The Backyard Photos

[Craig Lamson]

If we are so ridiculous why do they spend so much time and energy debating with us?

Because they consider this to be "fun", Bernie.

Most of us are on here to either;

a. Uncover the truth

b. Expose the lies

c. Both of the above

d. Learn

They are here because;

a. They have no friends

b. They didn't get a train set for Christmas

c. The medication they're on doesn't allow them to go outside

d. They're fascists

Go figure...

...and I think you're slightly stretching the defintion of the word "debate."

Lee

Hey little lee. Can you prove the events you describe as extra ordinary are really that?

Such a shame those genuine Backyard photos throw such a wrench into your carefully planned speculation eh?

[Craig Lamson]

He has to. See, Craig didn't know jack about the phony evidentiary record regarding the revolver and MC rifle.

He and Farid didn't care if the weight of the evidence says that Oswald did not order or pickup either one. For example, the WC could not find one person who recalled giving either weapon to this Hidell guy whose name was really Oswald. And he would have had to prove that fact. And he would have had to be transferred a five foot long bulky package with the name Klein's on it PLUS a smaller package with the name Seaport on it--on the same day! Even though the supervisory staff knew he was a commie since there were FBI informants like Holmes in the office. A total of four regs were broken, and none of the firearms forms which should have been signed and filed are there. And incredibly, there is not one signed receipt for the revolver, even though, if you believe the WC, the post office was the fiduciary rep for REA on this.

What, your silly little speculative games? Come on now jimmy, we have clearly seen over the last day that your "weighty evidence" is nothing of the sort. The rant above is a perfect example of jimmy d's speculation to fact gamesmanship. You go on and on about these so called irregularities, but you can't show us that they are all that irregular at. For all you know it could have been happening with regularity. You simply don't know. How amazing that jimmy d, would be so CARELESS with the truth. That there are other silly people that find this to be "weighty" or no longer debatable is a prime example of the sillyness present in the ct community.

Craig, didn't know any of this stuff. Even though any experienced and objective photographic expert would have asked about it in advance. Recall, I said "objective".

No jimmy an OBJECTIVE photographic expert would have IGNORED the speculation and simply studied the PHOTOGRAPH. Sadly for you, photographic principle trancends your silly speculation. Photographic principle stands without the need of context.

You can't review the backyard photos in an objective manner. Your world is colored by your manufactured "truth". The Backyard phots MUST be faked four your world to survive. You can't have it any other way. You are too fully vested. You are clinging to the rail of a sinking ship, just like your buddy varnell, and you will drown before dealing directly with the truth that destroys your position. You are a textbook zealot.

It goes right to the heart of the matter of genuineness. If LHO never ordered or picked up those particular weapons--the pictures are phony. And the plotters knew they had to have something to show the public that he had done so, even though he had not.

Yea it does go directly to the heart of the matter of the genuineness of the photos.

Not a SINGLE claim of alteration has withstood inspection. NONE. ZERO. NADA. There is NO indication at all the photos are anything BUT GENUINE.

You don't need context or so called "weighty" specuation. If you can't prove the photos fake, your entire worldview comes tumbling down. And you can't prove them fake no matter how hard you might try. Bring it on jimmy. Gather your horde an try your best.

I'm guessing that weill never happen.

Instead you will be the false prophet, spewing you speculation and calling it fact. Truth be damned. jimmy has worldview and a bunch of articles to try and defend.

Down with the ship he goes.

[Dean Hagerman]

They are here because;

a. They have no friends

b. They didn't get a train set for Christmas

c. The medication they're on doesn't allow them to go outside

d. They're fascists

[Michael Hogan]

Why is the other side still here?

After all, "They won. We lost."

So what are the "winners" afraid of?

Peter, the winners as I called them are, for the most part, long dead. One of their facilitators, Arlen Specter, is still hanging on.

As far as guys that hang around JFK forums and repeat the same tired stuff over and over, year after year, to anyone

who will engage them while making it clear how little they know and how little they care -- they used to make me angry.

But I got over that a long time ago.

Now I just look at them as sort of pathetic. They're clearly not the sharpest pencils in the box. I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

[Bernie Laverick]

This particular exchange has nothing to do with the photographic evidence. But once again Craig jumps in with both spiked feet to defend his beloved Warren Commission fantasy.

Are you also an expert on Oswald's movements as well? Doesn't seem so.

