Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

Again why should it not exist? Can there be legitimate reasons WHY it does exist that are not conspiratorial?

You may be right. Perhaps there may be legitimate reasons. I have yet to see a discussion which even guesses as what those legitimate reasons might be though.

I really can't think of a legitimate reason for that image to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Again why should it not exist? Can there be legitimate reasons WHY it does exist that are not conspiratorial?

You may be right. Perhaps there may be legitimate reasons. I have yet to see a discussion which even guesses as what those legitimate reasons might be though.

I really can't think of a legitimate reason for that image to exist.

I don't like guessing.

So lets play another game.

How does this photo help with the construction of the BY photos as fakes?

Lets start here.

When could this photo have been taken that fits the timeline of Oswald living at Nealy St?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the key point is that neither Marina or her camera created that image. It implies the involvement of another person or persons interested in constructing composite images of that backyard, apparently with the intention of inserting a figure into it that wasn't there when the photo was taken.

Clearly if the foliage (or other seasonal clues) suggest it was taken at a different time from the "known" pictures, then this image obviously was not part of creation of the photos as we know them.

I don't know if Oswald was living at Neely St during that time of year when the ghost was taken.

I'm not suggesting I have any answers. But I do have a lot of questions. You're right - guessing doesn't get us very far but sometimes its all we have. We just have to be careful not to assert or present guesses as fact. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the key point is that neither Marina or her camera created that image. It implies the involvement of another person or persons interested in constructing composite images of that backyard, apparently with the intention of inserting a figure into it that wasn't there when the photo was taken.

Again, that is important to the actual provenience of the BY photos why?

Check the photo against these made by the DPD I believe after the assassination in 1963. Does the time frame look similar? Clearly people were looking into the various possibilities of the BY photos after the assassination.

http://www.maryferre...cd81-1_0228.jpg

http://www.maryferre...cd81-1_0240.jpg

BTW, AS I'm not a scholar on the life and times of LHO I'll let someone who is tell me if this is correct, but I believe he moved to Nealy in early March of 1963.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[... assorted rants, removed for clarity ...]

Oh dear Jim, you really are in rant mode now aren't you? So much so that you seem to have glossed over my points about the photographs, which I thought were quite sensible and valid.

The Lindbergh baby kidnapping and murder. I think there was much more to it than just "wood evidence", wasn't there? For starters, "Jafsie" helped out a bit, by lying under oath. But lets not get into that, eh Jimbo? We might even find ourselves agreeing on a few things!

Jimbo, I am a SCIENTIST. I'm a SCIENTIST that knows that Neutron Activation Analysis is a sensitive, reliable and accurate technique. You, on the other hand, probably don't even know what a neutron is. The method has been verified and is used by the SCIENTIFIC community (a real research community, not one in which a dogmatic zany like you is revered). You, of course, are happy to ignore that and rely on the words of a few individuals because what they say fits into your skewed version of reality.

If there is such a thing as McAdams disease, then I'm quite happy to have it, since it does seem to enhance clear, logical and common-sense thinking. Do you know if it's contagious? I'd happily sneeze into an envelope and post it to you. You could obviously use some of that.

And why are you calling me a fruit? Isn't that American slang for homosexual? You're beginning to sound like your idol :D. You might be a bit unhinged, Jimbo, but Garrison was way off the scale.

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the article that Jim linked to at Mary Ferrell, and it would seem that you may both be right, to an extent.

It would appear that NAA, as a scientific means of determining the composition of a sample, is valid (which if I understand Paul correctly, is what he's saying).

The problem for this case is the application of the tool to the purpose, kind of like using a hammer to drive in a screw.

The article makes it quite clear that whilst the raw data that Guinn obtained might be internally consistent and relevent, it is the conclusions that Guinn drew from the data, in ballistic terms, that are faulty.

If the levels of antimony vary within the same bullet then we can't even be sure that all the fragments didn't come from one bullet, let alone two, three or four. Further, it even seems as though we can't even be sure that all of the bullets are necessarily MC bullets, as the antimony levels within any jacketed bullet are not controlled to the same extent as non-jacketed bullets.

The article gives the impression that it's the application of NAA to forensic ballistic analysis that renders it "less than useful", rather than any deficiencies in the science of NAA itself.

Further, it would appear that the dissenting scientists have more applicable credentials for the task than did Guinn. Even if the playing field were equal in that regard, Guinn finds himself outnumbered amongst his "peers".

Edited by Martin White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that NAA, as a scientific means of determining the composition of a sample, is valid (which if I understand Paul correctly, is what he's saying).

