The Backyard Photos

[William Kelly]

Rather than trying to determine if the Backyard Photos are real or faked, I would rather take a different approach, and try to determine what they were meant to say.

What do they say to you?

To me they tell me a few things right away.

There's Oswald, the guy accused of killing the President.

And there's the rifle said to have been used to kill the President and shoot at Gen. Walker, and the pistol said to have been used to kill Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit, and the two magazines, the Worker - official publication of the Communist Party USA and the Militant - published by the Trotskite Socialist Workers Party who didn't get along with the CPUSA.

And there's his clothes - the black pants and black shirt - neither of which, as far as I can tell, made it into the official evidence docket of being among Oswald's possessions at the time of the assassination.

Looking at him striking a pose with the guns and magazines makes me want to ask - where's the beret and bandalero? A beret being the symbol of the commando and bandalero bullet sache would make like a Mexican bandit, but he has neither. And not only do the clothes disappear, Oswald is never known to have had any bullets, until November 22, 1963, when they appear as if out of nowhere and cannot or are not traced to their origin or determined how he got them.

The magazines don't make much sense either, even for a dye in the wool commie, since once espouses the official Commie Party line as outlined by Moscow, and the other is an offshoot rebel branch that sides with Trotski, the original Russian Communist revolutionary who had a falling out with Stalin and fled to Mexico City. That's where he was assassinated by Raymond Mercader, identified by Issac Don Levine as a KGB Soviet assassin, trained and groomed for that role.

What do the weaons and magazines have in common?

Post Office Box 2910, Dallas, Tx. where they were delivered, and where Oswald must have obtained them, although there is no records, witnesses or evidence that he ever picked any of them up, except for the photos - that tell us he had them in his possession when the photos were taken.

Since Oswald, the weapons and magazines all share the share the same cross roads at the PO Box, I was wondering if the dates on the magazine can tell us when they were delivered, and if the shipping dates on the pistol and rifle - March 20, can tell us when they were picked up and if Oswald himself picked them up or someone else picked them up for him?

I was also wondering if anyone looked into why the pistol was ordered in January, but not shipped until March 20, the same day as the rifle, and what caused the delay, and if they were picked up together?

In his letter to Marina giving her instructions on what to do if he was arrested for the Walker shooting, Oswald leaves her a key to the 2915 P.O. box and tells her it is located in the Post Office near the drug store where he left her while he emptied the PO box, indicating he was expecting a package he didn't want her to see or know about.

Of those who are known to have seen the rifle - Oswald, Marina, and George and Alexandra DeMohrenschildt, they are also the only ones who were known to have seen the backyard photos, other than Michael Pane, who now claims he saw one of the backyard photos when he picked Osawld up to take him home to dinner. Michael Paine is also the one person other than Oswald who is known to have moved the rifle around - putting it in the car for the trip from Dallas to New Orleans, and when he took it out of the car and placed in his Irving garage - later saying he thought it was camping equipment wrapped in a blanket.

So there aren't too many witnesses who ever actually saw the rifle or the photos.

Another important factor is Michael Paine's interaction with Oswald, who subscribed to a Trotskitie newspaper The Militant, and claimed to be a Trotskite. How come Michael Paine didn't bother telling Oswald that his father was a co-founder of the Trotskite Communist Party in the USA? You would think that would have naturally come up in the course of their conversations, especially when DeMohrenschildt said he arranged for the two parties for Michael Paine to meet Oswald because he knew they would talk about such things.

And when Michael Paine asked Oswald about the Communist newspapers, Oswald said, "You have to read between the lines."

Well, what do these magazines say? Are there any articles in the two issues Oswald is photograhed with in the Backyard Phots that have to do with Cuba? And if so, what do they say?

Every page and every story in the issues of both The Worker and The Millitant that Oswald is holding should have been copied and entered into evidence, and reproduced in the Warren Commission Exhibits, but I can't find them if they were.

And then there's the issue of whether the FBI was keeping track of those who subscribed to these publications, and what they did with the mailing lists?

In any case, I think there are more questions related to the Backyard photos that are not being pursued in favor of arguing over whether they are real or faked, and that these other questions should be pursued, regardless of the bonifides of the photos.

