recently in 1999 for attacking a lawyer who had brought suit against his business partners, Frank J. and Thomas L. Pepper. Between December 7, 2000, and March 29, 2001, Kidan authorized $95,000 in checks to Moon Over Miami Beach, which amount does not include the $10,000 in free poker chips Kidan provided Thomas Pepper and three associates on July 5, 2001. Asked about the checks to Moscatiello in 2001, Kidan said they were for catering and "food and beverage" services that Moscatiello had provided. There is no evidence any such services were provided. Asked about the checks to Anthony Ferrari in 2001, Kidan said they were for security operations. There is no evidence that Kidan's life was ever in danger. Why did Adam Kidan pay over $200,000 to known mobsters?..... http://www.sptimes.com/News/092701/news_pf...nked_to_l.shtml"Employees on a SunCruz gambling ship that sails from John's Pass think some of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were gambling on the ship the week before the attacks. One name on the passenger list from a Sept. 5 cruise is the same as one of the suspected terrorists' names, [Michael] Hlavsa said. A cash advance was taken out on that passenger's credit card, he said." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...04/MN102970.DTL "In addition to Atta, 33, and Al-Shehhi, investigators are telling business owners that Nawaq Alhamzi, age unknown, Ziad Jarrahi, 26, and Hani Hanjour, 29, stayed in Las Vegas off and on between May and August. They say the group -- which chillingly included a hijacker from each of the four flights -- made at least six trips here." http://web.archive.org/web/20051103065151/...02-22/news.htmlA Double Whammy Two top execs at the gaming company that Boulis built have deep ties to the Christian right By Bob Norman Published: Thursday, February 22, 2001 Almost immediately after Greek tycoon Gus Boulis was gunned down in his BMW on February 6, Fort Lauderdale police investigators began scrutinizing SunCruz Casinos. But a look at the short list of owners of the cruise-to-nowhere company that Boulis founded turns up nothing resembling violent thugs or organized crime figures. Instead it shows prominent Republican Party members with long-standing, deep ties to the religious right. SunCruz executives Jack Abramoff and Ben Waldman are walking examples of the strange and sometimes uneasy alliance between the family-values party and the gambling industry. Both men have strong ties to the Christian Coalition, which is adamantly opposed to gambling. And both were affiliated with the Reagan administration before leaving government service for careers with conservative causes. Abramoff, SunCruz's vice president, has been connected to the Christian right since he was a student at Brandeis University, where he served as the head of a conservative group called the College Republicans. In that position he enlisted a young Ralph Reed as his top deputy; the two have remained close friends ever since. After graduating from Georgetown University law school in 1986, Abramoff later went to work in the Reagan White House and played an integral role in starting the Christian Coalition with Reed. Waldman, the company president, served as associate director of Reagan's White House Office of Public Liaison and in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1988 he began work as press secretary and top aide to Pat Robertson during the televangelist's run for the presidency. (Robertson now directs the Christian Coalition.) Waldman then staged two failed bids for a West Virginia congressional seat in the 1990s. There's an easy answer to the question of how the pair reconciles affiliation with both the Christian Coalition and the gambling industry, says company spokesman Mike Scanlon, also a GOP lobbyist. (Abramoff and Waldman declined to comment.) Both Abramoff and Waldman are Jewish, and the basic tenets of that faith don't preclude gambling, he says. "Jack is a deeply religious man himself; he's a conservative, Orthodox Jew," Scanlon says. "But there is no conflict in his religion with representing or owning gaming interests. Gambling is permissible by their religion." That explanation doesn't wash with the Rev. Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling. "Bullxxxx," says Grey, who belongs to the United Methodist Church. He accuses the Republican Party of selling out to the big money of the gambling industry, a view shared by Christian Right stalwarts like former presidential candidate Gary Bauer and Focus on the Family president James Dobson. "It's hypocritical for the Republican Party to talk about family values when it's promoting a business that destroys families," Grey adds. "What politicians want to do is say the right things about gambling and then take the money it gives them." There is no question that Abramoff and Waldman, who are both in their early forties, give SunCruz considerable governmental clout in an industry that relies heavily on the kindness of politicians. Abramoff is a lobbying powerhouse who has been paid millions of dollars by the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi to keep Congress from taxing revenues made at their casinos. He also represents E-lottery.com, which provides Internet