Jim, Craig and his buddy Francois are clearly on a self-less mission to spend their entire lives arguing with "loony, crackpot, deluded" souls like us.

If we are so ridiculous why do they spend so much time and energy debating with us?

bernie, thanks again for proving so smashingly that you lack hte ability to read.......

It's no wonder you hop the fence.

so smashingly that you lack hte ability to read...

And this from a photo expert!!

[Greg Parker]

LEN:<B>It's not a ), b ) OR c ) all 3 need to be met.

GREG: Yes, I know that Len. But since the first two are a given, I thought you must be referring solely to c )

LEN: It has to relate a "material fact" which is defined as "a fact that affects decision making: as a : a fact upon which the outcome of all or part of a lawsuit depends b : a fact that would influence a reasonable person under the circumstances in making an investment decision (as in purchasing a security or voting for a corporate officer or action)". Thus you have to offer a scenario in which a judge concluded that whether or not an embassy official attended would be likely to alter the outcome of a court case.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 07 Aug. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.re...m/browse/fact>.

GREG: Len, which part of "the first two are a given" do you not understand?

LEN:Just because you say something is "given" doesn't make it so. I suspect the editors of one of the leading American legal English dictionaries know more about such matters than you do.

Really? They know it's NOT a given? Can you give me a quote on that, Len?

LEN: Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally "unavailable".

GREG: If he is available, it makes the question of hearsay moot, doesn't it? And I think his name could be discovered through the Kirsch records.</B>

LEN: Not if he refused to testify (and was not ordered by a court to do so) and he might not back your source.

GREG: Let's get back to the original question, since my answer seems to confuse you: Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally "unavailable". The legal system itself will determine his "legal" availability.

LEN:If he was identified and was still alive and 1) agreed to testify or 2) refused to testify and was not ordered by a court order to do so your source's testimony would not be allowed. I am not sure what would happen if he could not be identified the law does not specify if hearsay would be allowed (or not) in such circumstances. So your claim your sources "testimony" would be admissible was false, it would more accurate to say it might be admissible under certain circumstances.

If he was alive and identified but refused to testify, he would be supboenaed. My claims about admissibility were not false. You are one deparate dude. One way or another, the evidence would be presented.

LEN: Why would the presence of a State Dept. official at LHO's wedding "reinforce" your belief he was some sort of agent?

GREG:Because of the later claim that they did not know about the wedding until after Oswald wrote and mentioned it in passing

LEN:??? You previously claimed that State did not deny sending an offical to the weedding!

GREG:I did not.

LEN:I can understand you misunderstanding what you read; it happens to all of us, but misremembering what YOU wrote a few days ago is quite odd. I asked you, "…why would Marina and the State Dept lie about someone from the embassy being at the wedding?" to which you replied, "Who said they have lied? No one has ever asked them a direct question about this."

It is you who is misunderstanding. The question of who knew what and when only came under the public spotlight after the assasination. The Embassy at that time, claimed not to know about the wedding until Oswald mentioned it in a letter to them. Follow so far? No one specifically asked Marina or anyone from State or the Embassy if an Embassy official attended. Faced with a question which seems triggered by specific information, they may have admitted it. Bottom line: they did not lie because the specific question was never put.

The letter in which Oswald mention's his marriage is interesting in that he mentions it is af they did in fact know about it...

GREG: "The official from the Kirsch wedding may go along with that denial, or he may not. It is in the records that the Embassy and State Dept had a great interest in weddings between US and SU citizens, and therefore, would have someone in attendance where ever possible. The Oswald wedding would be an exception to that because of his alleged attempt to defect, threat to pass on secrets etc"

LEN: I though the justification was they did not learn about it till after the fact, please trya nd keep your story straight

GREG:It is perfectly straight. Oswald got married. Officially no US Embassy representative there. Officially Embassy does not even find out until some time later when Oswald mentions his wedding in passing in a letter to the embassy. Later an exchange student named Kirsch gets married. His marriage is attended by other students, including Loren Graham and his wife AND an embassy officially. Said embassy official mentions in passing to the Grahams that he had recently attended a wedding of another American named Oswald in Minsk. The Grahams thought no more of it until recalling the incident at the time of the assassination. They placed no significance on it however, due to having no in-depth knowledge of the alleged assassin. It was not until many years later when Graham recalled the incident during a converation with Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, that he became aware that it may have some significance because PJM told him that officially Oswald had no contact with any American officials outside the doors of the embassy. Got it now?