What do the Backyard Photos really tell us?

Bill Kelly

Edited July 31, 2010 by William Kelly

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What do the Backyard Photos really tell us?

Bill Kelly

A photograph is an image, an illustration, an icon, a symbol, a representation.

Secondly, Lee Oswald was a person of high intelligence, which is more than I can say for most of his accusers.

The backyard photos show how an intelligent man might go about representing two basic principles enshrined in the American Bill of Rights.

The two newspapers shown in the photo, both legally on sale in the USA, reflect opposing left-wing points of view, and illustrate the right to FREE SPEECH guaranteed by the FIRST AMENDMENT.

The rifle and revolver represent the SECOND AMENDMENT, which guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.

Lee Oswald planned to show these photos to his friends in Russia to demonstrate the freedoms enjoyed by Americans.

P.S. At the risk of alienating true believers, these photos -- which are PERFECTLY GENUINE -- offer VERY LITTLE help to the claim that Lee Oswald had something to do with the assassination of JFK.

[Greg Parker]

Rather than trying to determine if the Backyard Photos are real or faked, I would rather take a different approach, and try to determine what they were meant to say.

What do they say to you?

Bill, as always, your approach to old issues revitalises the debate. My comments below are nothing more than reading what you've said and commenting off the top.

To me they tell me a few things right away.

There's Oswald, the guy accused of killing the President.

And there's the rifle said to have been used to kill the President and shoot at Gen. Walker, and the pistol said to have been used to kill Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit, and the two magazines, the Worker - official publication of the Communist Party USA and the Militant - published by the Trotskite Socialist Workers Party who didn't get along with the CPUSA.

And there's his clothes - the black pants and black shirt - neither of which, as far as I can tell, made it into the official evidence docket of being among Oswald's possessions at the time of the assassination.

No. I've never located them, either. And there is no evidence he was a Johnny Cash fan...

Looking at him striking a pose with the guns and magazines makes me want to ask - where's the beret and bandalero? A beret being the symbol of the commando and bandalero bullet sache would make like a Mexican bandit, but he has neither. And not only do the clothes disappear, Oswald is never known to have had any bullets, until November 22, 1963, when they appear as if out of nowhere and cannot or are not traced to their origin or determined how he got them.

The M-C bullet boxes found at the gravel pit were tested for finger prints by the FBI. The result was "no prints of value". This may be differentiated from the term, "no usuable prints" insofar as it is possibly a way of saying there are usable prints, but they are of no interest, since they're not Oswald's. If this construction of meaning is true, then whose prints were they?

The magazines don't make much sense either, even for a dye in the wool commie, since once espouses the official Commie Party line as outlined by Moscow, and the other is an offshoot rebel branch that sides with Trotski, the original Russian Communist revolutionary who had a falling out with Stalin and fled to Mexico City. That's where he was assassinated by Raymond Mercader, identified by Issac Don Levine as a KGB Soviet assassin, trained and groomed for that role.

Is Levine, a noted anti-Communist propagandist and CIA asset, the sole source for Mercader being KGB?

What do the weaons and magazines have in common?

Post Office Box 2910, Dallas, Tx. where they were delivered, and where Oswald must have obtained them, although there is no records, witnesses or evidence that he ever picked any of them up, except for the photos - that tell us he had them in his possession when the photos were taken.

This is where discussion of fakery becomes unavoidable. The photos tell us he had them in his possession only if they were not faked.

Since Oswald, the weapons and magazines all share the share the same cross roads at the PO Box, I was wondering if the dates on the magazine can tell us when they were delivered, and if the shipping dates on the pistol and rifle - March 20, can tell us when they were picked up and if Oswald himself picked them up or someone else picked them up for him?

I was also wondering if anyone looked into why the pistol was ordered in January, but not shipped until March 20, the same day as the rifle, and what caused the delay, and if they were picked up together?

All good questions. I'm sure at least some work has been done in these areas.

In his letter to Marina giving her instructions on what to do if he was arrested for the Walker shooting, Oswald leaves her a key to the 2915 P.O. box and tells her it is located in the Post Office near the drug store where he left her while he emptied the PO box, indicating he was expecting a package he didn't want her to see or know about.