services to state lotteries. In December he joined the Miami-based law firm of Greenberg Traurig, bringing $8 million worth of annual lobbying business with him, according to Scanlon. Last July he was featured in a Wall Street Journal article that called him a "GOP strongman" in Washington because of his pull with Republican leaders such as Tom DeLay, the majority whip in the House of Representatives, and Texas Rep. Dick Armey. Gaming interests have filled the campaign chests of some Republicans, including DeLay and Armey, say antigambling activists. "Tom DeLay blocks all antigambling legislation," says Mark Harrison, a Capitol Hill lobbyist who works for antigambling forces. "The industry runs all the money through him, so he blocks the bills." (DeLay's office in Texas didn't return messages from New Times.) At present SunCruz faces little threat on the national level; a bill that would have banned gambling cruises to international waters was killed last year. But the industry has voiced concern about new attorney general John Ashcroft, another Abramoff friend, who has professed his opposition to gambling in all forms. And President George W. Bush, while he has made no promise, has said he doesn't support the gambling business. "Jack has a relationship with the President," Scanlon says. "He doesn't have a bat phone or anything, but if he wanted an appointment, he would have one." On the state level, Attorney General Bob Butterworth, a Democrat, has been trying (and failing) to shut down SunCruz for years, but Scanlon says he doesn't expect that kind of combative relationship to continue. "Bob Butterworth had issues not only with the day-cruise industry but also with Gus as an individual," Scanlon says. "We've reached out to the [Florida] attorney general's office, and we intend to follow not only the letter but also the spirit of the law. We are far different people than Gus Boulis and prior management." The most powerful man in the state, Gov. Jeb Bush, hasn't embraced the gambling industry. But he has taken little action to curtail it. "As far as I can tell, he's not in favor of gambling expansion, but we have no reason to believe he is antigaming," Scanlon says. SunCruz has high hopes. The company, which owns 11 cruise ships and employs about 1000 people, plans to double the size of its business in three years. And Abramoff is currently touring countries where SunCruz wants to introduce cruise-ship gambling, including Israel and Hong Kong. At the time Boulis was murdered, company chairman Adam Kidan, also an active Republican and campaign contributor, was in Israel trying to drum up business, Scanlon says. Such expansion may engender controversy, but Abramoff and Waldman are no strangers to that. Abramoff spent the late 1980s and early 1990s in Hollywood as a movie producer. The United Nations placed one of his films, Red Scorpion, about a Soviet spy who ultimately joins U.S.-backed forces, on a boycott list in 1993 when it was discovered that South Africa, still under apartheid at the time, supplied the set with military equipment. And in 1994, the year Republicans took over Congress, Abramoff joined a Seattle law firm and began his lobbying career with the help of close ties to Newt Gingrich and DeLay. A year later he represented Zairean dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, who was widely considered a corrupt despot and was labeled an "obstacle to democracy" by the U.S. State Department. Abramoff also made a bundle lobbying for the Northern Marianas Islands, an American commonwealth that human-rights advocates say is little more than a legal sweatshop. The islands are exempt from immigration and minimum-wage laws; for the past several years, Abramoff has been successful in persuading Congress to keep them that way. Waldman, for his part, worked at the Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Reagan-era scandals, and then left for a job with Joseph A. Strauss, who had started a company designed to garner federal funds for developers and landlords. Another of Strauss' employees was thenInterior Secretary James Watt. Allegations of kickbacks surfaced, and in the early 1990s both Strauss and Watt were investigated and convicted of various felonies. Waldman was never charged. Kidan, Abramoff, and Waldman formed an ownership group that bought SunCruz for $147 million from Boulis this past summer. After the murder, the media turned to the company in part because Boulis and Kidan had been carrying on a public feud. Newspapers quoted Kidan complaining Boulis had attacked him during a business meeting and was out to kill him. Kidan and Boulis accused each other of cheating on the deal, and Boulis filed a lawsuit claiming SunCruz had bounced millions of dollars in checks for the sale and was delinquent in paying him millions more. At press time Fort Lauderdale police hadn't yet interviewed SunCruz executives, but they are researching the company, says police spokesman Mike Reed. No one at SunCruz, though, seems particularly concerned. The company wants only to show Boulis' family respect and get on with business, says Scanlon. The marriage between Republican leaders and the gambling industry is perfectly natural, he adds. "I don't think gambling is antifamily at all," Scanlon says. "Gambling doesn't destroy people -- people destroy people. The gentleman or gentlewoman who decides to gamble makes that decision of his own free will.... It's a free-market industry, and that appeals to conservatives." At Abramoff and Waldman's urging, politicians are likely to help the company succeed, says Grey, the antigambling crusader. "They could stop this industry, but they won't," he explains. "Florida seems to be against gambling, but they let it continue. Both parties -- it's not just Republicans -- have used gambling as a feeding trough. Used to be the Mob went to Las Vegas to fill its pockets, now it's [to] Congress." