You Couldn't Make This Up

[Chris Davidson]

Yet another prime example of not having the largest and best images available. After all these years and research how is it we do not have a repository of the very best images for analysis? with free FTP clients all over, file size should no longer matter. soapbox sermon over.....

DJ

David,

There are images available, the problem is, they are not the originals and possibly, not close to original.

I've already introduced a version of Altgen's 6 with detail on the limo flag, printed in the SF Chronicle on 11-23-1963. That's a newspaper.

I have never come across, nor seen, another version with this detail.

To me, that means, the version that is being used to distinguish broken glass,blinds, boxes or what have you, is not the best of quality.

Someone needs to supply a nice clean, early generational copy of Altgen's 6, then we can move forward.

chris

Edited November 2, 2010 by Chris Davidson

[Robert Harris]

Yet another prime example of not having the largest and best images available. After all these years and research how is it we do not have a repository of the very best images for analysis? with free FTP clients all over, file size should no longer matter. soapbox sermon over.....

DJ

David,

There are images available, the problem is, they are not the originals and possibly, not close to original.

I've already introduced a version of Altgen's 6 with detail on the limo flag, printed in the SF Chronicle on 11-23-1963. That's a newspaper.

I have never come across, nor seen, another version with this detail.

To me, that means, the version that is being used to distinguish broken glass,blinds, boxes or what have you, is not the best of quality.

Someone needs to supply a nice clean, early generational copy of Altgen's 6, then we can move forward.

chris

This is the best I have seen on the web to date. If anyone has a better copy, please post a link.

[Chris Davidson]

Robert,

Notice some detail missing from the flag in your photo?

chris

[Robert Harris]

And you certainly do keep Duncan and DVP busy, good on you. Keep it up.

BK

Have you actually been following the threads, Bill? If you had, you would know that DVP has made no contributions towards debunking Bob's nonsense.

I'm also surprised that you commend someone who has just called you dishonest in his above post.

Robert, You can say anything you want about Jim Braden and I won't say a word. I can assure you however, that when the shooters are identified, they will be professional shooters, and not con artists like Braden.

And it's Jim Braden's two days of secret testimony that was taken behind closed doors and then sealed for fifty years by G. R. Blakey and was released by the JFK Act.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=402799

Check out what Braden had to say when he was grilled by the HSCA laywers and investigators.

There's certainly more to Braden than meets the eye, especially his activities in New Orleans in the summer of '63 when he operated out of the office of an oil geologist (Vernon Main, Jr.) on the same floor of the Perre Marquette office building, just down the hall from G. Ray Gill and David Ferrie.

And Duncan, DVP may have not entered into this argument but you guys seem to have a history of enjoying these little debates, and if you go to McAdams forum you'll find that Mr. Harris has kept all of you guys pretty busy.

What is he saying that disturbs you so much?

As for him calling me dishonest, well he doesn't know me and he can call me and Jim Braden anything he wants and it doesn't mean anything as far as I'm concerned.

Carry on gentlemen.

Bill Kelly

There is no amount of study which can tell you what a professional criminal did that was not on the public record. It really is just that simple, Bill.

And it is impossible for Braden to have given "secret testimony" which exonerates himself, since we already know that he was a chronic xxxx. What difference does it make whether he lied publicly or lied secretly?

And no, it is not honest of ANYONE to proclaim as a fact, that he committed no violent crimes. If that is your opinion, then state it as such. Anything beyond that and you need to show us hard, objective proof.

[William Kelly]

And you certainly do keep Duncan and DVP busy, good on you. Keep it up.

BK

Have you actually been following the threads, Bill? If you had, you would know that DVP has made no contributions towards debunking Bob's nonsense.

I'm also surprised that you commend someone who has just called you dishonest in his above post.

Robert, You can say anything you want about Jim Braden and I won't say a word. I can assure you however, that when the shooters are identified, they will be professional shooters, and not con artists like Braden.