He indicates later in the letter that he is expecting his last pay check to arrive at the box. As for the letter being about the Walker shooting - there is no evidence for that. No specifics are mentioned in relation to what he thinks he might get arrested or killed over. In fact, the letter suggests it would be a matter of far less interest to newspapers than the assassination of Walker. "Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers). " His use of language tells us a lot here. "what happened to me". This indicates whatever action it was, it was all about HIM and no one else. If it was about something happening which included another, what I would expect to read is simply "send information as to what happened". The other, more telling factor is that if this really was about an assassination attempt on Walker, and he was killed or arrested as a result, why on Earth would he think that the Russian Embassy would not know about it unless Marina sent them the clippings? Moreover, why on Earth would he think that it might not even make the newspapers "should there be anything in the newspapers..." What we should be looking for is something that happened around the same time, that involved only Oswald, and that could result in his arrest or killing - and if the former - would not necessarily make it into the newspapers, but even if it did, it would only be local papers. What ticks all those boxes is his little escapade with the pro-Castro placard in Dallas.

But there is also the issue of authenticity of the letter, which, according to someone with very good Russian skills, was probably not authored by the same person who authored other Russian letters written by Oswald in Minsk. Of course, the reverse may also be true... in that the Minsk letters may have been written by someone else, or with the aid of someone else, insofar as they displayed greater skills in the Russian language than the so-called Walker letter...

Of those who are known to have seen the rifle - Oswald, Marina, and George and Alexandra DeMohrenschildt, they are also the only ones who were known to have seen the backyard photos, other than Michael Pane, who now claims he saw one of the backyard photos when he picked Osawld up to take him home to dinner. Michael Paine is also the one person other than Oswald who is known to have moved the rifle around - putting it in the car for the trip from Dallas to New Orleans, and when he took it out of the car and placed in his Irving garage - later saying he thought it was camping equipment wrapped in a blanket.

Taking any of them at face value is fraught with danger for anyone seeking the facts.

So there aren't too many witnesses who ever actually saw the rifle or the photos.

And possibly no one at all...

Another important factor is Michael Paine's interaction with Oswald, who subscribed to a Trotskitie newspaper The Militant, and claimed to be a Trotskite. How come Michael Paine didn't bother telling Oswald that his father was a co-founder of the Trotskite Communist Party in the USA? You would think that would have naturally come up in the course of their conversations, especially when DeMohrenschildt said he arranged for the two parties for Michael Paine to meet Oswald because he knew they would talk about such things.

Yes. You would think. But the supposedly intelligent Michael testified that he knew very little about his father's politics, and went on to demonstrate this ignorance by naming one of his father's group in New York, David Dubinsky, as a Stalinist. The fact is that the only people who thought Dubinsky was a Stalinist were the Birchers.

And when Michael Paine asked Oswald about the Communist newspapers, Oswald said, "You have to read between the lines."

Well, what do these magazines say? Are there any articles in the two issues Oswald is photograhed with in the Backyard Phots that have to do with Cuba? And if so, what do they say?

I'd also look for stories on disarmament and nuclear threats in general, and the threat of those looking for wwIII.

Every page and every story in the issues of both The Worker and The Millitant that Oswald is holding should have been copied and entered into evidence, and reproduced in the Warren Commission Exhibits, but I can't find them if they were.

Could not agree more.

And then there's the issue of whether the FBI was keeping track of those who subscribed to these publications, and what they did with the mailing lists?

Good questions.

In any case, I think there are more questions related to the Backyard photos that are not being pursued in favor of arguing over whether they are real or faked, and that these other questions should be pursued, regardless of the bonifides of the photos.

What do the Backyard Photos really tell us?

As we see in one response, it depends on what you are looking for... which sometimes means closing ones eyes to all the facts....

Bill Kelly

Edited August 1, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

What do the Backyard Photos really tell us?

Bill Kelly

A photograph is an image, an illustration, an icon, a symbol, a representation.

Secondly, Lee Oswald was a person of high intelligence, which is more than I can say for most of his accusers.

The backyard photos show how an intelligent man might go about representing two basic principles enshrined in the American Bill of Rights.

The two newspapers shown in the photo, both legally on sale in the USA, reflect opposing left-wing points of view, and illustrate the right to FREE SPEECH guaranteed by the FIRST AMENDMENT.

