Jump to content
The Education Forum

O'Reilly's Book (on JFK) has been green-lighted to be a movie


Recommended Posts

This thread, if you look at the title, is supposed to be about O'Reilly's book.

Which I read and reviewed.

O'Reilly places stock in the rifle and Oswald going to Mexico City.

I don't recall him saying anything about the shirt or jacket.

Point taken. I'll withdraw.

However...of course O'Reilly isn't going to say anything about the shirt and jacket evidence. Self-aggrandizing hustlers never do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

David Von Pein and Paul Baker can't see it.

Otherwise, they would incorporate your talking points.

Instead, they say nothing when directly challenged on the issue.

Your claim is a priori idiotic.

weaverspecial.jpg

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

Perhaps one of the most childish displays of logic I have ever seen from you, and there have been mountains of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Reilly places stock in the rifle

:)

You made a joke, Jimbo! Was that intentional?

In my debate with him, I continually ignored the BYP. For the simple reason that, to me, that is a cesspool. You will never get out of the multiple arguments pro and con. I used to partake in these. I don't today, since I think the newer and stronger evidence is that Oswald did not order or pick up that rifle. This preempts the photos.

The newer evidence is stronger than a set of photos of Oswald holding the murder weapon? Photos that are geniune beyond doubt, because:

  • Stereoscopic studies have shown that they have not been altered. It's nigh on impossible to alter either or both images that constitute a stereo pair without the alteration being evident when the images are viewed stereoscopically.
  • Examination of the negatives and comparison with control pictures taken using the same camera has shown that they have not been altered (as well as demonstrating that they were taken using Oswald's camera).
  • Photogrammetric analysis of the photos gave no indication of alteration.
  • Marina admitted to taking them.
  • Oswald signed the back of one of them.

What more do you want, Jim? I think the reason you're keen to brush the BYP aside is because they obviously blow away your "newer and stronger" evidence.

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not shots of him in the TSBD with a rifle ,

Baker logic is find a picture of anybody with a rifle !. but is it evidence

Of murder ?.

All it can ever do is imply which it has .

They prove nothing!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not shots of him in the TSBD with a rifle ,

Baker logic is find a picture of anybody with a rifle !. but is it evidence

Of murder ?.

All it can ever do is imply which it has .

They prove nothing!.

I put that into Google translation and it crashed.

The photos of Oswald holding the weapon that was used to kill President Kennedy prove nothing? Ian, are you sure about that? Think about it for a while. I didn't say they prove that Oswald killed Kennedy, but, coupled with other evidence, they prove that he owned the murder weapon.

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

You might be wrong about that, yes.

Also, I didn't agree with all of Jack White's claims about the BYP but if even 1 of them turns out to be true.....

Most clear-thinking people know that in terms of photographic analysis, Jack White - rest his soul - was no expert. It would be stretching the truth to describe him as an amateur. Look at the photo section in Murder In Dealey Plaza for confirmation.

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the manufactured evidence "helps", it was not meant to.

You got the gist of it no problem.

And none of the manufactured "evidence" has been tested .

If they were so sure they were real why not test them ?.

Governments do not baulk at the opportunity to spend vast sums of

Our money trying to convince us about thier ideas.

Except in this case the U.S. government would rather turn Ostrich.

O'Really's book is just an echo from days long gone changes are coming

Be ready for more revelations the whole year.

What can the Warrenati do ?.

BLEAT AND REPEAT!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

You might be wrong about that, yes.

Also, I didn't agree with all of Jack White's claims about the BYP but if even 1 of them turns out to be true.....

Most clear-thinking people know that in terms of photographic analysis, Jack White - rest his soul - was no expert. It would be stretching the truth to describe him as an amateur. Look at the photo section in Murder In Dealey Plaza for confirmation.

I haven't looked at that book in years, but I do recall disagreeing vehemently with the shadow analysis (i.e. the claim that all shadows should be parallel)

The HSCA thing - I seem to recall reading that somewhere but I don't remember where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the manufactured evidence "helps", it was not meant to.

You got the gist of it no problem.

And none of the manufactured "evidence" has been tested .

If they were so sure they were real why not test them ?.

Governments do not baulk at the opportunity to spend vast sums of

Our money trying to convince us about thier ideas.

Except in this case the U.S. government would rather turn Ostrich.

O'Really's book is just an echo from days long gone changes are coming

Be ready for more revelations the whole year.

What can the Warrenati do ?.

BLEAT AND REPEAT!.

Oh good, another nutcase on the forum.

I look forward to the 'revelations'. In the meantime I think I'll just ignore you from now on. I'm sure you'll find someone else prepared to waste their time with you, Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PB: You might be wrong about that, yes.

Nothing typifies Baker more than this ignorant reply.

Before I digest the latest xxxx shower from Jimbo, I'd just like to point out that I misinterpreted Martin's words. I thought you were referring explicitly to the BYP, Martin; i.e. that the HSCA panel knew they were faked but said otherwise.

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...