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 And Kathy questions why he should do these real scientific tests on these photos when "alterationists" will simply attack him? Bill, If you'll note what I wrote in that post, I was referring to his authenticating the Z Film. I said nothing like that about the photos. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=174584 What I did say about the photo study was that I didn't think he was doing anything dark and sinister, and that both you and Bernice had great questions that someone might want to send him. My point here has nothing to do with the analysis itself. It has to do with this guy getting drawn and quartered. Craig, IIRC, sent him an email with an invitation to join, and also enclosed Fetzer's post. Assuming he reads this thread as well, do you really think he is going to take the time to join? What's the point? No matter what he does, he has been "tried" and "convicted". While I grant you that a high percentage of Americans are CTs, I don't think most of them are as serious in pursuit of what happened, as many others who are here are. Mr. Farid probably also doesn't put this high on his list of to dos. I think he was asked and analyzed the photo, and reported the results. That man is probably inundated by emails saying God knows what to him, and if some of the more extreme CT groups wrote him, you can imagine why he would not wish to continue.. . A reasonable, rational approach is the way to write to him. Nothing is solved by the rants. Kathy Yes, I understand that neither Craig or Mr. Farid are really interested in the authenticity of the backyard photos, and there's no reason for him to continue his studies down this line. The press release he put out and the headlines that followed, that he had authenticated the backyard photos, was wrong and he didn't even review the one photo that we know was retouched, his specialty. I do have a list of questions, that I will send him, but he has no real interest in this other than getting the publicity he has already got. I think that Bevilaqua should bother him evey day. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) It appears that this photo may have been taken by Lawrence Schiller, if Randy Owen's information is correct, and he was trying to address the same issue that Farid tried to address, the nose shadows. If you look at some of Farid's examples of historical photo fakery, there's one in which the shadows are not aligned properly. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&id=18267 Randy Owen wrote: I believe I have seen the photo you sent. I'd have to double-check, but I believe it was allegedly taken by Lone Nutter Lawrence Schiller in 1967. On part one of the 4-part CBS special back then, Schiller appeared on the show trying to debunk the theory the backyard photos were fake. He claimed on the show the photo (the one you sent in your email) was taken in the same place on the same day (just 4 years later) to compare with the Oswald photos. Schiller tried to prove there was no "disparity" in the shadows shown on the Oswald photos. It's quite probable Schiller made sure Liebeler received a copy of his "research." Liebeler probably just filed it in a suitcase and forgot about it. And Len, If you read what was posted, it IS THE ENTIRE article/report - only a few pages long, that Hany Farid has written, and will be published in a magazine - that's it. And I'm glad that Craig has acknowledged that he is only contributing to this forum for giggles and amusement. BK Edited November 17, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Sheesh, your paranoia really know no bounds does it Scully? You have tarred and feathered Farid for no reason other that your gross paranoia. None of your mountainous cut and pastes have the first thing to do with the question at hand. And you totally disregard the actual work that Farid has done. Either it is correct or not. Either you can impeach it or not. Clearly your only desire is to endulge your paranoia. Enjoy your fantasy. You need a life. Edited November 17, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 And Kathy questions why he should do these real scientific tests on these photos when "alterationists" will simply attack him? Bill, If you'll note what I wrote in that post, I was referring to his authenticating the Z Film. I said nothing like that about the photos. