The Backyard Photos

[Len Colby]

Fortunately my work load is lower than yours and my kids are at an age when then can fend for themselves and prefer hanging out with their friends then their parents. But once again you’ve been caught out making a false claim. We have debated on five threads and you bailed on four. I failed to respond to 3 points on the fifth but you failed to do so on about 17. And now you seem to be cutting out on another so your claim that I habitually "disapear" from threads was simply an obvious case of projection.

Finding threads where we crossed swords is not very difficult all you have to do is do and advanced search for my name (in quotes) with you as the author or vice-versa.

[Michael Hogan]

Michael...

because unlike THEM we feel it only right to discuss the evidence and data to support their positions, not just dismiss them. We hold true to a sense of logic... that when it talks, walks and dumps like a duck and scores of people testify it's a duck, and we have faked photos of the duck driving a car - we can come to conclusions and can test the evidence against it.

Unless it has to do with a photograph, Craig has nothing to offer, nothing to say, nothing to prove but to repeat his religious mantra that is the WCR. One can't discuss anything that challenges a religious zealot for his truth is absolute without need for proof or logic. It is because it is....

Lee nailed it... the vast majority of his posts are simply to ask others to prove again what has already been proven... or to fling insults. and when he does actually present data, he holds to no conclusions as a result... there's a fold in the jacket but the fact the bullet holes all line up is of no consequence, has no bearing on his conclusion... he only wanted to prove the size of his fold... just a little fold envy I guess....

At best he is a poster child for the WCR loyalists...

At some point even they have to get fed up with his inability to hold a civilized conversation, or discuss a topic and provide evidentary back-up.

It's embarassing to all sides and adds nothing to understanding or critical thought.

Hi David. Your final sentence is why ignoring him is probably the best policy.

David, on his website John Kelin wrote this about Maggie Field:

Maggie Field developed a series of collages, or "panoplies" as she called them, which juxtaposed conclusions stated in the Warren Report with the evidence found in the raw data of the 26 volumes. The 26 volumes, she found, frequently undermined the single-volume Report. Random House agreed to publish Mrs. Field's material as a book called The Evidence, even paying Field an advance—but then broke the contract. The Evidence has never seen the light of day.

Maggie Field had a commanding knowledge of the Warren Commission's published evidence. "it is clear to me," she said in 1967, "as a result of my four years of study, that powerful forces were involved, but the Commission invariably failed to follow up leads..."

"Until we can get to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination, this country is going to remain a sick country. No matter what we do. Because we cannot live with that crime. We just can't. The threat is too great. There are forces in this country who have gotten away with this thing, and will strike again. And not any one of us is safe."

Kelin also wrote in his book Praise from a Future Generation (page 464):

The original poster boards comprising Maggie's unpublished book remained in the oversized artist portfolios she first stored them in. For a number of years they were kept among her daughter's possessions in a storage facility. There are at least fifty of these posterboards. When they were inspected by a curious journalist in 2001 they had long begun to deteriorate. The boards represented years of diligent work that due to circumstances beyond Maggie Field's control never came to fruition. "I know she was frustrated and disappointed about this, although she rarely said so -- it would be super human for her not to be," Ray Marcus once said. He remained convinced that had it been published, The Evidence would have been one of the most important books on the case

.

Maggie Field died in 1997.

David, you wrote:

I would like, at some point, to contribute to the understanding of the JFK assassination by assembling and presenting the data in a more easily accessible manner so it does not overwhelm anyone interested in learning about the history of the event.

I think it would be cool to bring Maggie Fields' approach into the 21st century digital age. John Kelin could probably tell you a lot how those poster boards worked. I don't mean to suggest plagiarizing Maggie Field, just perhaps getting some inspiration from her formatting.

[John Dolva]

This is it. To me it begs the q why. Perhaps some person assigned the process of collating and typesetting the 26 volumes knew that few would read anything but the report, iow slip through the data that makes it a good pro conspiracy ''book''.

[Greg Parker]

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):

All those threads had come to an impasse, imo. That you feel the need to get the last word in, is.... well.... your need... not mine.

1] Dyslexia V Asperger's 18 April 2010

As it happens, I did come across something that I would have added had I realised you had made another reply.