LEN:Until a few days ago you claimed they did not directly deny this, so lets go back to my earlier question, "why would Marina and the State Dept lie about someone from the embassy being at the wedding?".

AS far as I'm concerned I've answered the question.

GREG:"... so any US official at that wedding does raise questions... "

LEN: That is totally circular

GREG: No. Arguing with you is circular. Since the USG has officially denied that Oswald had any contact with any US official outrside the doors of the embassy, how are questions NOT raised if it now turns out an embassy official was at his wedding?

LEN: Yes them lying about attending the wedding would raise questions but it would not be evidence he was a spy.

Once again, you are making claims on my behalf. I never said it proved he was a spy, and you know I do not believe he was a spy. But the USG does not send representatives to the weddings would-be defectors and traitors without it having great significance.

LEN: What evidence, if any, do have to support the wild speculation spelled out above?

GREG:What would be the point in filling you in on the evidence, when, without even knowing what the evidence might be, you have decided it is "wild speculation". Such pre-judgement really spells out how little you care about letting the facts fall where they may.

LEN: Nice excuse for not backing your claims. I called it "wild speculation" because you failed to offer any evidence.

GREG:Uh uh. You have pre-judged. You asked what evidence I had to support my "wild speculation" thus suggesting it is "wild speculation" REGARDLESS of any supporting evidence I may have.

You would have a point if you had said, "if you do not have any supporting evidence, I can only view your statement as wild speculation - and depending on the quality of any evidence you do, I may still feel it is highly speculative, if not wild."

LEN:I assumed that it was "wild speculation" because you failed to provide any evidence. You making excuses instead of providing citations reinforces that suspicion.

Nope. I refuse to jump to the commands of anyone who has so blatantly pre-judged. Why bother?

Your claims now are lame. A clear reading of what you wrote is that you wanted me to supply evidence for "wild speculation". If I supplied evidence, in your wording, it has no chance of breaking free of the label you put on it. It would remain "wild speculation" no matter what. If you want to retract what you wrote and try and express a different meaning, please do, and I may reconsider.

It could be, for instance, that you mewant to say, "this looks to me like wild speculation. Can you provide evidence which shows it is actually within the realms of possibility?"

GREG:The facts here are that Ike did want to share radar technology with the Soviets. Do I have a cite for that? Yes. Did the agreements on science etc allow an exchange in any way agreeed upon? Yes. Can I quote the relevant part?

LEN:OK then provide your citations.

GREG:You disqualify yourself from being granted any such request. Prove you have a legitimate interest in letting the evidence fall where it may. and I will reconsider.

LEN: Cute beautiful excuse for not providing the citations you claim to have.

My time is precious. Why waste it on someone with no real interest in the subject matter beyond trying to find ways to unravel it?

I'd be more than happy to have you demonstrate I that wrong, but until then...

GREG: Yes. I have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent. That he was present during Oswald's "attempt" to defect is not in dispute anywhere. The man has acknowledged it.

LEN: I'll do a forum search and get back to you.

GREG:Knock yourself out

LEN: Before this thread you made the only post on this forum with the keywords "keenan" and "redskin" the relevant portion reads:

* Around this same time-frame, Richard Snyder was acting as a spotter at Harvard for the Soviet-Russian Division within the Directorate of Plans of the CIA -- recruiting students from the Russian Research Center for potential travel to Russia as "Redskin" operatives. One such recruit was Edward L Keenan who went to Russia to study at the Leningrad University under the new Student Exchange agreement. Paying his way was CIA money filtered through a Ford Foundation Fellowship. In July '59, Snyder became First Consul at the US Embassy in Moscow. Keenan also arrived in the USSR that year - as would Lee Harvey Oswald. Redskin was designed to utilize "legal travelers" to Soviet Bloc countries to provide support for operations "Red Sox" & "Red Cap".

You did not provide any citations.

There was only one relevant hit from your site:

Edward L Keenan was present when Oswald attempted renunciation of citizenship in Richard Snyder's office of the US embassy in Moscow. Keenan was a CIA agent who had been recruited by Snyder into OPERATION REDSKIN [Lancer NID presentation, 2009].

So if you "have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent." You did not due so on this or your forum and only did so in your "Lancer NID presentation, 2009" is it available online? If not can you post (or perhaps just the relevant portion?