The rifle and revolver represent the SECOND AMENDMENT, which guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.

Lee Oswald planned to show these photos to his friends in Russia to demonstrate the freedoms enjoyed by Americans.

P.S. At the risk of alienating true believers, these photos -- which are PERFECTLY GENUINE -- offer VERY LITTLE help to the claim that Lee Oswald had something to do with the assassination of JFK.

Ray, if these were meant for his Russian friends, why didn't he send them over?

And who sent them to at least one, if not both publications depicted in them? If it was Oswald - which I believe you have to assume in your scenario - then why?

If for instance, you claim it was for the same reason he intended to show his Russian friends, then it constitutes a provocation against tjose political parties and is not an "innocent" action.

And why did Marina write "Hunter of / for* Fascists ha ha ha" on the back of DeM's copy of one, and for what purpose? And I say "Marina" not as a matter of fact, but only because I know you regard her word as beyond questioning.

*There is a question mark over the exact translation - and as is often the case, the smallest word is the most significant in understanding the message.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What do the Backyard Photos really tell us?

As we see in one response, it depends on what you are looking for... which sometimes means closing ones eyes to all the facts....

I sometimes think that closing one's eyes to all the facts is Greg Parker's favorite pastime. Next thing you know he will be quoting hearsay evidence from anonymous US agents who attended Lee Oswald's wedding.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, if these were meant for his Russian friends, why didn't he send them over?

I don't know about you Greg, but I have a TON of things on my to-do list. Sorry if I don't get them all done on time. No doubt Lee Oswald had the same problem.

If for instance, you claim it was for the same reason he intended to show his Russian friends, then it constitutes a provocation against those political parties and is not an "innocent" action.

You've lost me here, old sport. Does it make you happy that right now you sound likd John McAdams?

I say "Marina" not as a matter of fact, but only because I know you regard her word as beyond questioning.

I'll take Marina's word over ANY MEMBER OF THIS FORUM ANY DAY!

What Else Ya got Got, Old Sport?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Can Bill Kelly be serious? They are obvious fakes intended to frame the patsy. I cannot believe that any

serious student of JFK does not know that by now. Jim Marrs and I dispatched Farid's false claim a long time

ago. I thought all of you were current on these things. Check out "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", first here,

http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html

Then here, "JFK Assassination. False Flag Attacks. How Patises are Framed. The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald",

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16224

Then here, "Flowing the Whistle on Dartmouth: Hany Farid "In the Nation's Service",

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16224

Then a follow-up article by Jerry Mazza, "Farid's Photo is a Real Fake. And so is he."

http://www.infowars.com/farids-photo-is-a-real-fake-and-so-is-he/

Plus a thread I started on this topic a long time ago. If you fall for the photos, maybe you will also fall

for the weapon that cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK and not know that the patsy was not even on

the 6th floor at the time the assassination took place. I thought that you were more sophisticated than this.

Rather than trying to determine if the Backyard Photos are real or faked, I would rather take a different approach, and try to determine what they were meant to say.

What do they say to you?

To me they tell me a few things right away.

There's Oswald, the guy accused of killing the President.

And there's the rifle said to have been used to kill the President and shoot at Gen. Walker, and the pistol said to have been used to kill Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit, and the two magazines, the Worker - official publication of the Communist Party USA and the Militant - published by the Trotskite Socialist Workers Party who didn't get along with the CPUSA.

And there's his clothes - the black pants and black shirt - neither of which, as far as I can tell, made it into the official evidence docket of being among Oswald's possessions at the time of the assassination.

Looking at him striking a pose with the guns and magazines makes me want to ask - where's the beret and bandalero? A beret being the symbol of the commando and bandalero bullet sache would make like a Mexican bandit, but he has neither. And not only do the clothes disappear, Oswald is never known to have had any bullets, until November 22, 1963, when they appear as if out of nowhere and cannot or are not traced to their origin or determined how he got them.

The magazines don't make much sense either, even for a dye in the wool commie, since once espouses the official Commie Party line as outlined by Moscow, and the other is an offshoot rebel branch that sides with Trotski, the original Russian Communist revolutionary who had a falling out with Stalin and fled to Mexico City. That's where he was assassinated by Raymond Mercader, identified by Issac Don Levine as a KGB Soviet assassin, trained and groomed for that role.