From Peter Gregory's testimony: "I noticed that he spoke with what I thought to be a Polish accent, so I asked him if he were of Polish origin."

That is in reply to your statement that "No Russian speakers who spoke to or read the writings of LHO said he spoke the language like a native."

Start quibble over what constitutes "speaking like a Native" here, Len:

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

3] Question for Greg Parker Dec 02 2009

　

4] McAdams on Garrison Sep 27 2009

　

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.

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.

　

Let me have a go at making sense of you here by inserting missing words and grammar:

"To make a long story [short?], of the 5 threads we've debated on before this, you gave [in?] on four. On the fifth, you left 5x more points unresponded to than I did. Once again you've made a false claim." Please correct me if I got it wrong. The following response is based on this interpretation.

　

I gave in? you have a need to get the last word in? Tough cal there "Last Word" Lenny. If there is only one that you failed to respond to, then I probably missed seeing your responses to one or two of the ones listedabove as 1 through 4.

There are no real points I failed to respond to in the 5th. I try not to make a habit of encouraging yet more drivel.

I do have an idea, since you seem to have such an interest in it, why don't you do a statistical analysis of how many times I fail to respond in every thread I am involved in, how many points I fail to directly address in every thread I am involved in and then, to make the data more meaningful, pick 10 other members at random for the same analysis.

In fact, unless you do such an analysis, you have made an unproven claim. Not to mention, a false one.

[Len Colby]

You claimed that "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". When I showed that to be false rather than admit error you spouted nonsense. The fact remains that of the threads we debated you have been far more likely than me to "disappear".

[Len Colby]

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.

Greg clear something you have repeatedly indicated you thought LHO was a US intelligence asset

So… U2 pilots provided confirmation for……….. U2 pilots. Interesting.

And in other news, Charlie’s girls confirm Manson’s innocence, the CIA confirms Lee Harvey Oswald had no intelligence connections and Ronald McDonald confirms that Hamburgler has been fully rehabilitated.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8899&view=findpost&p=163823

OSWALD'S INTELLIGENCE CONNECTIONS

OSWALD's life lends itself to easy suspicion that he was working for at least one INTELLIGENCE agency. No document however, is ever likely to come to light proving that he did.

[…]

THE USSR

Lee's application to the Albert Schweitzer College (ASC) shows the strong possibility the trip was made on behalf of the US government. Percival Brungage, Ike's director of the Bureau of Budgets, was heavily involved in this college -- a fact avoided, missed, or hidden by the FBI and the WC in their investigations. There were a number of backchannel and overt programs dealing with scientific and cultural exchanges between the West and the Soviets. Lee was likely involved in one of the backchannel operations dealing with radar. Further, a letter he wrote to the ASC after arriving in Russia shows at that stage, he still planned to attend. This means the chance to stay was a last minute opportunity. The ASC for its part, had a relatively benign Cold War purpose -- spreading "The American Way", and attending may well have originally been intended as payment-in-kind to the young Marine.

[…]

If I am right about at least one director of the TSBD being an INTELLIGENCE asset, it is not difficult to see how Oswald obtained his job there - despite it being the slow season.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5057&view=findpost&p=40964

You have also indicated on at least 2 occasions that part of his mission was to collect information through surreptitious means

This was why it was necessary to have a CIA REDSKIN agent in Snyder's office at the time of the attempt [to renounce his citizenship ]. He was there to brief Oswald on the type of information they wanted him to stay and obtain.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16104&view=findpost&p=195662

Evidence has to be weighted. Oswald pretended not to speak ANY Russian in hospital when doing so was against his own interests I assume the US looks more favourably on potential new citizens if the speak English. Why would he act against his own interest when he was so desperate to stay he slashed his wrists? One reason would be that it is advantageous for someone seeking information to pretend not to understand the local language.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15683&view=findpost&p=189971

And at least once you indicated you thought he was spying

08 August 2010 - 01:38 PM

[Ray Carroll] in the end he [Newman] is not prepared to accuse Oz of spying for anyone. Newman does make it very clear, however, that Oz was very much the TARGET of spies.

[Greg] Had Newman looked into Keenan, he would have to have come to a different conclusion about Oswald.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16339&view=findpost&p=200848

But now not only claim that you "do not believe he was a spy" but that I "know" this. Please explain.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Len Colby