I made no claim that I'd provided the evidence here. I had it on a previous version of my website which no longer esists after being hacked. The material was also presented, as I said, at last year's NID conference, and has been sent to a number of other reserachers.

Once again Greg cuts and runs

???? You have to be kidding!!! I work 7 days a week. What about you?

Your MO with me has not changed since the first encounter. You hammer away while ever you think you can prove me wrong, or at least cast doubt on some issue. As soon as you realise you can't achieve either of those aims, YOU disappear.

[Craig Lamson]

This particular exchange has nothing to do with the photographic evidence. But once again Craig jumps in with both spiked feet to defend his beloved Warren Commission fantasy.

Are you also an expert on Oswald's movements as well? Doesn't seem so.

Jim, Craig and his buddy Francois are clearly on a self-less mission to spend their entire lives arguing with "loony, crackpot, deluded" souls like us.

If we are so ridiculous why do they spend so much time and energy debating with us?

bernie, thanks again for proving so smashingly that you lack hte ability to read.......

It's no wonder you hop the fence.

so smashingly that you lack hte ability to read...

And this from a photo expert!!

Never said I could type...in fact I suck at it...badly.

[Bernie Laverick]

This particular exchange has nothing to do with the photographic evidence. But once again Craig jumps in with both spiked feet to defend his beloved Warren Commission fantasy.

Are you also an expert on Oswald's movements as well? Doesn't seem so.

Jim, Craig and his buddy Francois are clearly on a self-less mission to spend their entire lives arguing with "loony, crackpot, deluded" souls like us.

If we are so ridiculous why do they spend so much time and energy debating with us?

bernie, thanks again for proving so smashingly that you lack hte ability to read.......

It's no wonder you hop the fence.

so smashingly that you lack hte ability to read...

And this from a photo expert!!

Never said I could type...in fact I suck at it...badly.

Craig, a bit of advice: be more attentive. Look before you conclude anything. Take a bit more care with what you do. You come across as being slipshod and clearly you don't check what you write or even the conclusions you reach.

Embarrassing!

After all, you were trying to be a clever dick and tell me I can't read.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, a bit of advice: be more attentive. Look before you conclude anything. Take a bit more care with what you do. You come across as being slipshod and clearly you don't check what you write or even the conclusions you reach.

Embarrassing!

After all, you were trying to be a clever dick and tell me I can't read.

You can't read, as you have shown. I can't type. as I have shown.

My work stands. If you want to try and rebut be my guest. I'll be happy to show you how the work was done so you can find the answer for yourself. If I'm wrong, thats quite ok. Just show me why.

I notice you have yet to utter a peep about this work, posted in another thread just for you. I KNOW you at least looked at the post, because you quoted it and replied. It seems that par for the course you did not really READ it. So try again bernie...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Perhaps you can show us all how "slipshod" the work and the factual results are.

It's really quite telling that the best you can do is try and insult my typing and proof reading skills. I'll be the first to admit they suck..bigtime.

Rebut my work...there are MASSIVE amounts of it on this forum. You claim I have not had a single suscessful rebuttal of z film alteration claims, or wait that was I have not had a single independant argument...whatever than might mean in your filp flopping brain. So point them out bernie. Surely you can do that...right?

Edited August 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Embarrassing!

Yes it is....March of 08 and you tell us a more detailed bio is coming. August of 10 and the old bio is still there.

How embarrassing for you! So SLIPSHOD!

Tell us who you are bernie and what qualifications you have relating to photographic study.

Then maybe we can gauge the value of your utterings....

Edited August 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Bernie Laverick]

Craig, a bit of advice: be more attentive. Look before you conclude anything. Take a bit more care with what you do. You come across as being slipshod and clearly you don't check what you write or even the conclusions you reach.

Embarrassing!

After all, you were trying to be a clever dick and tell me I can't read.

You can't read, as you have shown. I can't type. as I have shown.

My work stands. If you want to try and rebut be my guest. I'll be happy to show you how the work was done so you can find the answer for yourself. If I'm wrong, thats quite ok. Just show me why.

I notice you have yet to utter a peep about this work, posted in another thread just for you. I KNOW you at least looked at the post, because you quoted it and replied. It seems that par for the course you did not really READ it. So try again bernie...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Perhaps you can show us all how "slipshod" the work and the factual results are.