And it's Jim Braden's two days of secret testimony that was taken behind closed doors and then sealed for fifty years by G. R. Blakey and was released by the JFK Act.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=402799

Check out what Braden had to say when he was grilled by the HSCA laywers and investigators.

There's certainly more to Braden than meets the eye, especially his activities in New Orleans in the summer of '63 when he operated out of the office of an oil geologist (Vernon Main, Jr.) on the same floor of the Perre Marquette office building, just down the hall from G. Ray Gill and David Ferrie.

And Duncan, DVP may have not entered into this argument but you guys seem to have a history of enjoying these little debates, and if you go to McAdams forum you'll find that Mr. Harris has kept all of you guys pretty busy.

What is he saying that disturbs you so much?

As for him calling me dishonest, well he doesn't know me and he can call me and Jim Braden anything he wants and it doesn't mean anything as far as I'm concerned.

Carry on gentlemen.

Bill Kelly

There is no amount of study which can tell you what a professional criminal did that was not on the public record. It really is just that simple, Bill.

And it is impossible for Braden to have given "secret testimony" which exonerates himself, since we already know that he was a chronic xxxx. What difference does it make whether he lied publicly or lied secretly?

And no, it is not honest of ANYONE to proclaim as a fact, that he committed no violent crimes. If that is your opinion, then state it as such. Anything beyond that and you need to show us hard, objective proof.

Robert,

You can believe anything you want about Lee Harvey Oswald and Jim Braden, and whether they were violent persons or killed anyone.

While we may not know what lurks beyond what is on the public record, and both LHO and Jim Braden may have been secret sexual serial killers like Ted Bundy, and rack up fifty or more murders before being caught, I don't think so. Could LHO, secretly and covertly and all by himself, assassinate a president in such a way that no one would ever figure out how he did it? No. Therefore he didn't do it.

Could Jim Braden have secretly been trained and polished into an expert rifle marksman and sniper, by the mob or anyone else? Would he have it in him to kill professionally, even if nobody noticed that he did? I don't think so.

I think that a person's life record stands for itself - and that their personalities are reflected in that record - and while Oswald used an alias and built a charade around his covert operatonal activities, as is SOP, Jim Braden's record indicates that while connected with the mob, and convicted of crimes - like pawning stollen goods, sending bad checks across state lines, and smoozing rich widows, he was also a gentleman, not a violent person. And as far as I can tell, didn't lie when he sat down at the Sheriff's office and made his statement of where he was an what he was doing at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963. He didn't lie, although he didn't tell them he had legally changed his name and was just returning from visiting his probation office, or that his pals were in town to see H. L. Hunt.

And after two hours of extensive sworn testimony before the HSCA, which is a most fascinating story that must be the truth or Mob baiting chief counsel G. R. Blakey would have him indicted for perjury, but instead locked his testimony away saying, "I'll stand on the judgement of historians fifty years from now."

Well instead of fifty years, you can read it now and learn who Jim Braden was and believe him or disbelieve him, but you will never know if you don't read it.

If you want to imagine him being a lier, okay, that's part of the tradecraft of being a con-man, but if you want to imagine him shooting the President's head off, then you are putting things into the picture that aren't there, or visible to anybody else.

Those who imagine Oswald pulling the trigger on the bullet that blow's off JFK's head also imagine him to be a mean, bad, evil, crazy psycho, and anybody who would shoot the president and a cop would have to be crazy, but if there's nothing in his backgroud that indicates psychotic or violence, then maybe you have the wrong man.

Maybe there was a sniper in the shadows behind an open window in the upper floors of Dal-Tex, but it wasn't Jim Braden.

BK

Edited November 3, 2010 by William Kelly

[David Andrews]

Post Deleted

Forgot my Warren report and confused Sports Drome Rifle range at 8000 West Davis with Sportatorium at 1000 S. Industrial, which Tosh Plumlee posted about. Apologies.