What do the weaons and magazines have in common?

Post Office Box 2910, Dallas, Tx. where they were delivered, and where Oswald must have obtained them, although there is no records, witnesses or evidence that he ever picked any of them up, except for the photos - that tell us he had them in his possession when the photos were taken.

Since Oswald, the weapons and magazines all share the share the same cross roads at the PO Box, I was wondering if the dates on the magazine can tell us when they were delivered, and if the shipping dates on the pistol and rifle - March 20, can tell us when they were picked up and if Oswald himself picked them up or someone else picked them up for him?

I was also wondering if anyone looked into why the pistol was ordered in January, but not shipped until March 20, the same day as the rifle, and what caused the delay, and if they were picked up together?

In his letter to Marina giving her instructions on what to do if he was arrested for the Walker shooting, Oswald leaves her a key to the 2915 P.O. box and tells her it is located in the Post Office near the drug store where he left her while he emptied the PO box, indicating he was expecting a package he didn't want her to see or know about.

Of those who are known to have seen the rifle - Oswald, Marina, and George and Alexandra DeMohrenschildt, they are also the only ones who were known to have seen the backyard photos, other than Michael Pane, who now claims he saw one of the backyard photos when he picked Osawld up to take him home to dinner. Michael Paine is also the one person other than Oswald who is known to have moved the rifle around - putting it in the car for the trip from Dallas to New Orleans, and when he took it out of the car and placed in his Irving garage - later saying he thought it was camping equipment wrapped in a blanket.

So there aren't too many witnesses who ever actually saw the rifle or the photos.

Another important factor is Michael Paine's interaction with Oswald, who subscribed to a Trotskitie newspaper The Militant, and claimed to be a Trotskite. How come Michael Paine didn't bother telling Oswald that his father was a co-founder of the Trotskite Communist Party in the USA? You would think that would have naturally come up in the course of their conversations, especially when DeMohrenschildt said he arranged for the two parties for Michael Paine to meet Oswald because he knew they would talk about such things.

And when Michael Paine asked Oswald about the Communist newspapers, Oswald said, "You have to read between the lines."

Well, what do these magazines say? Are there any articles in the two issues Oswald is photograhed with in the Backyard Phots that have to do with Cuba? And if so, what do they say?

Every page and every story in the issues of both The Worker and The Millitant that Oswald is holding should have been copied and entered into evidence, and reproduced in the Warren Commission Exhibits, but I can't find them if they were.

And then there's the issue of whether the FBI was keeping track of those who subscribed to these publications, and what they did with the mailing lists?

In any case, I think there are more questions related to the Backyard photos that are not being pursued in favor of arguing over whether they are real or faked, and that these other questions should be pursued, regardless of the bonifides of the photos.

What do the Backyard Photos really tell us?

Bill Kelly

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Can Bill Kelly be serious? They are obvious fakes intended to frame the patsy. I cannot believe that any

serious student of JFK does not know that by now. Jim Marrs and I dispatched Farid's false claim a long time

ago.

In your dreams, Dr. Fetzer. The backyard photos are perfectly genuine, but no serious person thinks they prove anything remotely relevant to the JFK assassination.

[Frankie Vegas]

From Victor Marchetti and John D Marks' 'The CIA And The Cult Of Intelligence' Pg 193.

According to a former high-ranking agency official, ( DELETED )

and the Parisian newspaper, "Le Combat." This same ex-official also recalls with an ironic smile that for several years the agency subsidized the New York Communist paper, 'The Daily Worker'. In fairness to the Worker's staff, it must be noted that they were unaware of the CIA's assistance, which came in the form of several thousand secretly purchased prepaid subscriptions. The CIA apparently hoped to demonstrate by these means to the American public that the threat of Communism in this country was indeed real.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Frankie Fortune

[J. Raymond Carroll]

From Victor Marchetti and John D Marks' 'The CIA And The Cult Of Intelligence' Pg 193.

According to a former high-ranking agency official, ( DELETED )

Frankie Fortune appears to be the most intellectually challenged member here, so everybody please make allowances.