It's really quite telling that the best you can do is try and insult my typing and proof reading skills. I'll be the first to admit they suck..bigtime.

Rebut my work...there are MASSIVE amounts of it on this forum. You claim I have not had a single suscessful rebuttal of z film alteration claims, or wait that was I have not had a single independant argument...whatever than might mean in your filp flopping brain. So point them out bernie. Surely you can do that...right?

It's really quite telling that the best you can do is try and insult my typing and proof reading skills.

Only because the sentence you mis-typed was an insult to my reading abilities.

WHOOOSH! What was that? Oh just a buckeful of irony flying over Craig's head!

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, a bit of advice: be more attentive. Look before you conclude anything. Take a bit more care with what you do. You come across as being slipshod and clearly you don't check what you write or even the conclusions you reach.

Embarrassing!

After all, you were trying to be a clever dick and tell me I can't read.

You can't read, as you have shown. I can't type. as I have shown.

My work stands. If you want to try and rebut be my guest. I'll be happy to show you how the work was done so you can find the answer for yourself. If I'm wrong, thats quite ok. Just show me why.

I notice you have yet to utter a peep about this work, posted in another thread just for you. I KNOW you at least looked at the post, because you quoted it and replied. It seems that par for the course you did not really READ it. So try again bernie...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Perhaps you can show us all how "slipshod" the work and the factual results are.

It's really quite telling that the best you can do is try and insult my typing and proof reading skills. I'll be the first to admit they suck..bigtime.

Rebut my work...there are MASSIVE amounts of it on this forum. You claim I have not had a single suscessful rebuttal of z film alteration claims, or wait that was I have not had a single independant argument...whatever than might mean in your filp flopping brain. So point them out bernie. Surely you can do that...right?

It's really quite telling that the best you can do is try and insult my typing and proof reading skills.

Only because the sentence you mis-typed was an insult to my reading abilities.

WHOOOSH! What was that? Oh just a buckeful of irony flying over Craig's head!

BUCKEFUL?????

[Len Colby]

For clarity I placed a line of equals signs (=====) at the end of each exchange, I ask Greg to put his replies above those lines.

LEN:<B>It's not a ), b ) OR c ) all 3 need to be met. GREG: Yes, I know that Len. But since the first two are a given, I thought you must be referring solely to c )

LEN: It has to relate a "material fact" which is defined as "a fact that affects decision making: as a : a fact upon which the outcome of all or part of a lawsuit depends b : a fact that would influence a reasonable person under the circumstances in making an investment decision (as in purchasing a security or voting for a corporate officer or action)". Thus you have to offer a scenario in which a judge concluded that whether or not an embassy official attended would be likely to alter the outcome of a court case.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 07 Aug. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.re...m/browse/fact>.

GREG: Len, which part of "the first two are a given" do you not understand?

LEN:Just because you say something is "given" doesn't make it so. I suspect the editors of one of the leading American legal English dictionaries know more about such matters than you do.

GREG: Really? They know it's NOT a given? Can you give me a quote on that, Len?

LEN: As stated previously, "just because you say something is "given" doesn't make it so" explain how the presence (or not) of an embassy official at the wedding would qualify as a "material fact" (as defined by Webster's or other reputable source) in a court case in which the supposed official would be subject to a subpoena.

==================================

LEN: Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally "unavailable".

GREG: If he is available, it makes the question of hearsay moot, doesn't it? And I think his name could be discovered through the Kirsch records.</B>

LEN: Not if he refused to testify (and was not ordered by a court to do so) and he might not back your source.

GREG: Let's get back to the original question, since my answer seems to confuse you: Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally "unavailable". The legal system itself will determine his "legal" availability.

LEN:If he was identified and was still alive and 1) agreed to testify or 2) refused to testify and was not ordered by a court order to do so your source's testimony would not be allowed. I am not sure what would happen if he could not be identified the law does not specify if hearsay would be allowed (or not) in such circumstances. So your claim your sources "testimony" would be admissible was false, it would more accurate to say it might be admissible under certain circumstances.

GREG: If he was alive and identified but refused to testify, he would be subpoenaed. My claims about admissibility were not false. You are one deparate dude. One way or another, the evidence would be presented.

LEN: He would only be subject to a subpoena if he was called by either party in a criminal trial or if called by state in a civil trial. Spell out a reasonable scenario for us. Even if you can your statement was still false because he could testify and contradict Loren

===========

LEN: Why would the presence of a State Dept. official at LHO's wedding "reinforce" your belief he was some sort of agent?

