The Backyard Photos

[Craig Lamson]

This is the last post.

You still don't get it.

Oswald was supposed to be at work. No one disputes that. (Except you.)

Key word in that phrase...SUPPOSED...

He goes to the post office, Eleven blocks away. He buys a money order. But even though the money order has to be mailed then and there in order to fit the evidence trail and the official story, he does not mail it there. He walks miles out of his way.

Again you claim this is an extra ordinary event. Can ytou pove that it is? Of course not. Thats why you keep tryting to spin away from doing that.

Your comparison with you driving 60 miles away to mail the money order is not at all applicable. This money order had to be bought and mailed then and there. Or didn't you know that? You didn't obviously. It has nothing to do with "my expectations". Its what the Commission says had to have happened by the markings on the 1.) money order and 2.) the envelope. Those dictate that the money order had to have ben dropped by 10:30 AM on March 12th.

Of course it has to do with your expectations jimmy. DO I need to go backl and quoteall of tyour failed expectaions AGAIN! You know the ones where you claim it MAKES NO SENSE?

Do you understand now Craig? Or are you that thick?

No, I understand PERFECTLY that YOU need to speculate or those pesky ... non altered... backyard phoots simply destroy you. No one is quite a thick as you jimmy.

If that did not happen that way, then something is wrong with the evidence and Oswald did not drop the envelope.

Now if the records at work are genuine, he did not. All you would have to do is find anyone who saw him that morning or worked with him on a project that morning. If so, then LHO did not drop the envelope.

You make extra ordinary claims...please provide the proof to back them up.

But even if you don't, try and explain why Oswald would walk miles out of his way at say nine in the morning to do something he could have done easily without walking at all. Jogging was not "in" back then Craig.

There you go with your EXPECTATIONS and speculations again jimmy...

Here is the clincher. You have almost as many problems with the revolver as you do the rifle. With that, you have to beleive that REA, teh forerunner of Federal Express delivered a revolver through the post office, had PO serve as fiduciary. And then had no signed or initialed receipt or transaction record by the customer and could not even tell REA WHEN the revolver was picked up!

Is this extra ordinary? Can you prove that it is?

Boy, LHO had some real problems with post office regulations didn' t he? And it just happens to be centered around the two weapons in the BYP's.

Are they "real" problems or were they common during that period of time? You claim they are extra ordinary. Please prove it.

Funny, I go years without having such problems or irregularities Yet, the WC says both these bizarre transactions-which violated so many rules, regulations, standard practice and common sense--happened on the same day!

There you go again with your failed EXPECTATIONS!

No they didn't.

More speculation. Your position is in tatters and you continue to speculate. Priceless.

Believe in the Easter Bunny Craig?

You do.

jimmy digs his hole even deeper...and piles on even more speculation. Amazing

That's it for me.

How many times are you going to break that promise jimmy....

Edited August 13, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Bernie Laverick]

This is the last post.

You still don't get it.

Oswald was supposed to be at work. No one disputes that. (Except you.)

Key word in that phrase...SUPPOSED...

He goes to the post office, Eleven blocks away. He buys a money order. But even though the money order has to be mailed then and there in order to fit the evidence trail and the official story, he does not mail it there. He walks miles out of his way.

Again you claim this is an extra ordinary event. Can ytou pove that it is? Of course not. Thats why you keep tryting to spin away from doing that.

Your comparison with you driving 60 miles away to mail the money order is not at all applicable. This money order had to be bought and mailed then and there. Or didn't you know that? You didn't obviously. It has nothing to do with "my expectations". Its what the Commission says had to have happened by the markings on the 1.) money order and 2.) the envelope. Those dictate that the money order had to have ben dropped by 10:30 AM on March 12th.

Of course it has to do with your expectations jimmy. DO I need to go backl and quoteall of tyour failed expectaions AGAIN! You know the ones where you claim it MAKES NO SENSE?

Do you understand now Craig? Or are you that thick?

No, I understand PERFECTLY that YOU need to speculate or those pesky ... non altered... backyard phoots simply destroy you. No one is quite a thick as you jimmy.

If that did not happen that way, then something is wrong with the evidence and Oswald did not drop the envelope.

Now if the records at work are genuine, he did not. All you would have to do is find anyone who saw him that morning or worked with him on a project that morning. If so, then LHO did not drop the envelope.

You make extra ordinary claims...please provide the proof to back them up.

But even if you don't, try and explain why Oswald would walk miles out of his way at say nine in the morning to do something he could have done easily without walking at all. Jogging was not "in" back then Craig.

There you go with your EXPECTATIONS and speculations again jimmy...

Here is the clincher. You have almost as many problems with the revolver as you do the rifle. With that, you have to beleive that REA, teh forerunner of Federal Express delivered a revolver through the post office, had PO serve as fiduciary. And then had no signed or initialed receipt or transaction record by the customer and could not even tell REA WHEN the revolver was picked up!

Is this extra ordinary? Can you prove that it is?

Boy, LHO had some real problems with post office regulations didn' t he? And it just happens to be centered around the two weapons in the BYP's.

Are they "real" problems or were they common during that period of time? You claim they are extra ordinary. Please prove it.

Funny, I go years without having such problems or irregularities Yet, the WC says both these bizarre transactions-which violated so many rules, regulations, standard practice and common sense--happened on the same day!