Edited November 3, 2010 by David Andrews

[Robert Harris]

And you certainly do keep Duncan and DVP busy, good on you. Keep it up.

BK

Have you actually been following the threads, Bill? If you had, you would know that DVP has made no contributions towards debunking Bob's nonsense.

I'm also surprised that you commend someone who has just called you dishonest in his above post.

Robert, You can say anything you want about Jim Braden and I won't say a word. I can assure you however, that when the shooters are identified, they will be professional shooters, and not con artists like Braden.

And it's Jim Braden's two days of secret testimony that was taken behind closed doors and then sealed for fifty years by G. R. Blakey and was released by the JFK Act.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=402799

Check out what Braden had to say when he was grilled by the HSCA laywers and investigators.

There's certainly more to Braden than meets the eye, especially his activities in New Orleans in the summer of '63 when he operated out of the office of an oil geologist (Vernon Main, Jr.) on the same floor of the Perre Marquette office building, just down the hall from G. Ray Gill and David Ferrie.

And Duncan, DVP may have not entered into this argument but you guys seem to have a history of enjoying these little debates, and if you go to McAdams forum you'll find that Mr. Harris has kept all of you guys pretty busy.

What is he saying that disturbs you so much?

As for him calling me dishonest, well he doesn't know me and he can call me and Jim Braden anything he wants and it doesn't mean anything as far as I'm concerned.

Carry on gentlemen.

Bill Kelly

There is no amount of study which can tell you what a professional criminal did that was not on the public record. It really is just that simple, Bill.

And it is impossible for Braden to have given "secret testimony" which exonerates himself, since we already know that he was a chronic xxxx. What difference does it make whether he lied publicly or lied secretly?

And no, it is not honest of ANYONE to proclaim as a fact, that he committed no violent crimes. If that is your opinion, then state it as such. Anything beyond that and you need to show us hard, objective proof.

Robert,

You can believe anything you want about Lee Harvey Oswald and Jim Braden, and whether they were violent persons or killed anyone.

While we may not know what lurks beyond what is on the public record, and both LHO and Jim Braden may have been secret sexual serial killers like Ted Bundy, and rack up fifty or more murders before being caught, I don't think so. Could LHO, secretly and covertly and all by himself, assassinate a president in such a way that no one would ever figure out how he did it? No. Therefore he didn't do it.

Could Jim Braden have secretly been trained and polished into an expert rifle marksman and sniper, by the mob or anyone else? Would he have it in him to kill professionally, even if nobody noticed that he did? I don't think so.

I think that a person's life record stands for itself - and that their personalities are reflected in that record - and while Oswald used an alias and built a charade around his covert operatonal activities, as is SOP, Jim Braden's record indicates that while connected with the mob, and convicted of crimes - like pawning stollen goods, sending bad checks across state lines, and smoozing rich widows, he was also a gentleman, not a violent person. And as far as I can tell, didn't lie when he sat down at the Sheriff's office and made his statement of where he was an what he was doing at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963. He didn't lie, although he didn't tell them he had legally changed his name and was just returning from visiting his probation office, or that his pals were in town to see H. L. Hunt.

And after two hours of extensive sworn testimony before the HSCA, which is a most fascinating story that must be the truth or Mob baiting chief counsel G. R. Blakey would have him indicted for perjury, but instead locked his testimony away saying, "I'll stand on the judgement of historians fifty years from now."

Well instead of fifty years, you can read it now and learn who Jim Braden was and believe him or disbelieve him, but you will never know if you don't read it.

If you want to imagine him being a lier, okay, that's part of the tradecraft of being a con-man, but if you want to imagine him shooting the President's head off, then you are putting things into the picture that aren't there, or visible to anybody else.

Those who imagine Oswald pulling the trigger on the bullet that blow's off JFK's head also imagine him to be a mean, bad, evil, crazy psycho, and anybody who would shoot the president and a cop would have to be crazy, but if there's nothing in his backgroud that indicates psychotic or violence, then maybe you have the wrong man.