GREG:Because of the later claim that they did not know about the wedding until after Oswald wrote and mentioned it in passing

LEN:??? You previously claimed that State did not deny sending an official to the wedding!

GREG:I did not.

LEN:I can understand you misunderstanding what you read; it happens to all of us, but misremembering what YOU wrote a few days ago is quite odd. I asked you, "…why would Marina and the State Dept lie about someone from the embassy being at the wedding?" to which you replied, "Who said they have lied? No one has ever asked them a direct question about this."

GREG: It is you who is misunderstanding. The question of who knew what and when only came under the public spotlight after the assasination. The Embassy at that time, claimed not to know about the wedding until Oswald mentioned it in a letter to them. Follow so far? No one specifically asked Marina or anyone from State or the Embassy if an Embassy official attended. Faced with a question which seems triggered by specific information, they may have admitted it. Bottom line: they did not lie because the specific question was never put.

The letter in which Oswald mention's his marriage is interesting in that he mentions it is af they did in fact know about it...

LEN: Obviously they could not have sent an official to an event they did not now about, so denying they new about it is tantamount to denying they sent someone also you said on 2 occasions that "Officially no US Embassy representative there."

Please cite the relevant passage from the letter

==========

GREG: "The official from the Kirsch wedding may go along with that denial, or he may not. It is in the records that the Embassy and State Dept had a great interest in weddings between US and SU citizens, and therefore, would have someone in attendance where ever possible. The Oswald wedding would be an exception to that because of his alleged attempt to defect, threat to pass on secrets etc"

　

LEN: I though the justification was they did not learn about it till after the fact, please try and keep your story straight

GREG:It is perfectly straight. Oswald got married. Officially no US Embassy representative there. Officially Embassy does not even find out until some time later when Oswald mentions his wedding in passing in a letter to the embassy. Later an exchange student named Kirsch gets married. His marriage is attended by other students, including Loren Graham and his wife AND an embassy officially. Said embassy official mentions in passing to the Grahams that he had recently attended a wedding of another American named Oswald in Minsk. The Grahams thought no more of it until recalling the incident at the time of the assassination. They placed no significance on it however, due to having no in-depth knowledge of the alleged assassin. It was not until many years later when Graham recalled the incident during a converation with Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, that he became aware that it may have some significance because PJM told him that officially Oswald had no contact with any American officials outside the doors of the embassy. Got it now?

LEN:Until a few days ago you claimed they did not directly deny this, so lets go back to my earlier question, "why would Marina and the State Dept lie about someone from the embassy being at the wedding?".

GREG:AS far as I'm concerned I've answered the question.

LEN: I'll reword the question to conform to your splitting of hairs "why would the State Department claim they only learned about the wedding after the fact if they sent an official to attend?"

==========

GREG:"... so any US official at that wedding does raise questions... "

LEN: That is totally circular

GREG: No. Arguing with you is circular. Since the USG has officially denied that Oswald had any contact with any US official outrside the doors of the embassy, how are questions NOT raised if it now turns out an embassy official was at his wedding?

LEN: Yes them lying about attending the wedding would raise questions but it would not be evidence he was a spy.

GREG:Once again, you are making claims on my behalf. I never said it proved he was a spy, and you know I do not believe he was a spy. But the USG does not send representatives to the weddings would-be defectors and traitors without it having great significance.

LEN: You previously stated that it would "reinforce" your belief he was some sort of agent. Something that reinforces a belief is evidence that is true, I used the word 'evidence' not 'proof' in my question thus your claim I was putting words in your mouth was false.

i am also not into semantic hair splitting, you indicated you thought he was on a covert mission, approved by the POTUS to share US radar secrets with the USSR, you can replace the word 'spy' with the phrase 'secret agent' above if that would make you happier.

===================

GREG:... the USG does not send representatives to the weddings would-be defectors and traitors without it having great significance.

LEN: You wrote that it was SOP to send a representative to American weddings "where ever possible", though you claimed LHO's should have been an exception you provided no evidence for either claim (see complete quote below). The 1st sounds reasonable but unless you provide evidence in support of the latter I'll presume it was the product of your imagination.