Exactly, Martin. NAA in itself is a viable technique. The real question is, were the conclusions drawn from the analysis viable? As usual there are differing opinions about this (look here, for example: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/NAA.html). Jimbo likes to make blanket statements that are stupid and fundamentally false ("there's no real science to it") in order to steer his arguments in the direction of his own preferred conclusions. Like using a hammer to drive in a screw :)

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, you wrote this, in reference to Neutron Activation Analysis, in what was presumably an attempt to completely discredit it:

there is no real science to it.

Which is wrong. Laughable even. Of course, I don't expect you to admit that, because in your mind and in the minds of your cronies it's not possible for you to be wrong. Jimbo is always right. Who won the DiEugenio - McAdams debate on Black Op Radio? Jimbo did. Quite why you believe the sun shines out of your elbow is a real mystery.

You seem to be concentrating on trashing Guinn's study, whilst conveniently passing over the FBI study that predated it by over a decade. These pages make for interesting reading which shows that the story regarding NAA is not as clear cut as you would have us believe:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/Milam_and_heterogeneity.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/Key_problem.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/Resolving_the_logical_incompatibility.html

There's a lot of information here, but a key quote is:

[The FBI data] has proved to be a gold mine because each of the five groups of subfragments proved to be practically homogenous - the tiny replicates of every fragment gave essentially identical results. Gone was the variability of the whole bullets and of the quarters, and in their places appeared a tightness that is very similar to that of the two groups of fragments from the crime scene. The critics who have been so fixated on Guinn’s data have ignored the rest of the story, to the detriment of all concerned.

Jimbo, you've selected the opinions of particular scientists that seem to invalidate the NAA studies on CE399 and the bullet fragments recovered. But there are other opinions on the data. In your little private universe you are all-knowing, but outside that you don't really have the expertise to categorically state that one interpretation is correct and the other wrong. Rahn's analysis of the results from both NAA studies (each of which produced comparable results) is quite comprehensive, and really doesn't deserve to be disregarded out of hand on the whim of someone who doesn't understand the subject. You are, after all, the same person that believes that cavitation caused the ejection of brain and blood matter out of the front of JFK's head, and its reactive movement back and to the left. As I've already said, a scientist you ain't Jimbo.

Can I remind you of a question I asked earlier, which you failed to address? Why did 'they' produce muliple forgeries of the backyard photos, which would of course increase their chances of being exposed?

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim DiEugenio --

Allow me to get this straight -- you object to my discussion of the clothing evidence on this thread but the BYPs and the NAA are in bounds?

Bang up job, Jim.

The fact of conspiracy is prima facie, not that we'd ever get that idea from you...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin:

We are talking about NAA as applied to bullet lead analysis. Not anything else here.

As far as that goes, NAA is not a science at all And it has been proven not to be. And I demonstrated this by linking to several articles on the subject.

Because Paulie got his clock cleaned he is now trying to obfuscate things by separating out the actual NAA from bullet lead analysis. But for what other purpose was the NAA being used here on this thread if not bullet lead analysis?

My apologies Jim. I had misunderstood you. I thought you were saying NAA, in itself, was not a science. In terms of ballistics, yes, it would appear to hold not much (if any) value.

Therefore, NAA analysis, when applied to bullet lead, is not a forensically sound technique. And there are no two ways around it Martin. Neither in a statistical sense, nor in a basic metallurgical sense. So its not a matter of us both being right.Baker is completely wrong on this. And its shocking that he could be this wrong since, as I proved, this evidence discrediting this technique has been out there for at least five years. Strictly speaking, even longer.

My comment about you both being right was based upon my (mistaken) belief that you were talking about the overall science of NAA. So again, my apologies for not understanding.

I figured, as noted above, that eventually Baker would go to another quack on this issue, Ken Rahn, for his back up. Martin, Rahn is not a metallurgist, nor is he a statistician.When is the last time he testified in court on this issue? When is the last time the NAS asked him to analyze the technique? Rahn, like Baker, is a triple distilled, Oswald did it zealot. And your naivete about this, as Lee Farley noted, is now showing.

My naivete? Well, maybe. :) I haven't spent anything like as long on this as you Jim, that's for sure. Nor would I consider myself as well read on this subject. But I'm enjoying learning.

It seems worthwhile reiterating that Tobin, one of Guinn's detractors, was the FBI's Chief Forensic Metallurgist.

By the way, Jim. Your Personal Message box is full.

Edited by Martin White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, to Martin White: Meagher deals with that issue of the handloading and the machine on p. 281 of her book. If you don't have her book, then I strongly recommend you get it. No serious critic should ever be without it. I consider it the best overall of the first generation.