Maybe there was a sniper in the shadows behind an open window in the upper floors of Dal-Tex, but it wasn't Jim Braden.

BK

Why are you making this so complicated Bill? You don't know whether Braden committed violent crimes or not. Neither do I or anyone else, who did not know him personally and extremely well. And no, he doesn't have to go to Green Beret school to be trained to shoot somebody.

What's wrong with just admitting that like the rest of us, you don't have a clue about whether he committed one or more violent crimes?

[William Kelly]

And you certainly do keep Duncan and DVP busy, good on you. Keep it up.

BK

Have you actually been following the threads, Bill? If you had, you would know that DVP has made no contributions towards debunking Bob's nonsense.

I'm also surprised that you commend someone who has just called you dishonest in his above post.

Robert, You can say anything you want about Jim Braden and I won't say a word. I can assure you however, that when the shooters are identified, they will be professional shooters, and not con artists like Braden.

And it's Jim Braden's two days of secret testimony that was taken behind closed doors and then sealed for fifty years by G. R. Blakey and was released by the JFK Act.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=402799

Check out what Braden had to say when he was grilled by the HSCA laywers and investigators.

There's certainly more to Braden than meets the eye, especially his activities in New Orleans in the summer of '63 when he operated out of the office of an oil geologist (Vernon Main, Jr.) on the same floor of the Perre Marquette office building, just down the hall from G. Ray Gill and David Ferrie.

And Duncan, DVP may have not entered into this argument but you guys seem to have a history of enjoying these little debates, and if you go to McAdams forum you'll find that Mr. Harris has kept all of you guys pretty busy.

What is he saying that disturbs you so much?

As for him calling me dishonest, well he doesn't know me and he can call me and Jim Braden anything he wants and it doesn't mean anything as far as I'm concerned.

Carry on gentlemen.

Bill Kelly

There is no amount of study which can tell you what a professional criminal did that was not on the public record. It really is just that simple, Bill.

And it is impossible for Braden to have given "secret testimony" which exonerates himself, since we already know that he was a chronic xxxx. What difference does it make whether he lied publicly or lied secretly?

And no, it is not honest of ANYONE to proclaim as a fact, that he committed no violent crimes. If that is your opinion, then state it as such. Anything beyond that and you need to show us hard, objective proof.

Robert,

You can believe anything you want about Lee Harvey Oswald and Jim Braden, and whether they were violent persons or killed anyone.

While we may not know what lurks beyond what is on the public record, and both LHO and Jim Braden may have been secret sexual serial killers like Ted Bundy, and rack up fifty or more murders before being caught, I don't think so. Could LHO, secretly and covertly and all by himself, assassinate a president in such a way that no one would ever figure out how he did it? No. Therefore he didn't do it.

Could Jim Braden have secretly been trained and polished into an expert rifle marksman and sniper, by the mob or anyone else? Would he have it in him to kill professionally, even if nobody noticed that he did? I don't think so.

I think that a person's life record stands for itself - and that their personalities are reflected in that record - and while Oswald used an alias and built a charade around his covert operatonal activities, as is SOP, Jim Braden's record indicates that while connected with the mob, and convicted of crimes - like pawning stollen goods, sending bad checks across state lines, and smoozing rich widows, he was also a gentleman, not a violent person. And as far as I can tell, didn't lie when he sat down at the Sheriff's office and made his statement of where he was an what he was doing at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963. He didn't lie, although he didn't tell them he had legally changed his name and was just returning from visiting his probation office, or that his pals were in town to see H. L. Hunt.

And after two hours of extensive sworn testimony before the HSCA, which is a most fascinating story that must be the truth or Mob baiting chief counsel G. R. Blakey would have him indicted for perjury, but instead locked his testimony away saying, "I'll stand on the judgement of historians fifty years from now."

Well instead of fifty years, you can read it now and learn who Jim Braden was and believe him or disbelieve him, but you will never know if you don't read it.