There you go again with your failed EXPECTATIONS!

No they didn't.

More speculation. Your position is in tatters and you continue to speculate. Priceless.

Believe in the Easter Bunny Craig?

You do.

jimmy digs his hole even deeper...and piles on even more speculation. Amazing

That's it for me.

How many times are you going to break that promise jimmy....

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?

[Michael Hogan]

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

The larger question is why do we spend so much time debating with them?

To do so accomplishes very little, and only serves to enable them.

[David Josephs]

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.

Once again CL, GREAT job!

[Bernie Laverick]

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

The larger question is why do we spend so much time debating with them?

To do so accomplishes very little, and only serves to enable them.

Well said Michael, you are absolutely spot on! It just gives them an 'importance' they clearly don't merit.

[Bernie Laverick]

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

Hi Lee

Perhaps d. on the second list is stretching it a little...but granted, only a little. Scratch the surface and there is a real vibrant hatred of humanity seething underneath.

And with some you don't even need to scratch!

[William Kelly]

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

The larger question is why do we spend so much time debating with them?

To do so accomplishes very little, and only serves to enable them.

The bottom line is that even though Lone Nutters are only 20% of the population, they have been successful so far in preventing the Constitution from working and a proper investigation of the assassination of JFK, and the murders of JD Tippit and L. H. Oswald from taking place.

Their ultimate goal is not to win an internet debate, but to prevent the laws of the land from being implimented.

So they win.

BK

[Bernie Laverick]

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

Hi Lee

Perhaps d. on the second list is stretching it a little...but granted, only a little. Scratch the surface and there is a real vibrant hatred of humanity seething underneath.

And with some you don't even need to scratch!

But we are in full agreement on a, b, and c?

Oh absolutely!

[David Josephs]

Their ultimate goal is not to win an internet debate, but to prevent the laws of the land from being implimented.

So they win.

BK

Interesting statement BK...

given the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, etc... when was the last piece of significant legislation that

actually GIVES more rights to the people - the last time significant laws were amended or upheld to GIVE or GUARANTEE individual freedoms in the "land of the free, home of the brave"...?

just sayin'. preventing laws from being implemented represents unbelievable power

when the LNers realize their position reinforces this power and ultimately TAKES from their own freedoms, maybe they'll get it.

America is indeed great - when you are free to defend to the death your right to be lied to by the government.. and say "thank you sir", in the process.

DJ

[Michael Hogan]

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

The larger question is why do we spend so much time debating with them?

To do so accomplishes very little, and only serves to enable them.

The bottom line is that even though Lone Nutters are only 20% of the population, they have been successful so far in preventing the Constitution from working and a proper investigation of the assassination of JFK, and the murders of JD Tippit and L. H. Oswald from taking place.

Their ultimate goal is not to win an internet debate, but to prevent the laws of the land from being implimented.

So they win.

BK

I respectfully disagree. A proper investigation is never going to happen. It's far too late for that.

If justice hasn't been served by now, it never will happen. To pretend otherwise is your dream. It's not mine.

They won. We lost. That's the bottom line.

Debating these guys over issues that are essentially non-debatable does a disservice to the truth, in my opinion.

[Peter McGuire]

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

The larger question is why do we spend so much time debating with them?

To do so accomplishes very little, and only serves to enable them.

The bottom line is that even though Lone Nutters are only 20% of the population, they have been successful so far in preventing the Constitution from working and a proper investigation of the assassination of JFK, and the murders of JD Tippit and L. H. Oswald from taking place.

Their ultimate goal is not to win an internet debate, but to prevent the laws of the land from being implimented.

So they win.

BK

I respectfully disagree. A proper investigation is never going to happen. It's far too late for that.

If justice hasn't been served by now, it never will happen. To pretend otherwise is your dream. It's not mine.

They won. We lost. That's the bottom line.

Debating these guys over issues that are essentially non-debatable does a disservice to the truth, in my opinion.

I am not sure what you mean about disservice to the truth, but I get your point.

What this does in my opinion, is to give the liars an opportunity to lie some more. By engaging them, they have that opportunity.

As far as being far too late for justice to be served, I hate to say that I agree.

Over the years, it has been put like this; "say goodbye to all that", "of course the world is round."

The question that I have, and why I don't blame anyone for still being here is;

Why is the other side still here?

After all, "They won. We lost."

So what are the "winners" afraid of?

I found, yet another version of "Everybody Hurts" , for the victims in Haiti, this one complete with the lyrics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtcZNayyYtQ&p=4274C121EACFBF84&playnext=1&index=15

Edited August 13, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[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.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Once again CL, GREAT job!

Tell us Chance, just how have you proven these events you claim are extra ordinary are in fact extra ordinary.

Oh thats right, you can't. Lordy Lordy Chance BELIEVES.

I guess in your case the saying must be re-phrased.

A warped world view is a terrible thing to waste.

Clearly you don't want to waste yours on truth. Like the unaltered backyard photos.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

LEN: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.

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.

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.

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.”

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?”.

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.

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.

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: 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?

Once again Greg cuts and runs

[Craig Lamson]

Debating these guys over issues that are essentially non-debatable does a disservice to the truth, in my opinion.

Spoken like a true BELIEVER and a new charter member of the EF photo know nothings club.

You will fit right in.