Yes, I've been looking for a copy of that book for a while. Unfortunately, all of the copies I've seen so far have been £80 or more.

Most people either are not that honest, or not that strong. To my knowledge, no WC employee ever did this in public. (Although, there is evidence that both Warren and Adams did this in private.)

It would appear that Liebeler was at least open to other possibilities. That appears evident from David Lifton's Best Evidence and his memo on Lifton's discovery of the head surgery.

Now the great thing about the men I quoted is that they have no such baggage. There are no such psychic and emotional attachments that impede--in fact, make impossible--any objective approach to the facts and data. In other words, unlike with Galileo's work, there is no Catholic Church to make him recant. (In this instance,its the WC spiritual beliefs.)

Agreed.

So out of interest, what is the current practice on bullet forensics today? Are rifling marks, and firing pin marks as far as prosecutors go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, to Martin White: Meagher deals with that issue of the handloading and the machine on p. 281 of her book. If you don't have her book, then I strongly recommend you get it. No serious critic should ever be without it. I consider it the best overall of the first generation.

Yes, I've been looking for a copy of that book for a while. Unfortunately, all of the copies I've seen so far have been £80 or more.

Martin, the 1992 reprint is less: http://www.abebooks.... after the fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimbo,

It's unbelievable, isn't it? How on earth do the mods let people on this forum that don't conform to the warped world view you store in your addled brain?

And you have the gall to call other people arrogant and ignorant!

You're a joke, Jimbo, as far as I'm concerned. You are incapable of entering into sensible, balanced debate. How do you spend most of your time 'debating'? By ridiculing others. That is what you generally do in order to 'win' an argument. Anyone who expresses an opinion that is different to yours becomes a target for mockery. One just has to listen to you on Black Op Radio, in particular the debate you had with John McAdams (during which he wiped the floor with you) and the shows in the immediate aftermath.

It's clear that you're quite frightened of NAA. This is probably because, if the studies are valid, the case is nailed shut, and you discover that you've wasted most of your adult life searching for the 'truth'. You must know that you can't invalidate the NAA data by simply attempting to discredit people, or are you really that stupid? Incidentally, there is no strict correlation between NAA and metallurgy. In additon, as a meterologist, I'm pretty sure Rahn would require a good grasp of statistics.

I'll ask once more, just in case you stop sulking. Here's an opportunity, Jim, for you to come up with a sensible answer and earn some credibility, because currently your credibility rating isn't good (in the real world, that is; don't panic, you're still God in your personal private universe). You believe the backyard photos are fakes. Let's not get into the reasons for that again, because my crapometer is already going doo-lally. Why were muliple fake backyard photos made, which was unnecessary and would only serve to increase the odds of the conspiracy and cover-up being exposed?

You've finished with me, Jim? Don't flatter yourself, you didn't even start.

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah Baker.

As I said, to me you are a non entity so don't address me anymore.

You might as well be Mike Rago. Or whatever his name was.

You shouldn't even be allowed on this board. Go join Non-Conspiracists United with your fellow charlatan Ken Rahn.

~sigh~

This is what I was afraid of. This is where discussions of rabbit holes like the NAA will get you, Jim.

If you don't want to hear blah blah blah from LNers -- you don't ban them!

Why would we? Welcome them with open arms and a tucked in shirt! Before long they will have nothing to say.

All you do is cite the prima facie case, Jim! As Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi have done to tremendous effect for, oh, about 50 years now (RIP Gaeton).

Jim DiEugenio -- please take a moment and glance down on the top of your right shoulder-line...then slowly raise your right arm to wave a la JFK...please observe the indentation of the fabric along the shoulder-line.

This is the exact opposite effect as the fabric movement required by the SBT. And it is a phenomenon which occurs hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet -- someone raises their arm and causes their upper body garment to indent along the shoulder-line.

Hundreds of billions? That's an understatement. But according to Paul Baker et al this universal phenomenon did not occur with JFK. The opposite occurred -- JFK waved his arm and his shirt and jacket fabric in tandem bunched up- multiple inches.

Jeanne Davison, David Von Pein, and Craig Lamson have argued that the following photo demonstrates what is required by the Single Bullet Theory -- multiple inches of fabric bunched up above the base of the neck.

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

But on the corner of Main and Houston JFK raised his right arm and reached behind his head. What happens when the arm is raised?

The fabric indents.

weaver.jpg

In the trough of the indentation the jacket fabric was flat against JFK's flat shirt. 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, the bullet hole in the shirt is too low to have been associated with the throat wound. Conspiracy proven.

That's the cardinal fact of the JFK assassination.

In the face of definitive evidence of a low back wound Paul Baker has nothing to say.

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...