"It is in the records that the Embassy and State Dept had a great interest in weddings between US and SU citizens, and therefore, would have someone in attendance where ever possible. The Oswald wedding would be an exception to that because of his alleged attempt to defect, threat to pass on secrets etc"

==========

LEN: What evidence, if any, do have to support the wild speculation spelled out above?

GREG:What would be the point in filling you in on the evidence, when, without even knowing what the evidence might be, you have decided it is "wild speculation". Such pre-judgement really spells out how little you care about letting the facts fall where they may.

LEN: Nice excuse for not backing your claims. I called it "wild speculation" because you failed to offer any evidence.

GREG:Uh uh. You have pre-judged. You asked what evidence I had to support my "wild speculation" thus suggesting it is "wild speculation" REGARDLESS of any supporting evidence I may have.

GREG:You would have a point if you had said, "if you do not have any supporting evidence, I can only view your statement as wild speculation - and depending on the quality of any evidence you do, I may still feel it is highly speculative, if not wild."

LEN:I assumed that it was "wild speculation" because you failed to provide any evidence. You making excuses instead of providing citations reinforces that suspicion.

GREG:Nope. I refuse to jump to the commands of anyone who has so blatantly pre-judged. Why bother?

Your claims now are lame. A clear reading of what you wrote is that you wanted me to supply evidence for "wild speculation". If I supplied evidence, in your wording, it has no chance of breaking free of the label you put on it. It would remain "wild speculation" no matter what. If you want to retract what you wrote and try and express a different meaning, please do, and I may reconsider.

It could be, for instance, that you mewant to say, "this looks to me like wild speculation. Can you provide evidence which shows it is actually within the realms of possibility?"

LEN: OK I apologize for describing your claim as "wild speculation", so pretty please with a cherry on top can you provide your evidence?

'==========

GREG:The facts here are that Ike did want to share radar technology with the Soviets. Do I have a cite for that? Yes. Did the agreements on science etc allow an exchange in any way agreeed upon? Yes. Can I quote the relevant part?

LEN:OK then provide your citations.

GREG:You disqualify yourself from being granted any such request. Prove you have a legitimate interest in letting the evidence fall where it may. and I will reconsider.

LEN: Cute beautiful excuse for not providing the citations you claim to have.

GREG:My time is precious. Why waste it on someone with no real interest in the subject matter beyond trying to find ways to unravel it?

I'd be more than happy to have you demonstrate I that wrong, but until then...

LEN: I think its hilarious when someone spends more time refusing to provide a citation, claiming a lack of time than they would actually providing the citation. I'll call this the 'White Rabbit defense', "No time to say hello, goodbye! I'm late, I'm late, I'm late!"

=========

GREG: Yes. I have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent. That he was present during Oswald's "attempt" to defect is not in dispute anywhere. The man has acknowledged it.

LEN: I'll do a forum search and get back to you.

GREG:Knock yourself out

LEN: Before this thread you made the only post on this forum with the keywords "keenan" and "redskin" the relevant portion reads:

* Around this same time-frame, Richard Snyder was acting as a spotter at Harvard for the Soviet-Russian Division within the Directorate of Plans of the CIA -- recruiting students from the Russian Research Center for potential travel to Russia as "Redskin" operatives. One such recruit was Edward L Keenan who went to Russia to study at the Leningrad University under the new Student Exchange agreement. Paying his way was CIA money filtered through a Ford Foundation Fellowship. In July '59, Snyder became First Consul at the US Embassy in Moscow. Keenan also arrived in the USSR that year - as would Lee Harvey Oswald. Redskin was designed to utilize "legal travelers" to Soviet Bloc countries to provide support for operations "Red Sox" & "Red Cap".

You did not provide any citations.

There was only one relevant hit from your site:

Edward L Keenan was present when Oswald attempted renunciation of citizenship in Richard Snyder's office of the US embassy in Moscow. Keenan was a CIA agent who had been recruited by Snyder into OPERATION REDSKIN [Lancer NID presentation, 2009].

So if you "have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent." You did not due so on this or your forum and only did so in your "Lancer NID presentation, 2009" is it available online? If not can you post (or perhaps just the relevant portion?

[bGREG:]I made no claim that I'd provided the evidence here. I had it on a previous version of my website which no longer esists after being hacked. The material was also presented, as I said, at last year's NID conference, and has been sent to a number of other reserachers. [/b]

LEN: True you never specifically " claim[ed] that [you]'d provided the evidence here" but since we were debating HERE it was reasonable to assume you`d "provided"it here or at least somewhere publicly available, you telling me to "Knock yourself out" implied the former. In any case I covered the possibility your supposed "mountain of evidence" was not online and asked you to post it. Let me guess the 'White Rabbit defense' again?