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=174584 What I did say about the photo study was that I didn't think he was doing anything dark and sinister, and that both you and Bernice had great questions that someone might want to send him. My point here has nothing to do with the analysis itself. It has to do with this guy getting drawn and quartered. Craig, IIRC, sent him an email with an invitation to join, and also enclosed Fetzer's post. Assuming he reads this thread as well, do you really think he is going to take the time to join? What's the point? No matter what he does, he has been "tried" and "convicted". While I grant you that a high percentage of Americans are CTs, I don't think most of them are as serious in pursuit of what happened, as many others who are here are. Mr. Farid probably also doesn't put this high on his list of to dos. I think he was asked and analyzed the photo, and reported the results. That man is probably inundated by emails saying God knows what to him, and if some of the more extreme CT groups wrote him, you can imagine why he would not wish to continue.. . A reasonable, rational approach is the way to write to him. Nothing is solved by the rants. Kathy Yes, I understand that neither Craig or Mr. Farid are really interested in the authenticity of the backyard photos, and there's no reason for him to continue his studies down this line. The press release he put out and the headlines that followed, that he had authenticated the backyard photos, was wrong and he didn't even review the one photo that we know was retouched, his specialty. I do have a list of questions, that I will send him, but he has no real interest in this other than getting the publicity he has already got. I think that Bevilaqua should bother him evey day. BK Your reading skill leave a lot to be desired Bill. Is my not being interested in the authenticity of the backyard photos, yet another of your now famous "little white untruths"? Inquiring minds really want to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Ok, Kathy. I asked him now. (At least i've got the time now) to make it transparent as possible take a look at here: Dear Mr. Hany Farid first let me introduce. I'am Martin Hinrichs from Germany, 43 years young and 3D Expert since 1992. I'am working as a 3d Freelancer since 2001. I was in 2003 in egypt and was fascinated by your home country. I'am also interested in the history problematic of the JFK assassination in 1963. I've watched the video of your study on the backyard photo and the related shadows. To be honest, i did the same some month ago because i was suspicious as you. The basis of my work included a photomatch with the real backyard photo in the background, the database of the correct Longitude/Latitude (coordinates) from Neely street and the accurate alignement of the backyard (west to east) position and the correct sun position from march 31, 1963. My work included also a measurement of the pole, the fence hight and the distance from the pole to the fence in the background. It is measured in Neely Street by hand. The problem is, the result is not the same as yours. The shadow under the nose for instance aren't working in harmony to the shadows on the ground. It's easy: Shadow on the ground at an angle...shadow under the nose at an angle. The face mesh looks pretty good (nose good but ears wrong) but what happend to the body? I read you spend some 2 month on the backyard photos. It would have been nice if you would have spend more time on the model to complete the mesh. What i miss, is wireframes. A wireframe is common in 3d community to verify the authenticity of a 3D work. A view from the left or right would also support the credibility of your work. A major problem is that the suncycle in Dallas/Texas on march 31 in the afternoon, when the shadows on the ground (in the backyard photos) meets the required angle..... the sun is way too low. And thats a matter of fact. The sun should hit Oswald's nose at an angle of 33.6 degrees at that time. If you have the time in march, go to Neely street ond proof it. What we see in the "Backyard photos" are a sharp downward angle of some 48° minimum. All what i want to say, i respect your work, but i have reasonable doubts that your work is finished in that way to make sure to allow a statement: this photos are genuine, as you said. I would be very pleased to get response from you. best regards Martin Hinrichs You obviously didn’t watch the entire video; he showed the body model after 2:33Since presumably you haven't read the paper (it has NOT been published yet) and you didn’t even watch the entire video your criticism is premature. Len, i hope this will answer your questions. No i haven't read a paper which is NOT yet published. How can i? best Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) I would think that a real scientific "digital forensic" analysis of the backyard photos would include a listing of the known photos, the prints and the negatives, their provenance, where they came from, who saw them and when, and where they are now and how they got there. In addition, I would think that those really interested in authenticating the photos would examine them using the latest technological tools available, and be very clear about what was being studied, the process involved, and what the conclusions are. Those interested in either debunking conspiracy theorists or proposing a conspiracy