If you want to imagine him being a lier, okay, that's part of the tradecraft of being a con-man, but if you want to imagine him shooting the President's head off, then you are putting things into the picture that aren't there, or visible to anybody else.

Those who imagine Oswald pulling the trigger on the bullet that blow's off JFK's head also imagine him to be a mean, bad, evil, crazy psycho, and anybody who would shoot the president and a cop would have to be crazy, but if there's nothing in his backgroud that indicates psychotic or violence, then maybe you have the wrong man.

Maybe there was a sniper in the shadows behind an open window in the upper floors of Dal-Tex, but it wasn't Jim Braden.

BK

Why are you making this so complicated Bill? You don't know whether Braden committed violent crimes or not. Neither do I or anyone else, who did not know him personally and extremely well. And no, he doesn't have to go to Green Beret school to be trained to shoot somebody.

What's wrong with just admitting that like the rest of us, you don't have a clue about whether he committed one or more violent crimes?

But I do have a clue. I know he was not a violent person and wasn't a Dealey Plaza Operation Shooter because we know now more than ever of what actually happened and are closing in on the real culprets and learning what really happened, and if you want dismiss what has already been established and make things more confusing you can, but those who are learning more and more every day, understand that we are closer than ever to figuring out what really happened.

If you want to believe that Jim Braden was a Dealey Plaza shooter, then you can believe anything you want, but understand that others are far beyond your analysis, and if you want to know what really happened, then you will have to read Jim Braden's secret testimony, and just keep up with what we've learned since then.

I'm not making it so complicated, I'm making it more simple.

Bill Kelly

[Craig Lamson]

ANd that is the only thing I got wrong.

Well except for the BY photos being faked, and then there is Speers paper bag studies and lets not forget the famous Varnell's Magic Jacket....

[William Kelly]

ANd that is the only thing I got wrong.

Evrything else, that is the stuff dealign with the JFK case is correct.

Its you who have everything wrong here.

Because you are a dyed in the woo DVP clone. ANd I will wager you did not even look up those pages. ANd you do not even have that book.

For someone who comes from the William Cooper school of critical thinking, I wouldn't expect your reply to be any different.

At least your man enough to admit a mistake.

Oh really? When did I ever say that the driver shot JFK?

You are from the DVP/ McAdams critical school. You probably bough his book already.

Finally, when will you admit yours? Like about Oswald at the rifle range. Probably when DVP admits GIvens was a xxxx.

I have no mistake to admit.

You claimed, that no one ever claimed to have seen Oswald practising.

I showed that your claim was incorrect, and provaby so with a single fact, ie, the video which I posted, which guess what, shows Price and Slack claiming to have seen Oswald practicing. That's a Fact!!! but you being a factoid man wouldn't recognise a fact if if hit you in the face.

Whether Price and Slack actually seen Oswald practice or not is irrelevant to your false claim.

If Oswald was seen practicing, then there's a lot of explaining that has to be done as to where he got the gun and the ammo and how he got there - by bus or did Michael Paine drive him?

And it if it wasn't Oswald, who was it?

Was it a case of mistaken identity, like the waitress who thought Larry Craford was Oswald with Ruby?

Or was it a case of impersonation, like the women at the Texas Employment Commission who identifed Craford as the guy in the leather jacket who said he was Oswald?

BK

[Michael Hogan]

This is what Duncan says I said:

"I have no mistake to admit.

You claimed, that no one ever claimed to have seen Oswald practising."

Not so. This is what I said:

"No one ever recalls him practicing with it either." You changed my wording.

But my wording, as stated, is true since a claim is just that. An assertion that has not been tested.

It turns out it was not him. So no one ever saw Oswald practicing. It was an imposter. And all you have to do is read Meagher's book to see the claim negated. As I did and you did not.

As you know Jim, Armstrong also provides a very good account of the rifle range incidents. Like Meagher, most of of Armstrong's documentation comes from testimony in the official records.