[Len Colby]

LEN: Once again Greg cuts and runs

GREG:???? You have to be kidding!!! I work 7 days a week. What about you?

Your MO with me has not changed since the first encounter. You hammer away while ever you think you can prove me wrong, or at least cast doubt on some issue. As soon as you realise you can't achieve either of those aims, YOU disappear.

LEN: I teach 5 days a week and avoid doing translation over the weekend if possible unless I find the text interesting. In the week or so since my post before last you found the time to reply to other threads. As for you claim that I "disappear"let's see you abandoned four threads (with date of my last reply):

1] Dyslexia V Asperger's 18 April 2010

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15683&view=getlastpost

　

2] The Crash of the U-2 on November 20, 1963 07 April 2010

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8899&pid=189913&st=135entry189913

　

3] Question for Greg Parker Dec 02 2009

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14838&view=getlastpost

　

4] McAdams on Garrison Sep 27 2009

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1664&view=getlastpost

　

The only case I was able to locate when I failed to reply to you was on the "Why did Marina write these words... and why did John Pic and the WC lie about it?" thread. I made about 20 points in my last two posts (09 January 2010) and you replied to 3 in your response (10 January 2010), leaving about 17 unanswered. I have not yet replied to those 3 points.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5228&pid=178339&st=30entry178339

To make a long story of the 5 threads we've debated on before this you gave on four on the fifth your left 5x more points unresponded to than I did. Once again you've made a false claim.

　

　

[Greg Parker]

LEN: Once again Greg cuts and runs

GREG:???? You have to be kidding!!! I work 7 days a week. What about you?

Your MO with me has not changed since the first encounter. You hammer away while ever you think you can prove me wrong, or at least cast doubt on some issue. As soon as you realise you can't achieve either of those aims, YOU disappear.

LEN: I teach 5 days a week and avoid doing translation over the weekend if possible unless I find the text interesting. In the week or so since my post before last you found the time to reply to other threads. As for you claim that I "disappear"let's see you abandoned four threads (with date of my last reply):

What the hell do you translate? Gibberish? You sure know how to type it. Ever heard of punctuation? If a thread I'm involved in scrolls off the front page while I"m enjoying my 4 and 1/2 hours nightly sleep, I rarely go looking for it. Most replies I make here on other peoples' threads these days are usually quick responses that don't take much time. And others don't feel the need to tie fellow members up in never-ending disputes on one point picked out of the whole.

Try and comprehend. I work SEVEN days a week - sometimes up to 15 hours per day. As I work from home, I do get to jump on my computer for short periods throughout the day and night. I also have young kids who not only demand attention, but deserve it. You run a poor last in getting my attention. If you ever show signs of actually giving a damn about the subject of this sub-forum, and an interest in more than just picking apart whatever scraps you feel are vulnerable to attack, then I may bump you up the pecking order.

1] Dyslexia V Asperger's 18 April 2010

http://educationforu...iew=getlastpost

　

2] The Crash of the U-2 on November 20, 1963 07 April 2010

http://educationforu...35

　

3] Question for Greg Parker Dec 02 2009

http://educationforu...iew=getlastpost

　

4] McAdams on Garrison Sep 27 2009

http://educationforu...iew=getlastpost

I see. So in your world, someone in a debate should never allow the other person the last word, lest they be accused of "cutting and running". Debate would therefore rage until one admitted defeat, or droppped dead? And you wonder why people are suspicious of your presence here when you put forth the idea that members MUST allow themselves to be tied up in endless debate?

　

The only case I was able to locate when I failed to reply to you was on the "Why did Marina write these words... and why did John Pic and the WC lie about it?" thread. I made about 20 points in my last two posts (09 January 2010) and you replied to 3 in your response (10 January 2010), leaving about 17 unanswered. I have not yet replied to those 3 points.

I seem to recall more than one - but I do not have the time or inclination to go fetch.

http://educationforu...30

To make a long story of the 5 threads we've debated on before this you gave on four on the fifth your left 5x more points unresponded to than I did. Once again you've made a false claim.

　

And you expect me to not only carry on a debate with you, but also to comprehend your stream of consiousness writing?