theory, would necessarily be biased, but the results of such a neutral scientific study of the known photos should be honest. If Congress ever decides to exercise their oversight of the JFK Act, a proper analysis of the backyard photos would necessitate a real scientific review, rather than the half-hearted attempt by Farid, who exhibits no interest in determining the real truth about the backyard photos, and acknowledges he only did what little he did do (re: Nose shadows) because of the pestering he received from "conspiracy theorists" and that he is not interested in the national security implications a real review of all the backyard photos would entail. That doesn't prevent other independent researchers or scientists from conducting such a study, like I asked the Drexel Physics Dept. to do in 1992, but maybe someday it will happen. I am not scientifically qualified, and can't do it, but someday, some college science or engineering school will decide that this is important enough to study these pictures - as well as the acoustics evidence and Tom Wilson's work, and conduct a real forensic autopsy, but until then, all of this is good for, as Craig Lamson is in for it, xxxxs and giggles. Bill Kelly Edited November 18, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) BILL KELLY NOTES - THIS GUY IS HEAVY INTO MONEY FROM NATIONAL SECURITY - HOMELAND SECURITY - FOUNDATIONS - ETC., (SEE: NEUKOM) AND IS IN THE FOREFRONT OF A NEW FIELD - DIGITAL FORENSICS - YET - IT ISN'T THE NATIONAL SECURITY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BUGGING HIM - ASKING HIM DAILY TO LOOK INTO PHOTOS CONNECTED TO THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT - IT'S CONSPIRACY THEORISTS - Gee Bill can't you do any better than stooping to ad homs? Pretty obviously one of the principle consumers of forensic photography (or forensic anything) is going to be law enforcement And his computer science professorship was endowed by [cue in spooky music]a grant from Microsofts' the chief council [/spooky music] Perhaps you should wait for the paper to come out before bashing on it. Tom I have no idea what points you were trying to makein your over long post.What exactly is the connection between Delay and this story,why are Neukom's ties to the SF Giants relevat? Why is the firm he worked for 30 years ago relevant? Please try to avoid another War and Peace length reply Hey Len, EXACTLY - "FORENSIC" Anything "forensic" must, by definition, be able to be used in a court of law, but I don't see this even getting past the peer review that I don't think it has undergone. You have the entire paper - the 3 page report he published on the Dartmouth college web site as an abstract. If there's more, I can't wait to see it. There's no hesitation in bashing it because it doesn't demonstrate what the headlines said it shows - the backyard photos are authentic, when in fact it only shows the shadows are authentic in one of the pictures, and that's now questionable since Farid never made any attempt to utilize the entire arsenal of new techniques available and never bothered to inventory the know samples available and try to determine where they came from. And I wish someone would post the known published photo of the backyard pix in which they took the scope off the rifle and totally out of the picture - and explain why they did that. As for Tom Scully's posts, I too think it important where the money comes from and who is paying for this "research" that includes the latest computer technology and creation of a 3D model skull, but fails to answer the outstanding questions about the backyard photos and create new evidence that can be introduced into a court of law - whichever way it goes. And if there's that much money to play with, why not study all the known photos in detail, forensically, so they can be introduced into a court of law, whatever they say? And why is the firm he worked for 30 years ago relevant? Because in 1967, that's more than 30 years ago - when Lawrence Schiller, the hired hack who worked for CBS got this guy we haven't identified yet to pose in the same posture as Oswald in the same place in the same backyard on the same exact day - three or four years later - just to see if the shadows on the nose would be the same - the very issue that Mr. Farid said he was conclusively demonstrating as authentic - then what became of the CBS results of Schiller's experiment? Is this the same CBS report that also had former Warren Commissioner J.J. McCloy request a review of the autopsy photo and x-rays by the three doctors invovled, and get their signed affidavits to ensure they were authentic? We only know about this CBS/JJMcCloy review because Dr. Finck was recalled to USA from Vietnam just to verify the autopsy photos and x-rays. And now we have another CBS employee Larry Schiller, at the very same time - trying to replicate the backyard photos in order to prove their authenticity. Was there a conserted effort on behalf of CBS at that time - to authenticate questionable photos? And what was their purpose? I never had any doubt about any of the photos, but now I do. BK Edited November 18, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html 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