[Greg Parker]

I sometimes think that closing one's eyes to all the facts is Greg Parker's favorite pastime. Next thing you know he will be quoting hearsay evidence from anonymous US agents who attended Lee Oswald's wedding.

Ray,

The evidence comes from a prominent academic who authored a book about his time as an exchange student in the Soviet Union. It was an Embassy official who mentioned to him at a wedding of another student, that he had recently attended a wedding between a US citizen and a Russian woman in Minsk. This evidence would be accepted in a court of law as an exception to the hearsay rule. "One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court. While the general rule is that such evidence is inadmissible, there are many exceptions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law Such testiminy would likely be allowed under Article VIII Rule 804 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence.

As for me getting some shut-eye... you'd be surprised at how little I get...

[Greg Parker]

Ray, if these were meant for his Russian friends, why didn't he send them over?

I don't know about you Greg, but I have a TON of things on my to-do list. Sorry if I don't get them all done on time. No doubt Lee Oswald had the same problem.

Oswald always got everything done on his lists, Ray.

If for instance, you claim it was for the same reason he intended to show his Russian friends, then it constitutes a provocation against those political parties and is not an "innocent" action.

You've lost me here, old sport. Does it make you happy that right now you sound likd John McAdams?

Okay. I'll try and be clearer. Copies were sent to one (or both?) papers depicted in the photos. If it is your contention that he sent them to show "the freedoms enjoyed in the US) then that would be a provocation since it implies that those papers and the parties behind them, were against such freedoms.

You also have the problem of having to claim that multiple copies were made of the photos since (according to you) he was going to send some to the SU.

If, on the other hand, you want to argue Oswald never sent the photos to those papers, then you need to state who you think did send them - and why they sent them.

I say "Marina" not as a matter of fact, but only because I know you regard her word as beyond questioning.

I'll take Marina's word over ANY MEMBER OF THIS FORUM ANY DAY!

Which isn't raising the bar very high...

What Else Ya got Got, Old Sport?

I don't need anything else.

That would be you, Old China Plate, since you have a habit of providing non-responsive responses.

[Greg Parker]

Can Bill Kelly be serious? They are obvious fakes intended to frame the patsy. I cannot believe that any

serious student of JFK does not know that by now. Jim Marrs and I dispatched Farid's false claim a long time

ago. I thought all of you were current on these things. Check out "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", first here,

http://www.opednews....091116-941.html

Then here, "JFK Assassination. False Flag Attacks. How Patises are Framed. The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald",

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=16224

Then here, "Flowing the Whistle on Dartmouth: Hany Farid "In the Nation's Service",

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=16224

Then a follow-up article by Jerry Mazza, "Farid's Photo is a Real Fake. And so is he."

http://www.infowars....e-and-so-is-he/

Plus a thread I started on this topic a long time ago. If you fall for the photos, maybe you will also fall

for the weapon that cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK and not know that the patsy was not even on

the 6th floor at the time the assassination took place. I thought that you were more sophisticated than this.

Bill was not saying the photos were not faked. He is trying to address what they mean.

And they DO mean something REGARDLESS of their authenticity.

This intention on the part of Bill was not that difficult to fathom.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The evidence comes from a prominent academic who authored a book about his time as an exchange student in the Soviet Union. It was an Embassy official who mentioned to him at a wedding of another student, that he had recently attended a wedding between a US citizen and a Russian woman in Minsk. This evidence would be accepted in a court of law as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Before we get to decide that someone's evidence is admissible, that person would AT THE VERY LEAST have to Have A NAME.

Do you have a NAME for your so-called witness?

No, I didn't think so.

Therefore you don't have a witness whose evidence is admissible.

You have a witness who has no name --and no identity.

Try again Mr. Parker.

[Greg Parker]

From Victor Marchetti and John D Marks' 'The CIA And The Cult Of Intelligence' Pg 193.

According to a former high-ranking agency official, ( DELETED )

Frankie Fortune appears to be the most intellectually challenged member here, so everybody please make allowances.

This habit of automatically insulting those who disagree with you is becoming tiresome, Ray.

How about throwing in some facts instead of feces?

You'd certainly look less like a monkey!