You show remarkable amounts of patience and perseverance to deal with some of the foolishness that goes on here. The following speaks for itself.

It was incredible to me a few months ago when you admitted that you had not read Thompson's book. It is now doubly incredible to me that you have not read Meagher's book....

I am only interested in facts, not what some nutcase authors plucking fairy tales out of thin air, and then publishing guesswork and opinions without facts in books have to say.

[William Kelly]

This is what Duncan says I said:

"I have no mistake to admit.

You claimed, that no one ever claimed to have seen Oswald practising."

Not so. This is what I said:

"No one ever recalls him practicing with it either." You changed my wording.

But my wording, as stated, is true since a claim is just that. An assertion that has not been tested.

It turns out it was not him. So no one ever saw Oswald practicing. It was an imposter. And all you have to do is read Meagher's book to see the claim negated. As I did and you did not.

As you know Jim, Armstrong also provides a very good account of the rifle range incidents. Like Meagher, most of of Armstrong's documentation comes from testimony in the official records.

You show remarkable amounts of patience and perseverance to deal with some of the foolishness that goes on here. The following speaks for itself.

It was incredible to me a few months ago when you admitted that you had not read Thompson's book. It is now doubly incredible to me that you have not read Meagher's book....

I am only interested in facts, not what some nutcase authors plucking fairy tales out of thin air, and then publishing guesswork and opinions without facts in books have to say.

The only nutcase author publishing guesswork and opinions without facts here is quite clear.

[William Kelly]

One good thing about this silly exchange Duncan is this: It really smoked out who you are, what kind of research you are interested in, and your attitude about the facts of the JFK case. Clearly, you have not read AAF or the Armstrong book on this matter. And further you don't care to. Because they show something you don't want to believe in.

And for you to deny now your association with DVP is simply being deceptive on your part.

What a load of horse manure.

I find it really weird, that people like you, rather than tie all of the facts together and come to some kind of intelligent conclusion, you prefer to go down the A knew B, so B must have known C route.

If it's a crime for me to to come to conclusions based on hard evidence, and to dismiss speculation stated as facts put forward by screwballs only out to make a quick buck, then i'm guilty as charged.

Okay, Let's tie in all of the facts together and come to some kind of intelligent conclusion, conclusions based on hard evidence and dismiss speculation and screwballs out to make a quick buck.

Where do we start?

You make the call Duncan, you started this tread.

Just stick to the facts.

BK

[Robert Harris]

One good thing about this silly exchange Duncan is this: It really smoked out who you are, what kind of research you are interested in, and your attitude about the facts of the JFK case. Clearly, you have not read AAF or the Armstrong book on this matter. And further you don't care to. Because they show something you don't want to believe in.

And for you to deny now your association with DVP is simply being deceptive on your part.

At least Von Pein has the integrity to come out and say where he stands.

Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Duncan

It was set up to be a combative thread from the start. You don't like Robert Harris. He doesn't like you. I think most of us saw the thread for what it was from the second it appeared. Simply another b*tch-slapping contest.

There has been nothing discussed on this thread regarding Harris' work that isn't included on the numerous other threads where you have "gone after him."

The only respite from the cyber-pie-fight has been Jim and Bill's posts.

Duncan's little vendetta goes back to February of this year when he and a few of his thugs started posting almost nothing except personal attacks and insults. That culminated with him banning me from his group after I posted an article about the shot at 285.

Since then he's been following me around from forum to forum and thread to thread attacking anything and everything I say. He even tried to attack me in my own forum but gave up after he was blocked from posting insults.

What I would love to discover is, what is motivating Duncan to continue his little vendetta. Whatever or whoever it is, could not be very impressed with his performance so far, which has consisted of his little cartoon characters his pretenses that he can't see what everyone else sees, and his claim that he sees a stack of boxes in a particular Daltex window.

What I would really like, is to get criticism from somebody who knows enough about the case to look for genuine errors in my analysis and is honest enough to be objective about it.