Don Jeffries Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 John Hunt is someone I can't really figure out. I had my own run in with him, I believe it was on Lancer, many years ago. He kept trying to claim that "the Kennedys" were responsible for limiting the autopsy at Bethesda. I told him that Harold Weisberg had published the autopsy form which provided a space for "limitations" and that RFK had signed it and specified none. Imho, this was just another of the attempts to blame the Kennedy family for the shortcomings of those "investigating" this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) Yeah yeah yeah Lammy. Go tell John Hunt, one of the most fastidious researchers around how he faked the cover of the Eisendrath Report to scan it in. And then he made up its contents. Please don't come at me with your Glock next. Remember Sandy Hook! Translated from jimbospeak. I really don't have a clue what the report sez because I have not read it... Now, you fabricated a claim about me. Either prove it or tell the word you are a ...well you know the L word we can't type here. And of course in this regard that's exactly what you are. Glock? roflmao! Edited March 29, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) self delete Edited March 29, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 I'm done with this absurd discussion of a foregone conclusion.... Catchyallater... SOP for davie jo when his teat is in the wringer...run away...fast. Not only that he did so without ever addressing the topic of this thread. He made a claim but cries foul and tosses out insults when asked to defend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 Jim Get back to us, if you can, with the relevant excerpts of the Eisendrath report. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 And considering these search results one has to wonder if the report really exists/existed: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rlz=1C1FDUM_enUS493US493&q=%22eisendrath+report%22+kennedy+-ctka+-dieugenio&oq=%22eisendrath+report%22+kennedy+-ctka+-dieugenio&gs_l=serp.12...11950.14181.0.16051.8.8.0.0.0.0.724.1543.4j2j0j1j6-1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.7.serp.0_rZofSkHck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 self delete GREAT idea Lammy.... If only you'd follow thru. ======== oh, and Len... good luck selling whatever it is you think you're offering... no one here, there or anywhere is buying it... carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) http://www.nara.gov/...533/jfksnew.txt Hit 1 of 1 AGENCY INFORMATION AGENCY : HSCA RECORD NUMBER : 180-10123-10064 RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIALS DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : HSCA FROM : EISENDRATH, DAVID B. TO : REPORT ON FAKE PHOTOGRAPY PROJECT TITLE : [No Title] DATE : 11/00/1978 PAGES : 14 DOCUMENT TYPE : REPORT SUBJECTS : PHOTOGRAPHS AND FILM, BACKYARD PHOTO; PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 08/09/1993 COMMENTS : FOLDER LIST IN BOX 1. SOME MATERIAL SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS. BOX 3. FOLDER TITLE: 2 COPIES. Audit history for this Record Identification Form UH... AGENCY : HSCA RECORD NUMBER : 180-10115-10011 RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED FILES. AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 014385 DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : EISENDRATH, DAVID. FROM : EISENDRATH, DAVID. TO : [No To] TITLE : FAKE PHOTOGRAPH PROJECT. DATE : 11/00/1978 PAGES : 13 DOCUMENT TYPE : REPORT. SUBJECTS : PHOTOGRAPHS AND FILMS, BACKYARD PHOTOS.; CONSPIRACY THEORIES. CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL CURRENT STATUS : OPEN DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 06/29/1993 COMMENTS : Box 257. Edited March 29, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 self delete GREAT idea Lammy.... If only you'd follow thru. ======== oh, and Len... good luck selling whatever it is you think you're offering... no one here, there or anywhere is buying it... carry on What, and have no one to destroy your silly and unfounded photo claims.... BTW can you show us the results of your scientific survey that show NO ONE HERE is buying what Len is selling? Oh wait, just more fabrication on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) OMG. David messed up. Craig is buying it. OMG jimbo is a fabricator. Everyone knows it now. Edited March 29, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 OMG. David messed up. Craig is buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) I'm done with this absurd discussion of a foregone conclusion.... Catchyallater... SOP for davie jo when his teat is in the wringer...run away...fast. Not only that he did so without ever addressing the topic of this thread. He made a claim but cries foul and tosses out insults when asked to defend it. The way I see it, DJ was originally hoping that the members of the forum would uncritically accept his conclusion about the hands not being Oswald's in order to bolster the assertion that the backyard photos are fake (and bolster his reputation as well?). But, when asked to specify exactly what is different about the hands, all he could say was that the fingers in one of the photos were "fatter" than in the others, disregarding the fact that that blown-up photo's resolution is fuzzy. The only other thing he has said, lamely, in support of his original assertion is that the hands in the backyard photos can't be Oswald's because of the overwhelming evidence that the photos are fake. IMHO, that's begging the question at it's finest. But I gotta compliment him on one thing. In his original post about "the hands" on the How Many Rifles thread, he said that the hands in the BYP and in the photos taken of Oswald after he was arrested "simply do not match," but in a recent posted reply to me he wrote only that the hands don't seem to match. So I guess he is making progress of sorts. Mr. Josephs says he wonders why I'm so doggone tenacious (he didn't put it exactly that way but that's the gist of it) on this question about the hands. Well, all I can say is that as far as I'm concerned, none of us just look the other way and allow, without comment, other LN or CT "researchers" to flout their unsupportable conclusions (especially those that involve the posting of "dramatic" photographs), no matter how much we may want to agree with them overall. --Tommy Edited March 30, 2013 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I'm done with this absurd discussion of a foregone conclusion.... Catchyallater... SOP for davie jo when his teat is in the wringer...run away...fast. Not only that he did so without ever addressing the topic of this thread. He made a claim but cries foul and tosses out insults when asked to defend it. The way I see it, DJ was originally hoping that the members of the forum would uncritically accept his conclusion about the hands not being Oswald's in order to bolster the assertion that the backyard photos are fake (and bolster his reputation as well?). But, when asked to specify exactly what is different about the hands, all he could say was that the fingers in one of the photos were "fatter" than in the others, disregarding the fact that that blown-up photo's resolution is fuzzy. The only other thing he has said, lamely, in support of his original assertion is that the hands in the backyard photos can't be Oswald's because of the overwhelming evidence that the photos are fake. IMHO, that's begging the question at it's finest. But I gotta compliment him on one thing. In his original post about "the hands" on the How Many Rifles thread, he said that the hands in the BYP and in the photos taken of Oswald after he was arrested "simply do not match," but in a recent post to me he wrote only that the hands don't seem to match. So I guess he is making progress of sorts. Mr. Josephs says he wonders why I'm so doggone tenacious (he didn't put it exactly that way but that's the gist of it) on this question about the hands. Well, all I can say is that as far as I'm concerned, none of us should allow LN or CT "researchers" to flout their unsupportable conclusions and just look the other way, no matter how much we may want to agree with them overall. --Tommy Right on Tommy , that was the Warren Commisions job! , Not David's intention. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 http://www.nara.gov/...533/jfksnew.txt Hit 1 of 1 AGENCY INFORMATION AGENCY : HSCA RECORD NUMBER : 180-10123-10064 RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIALS DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : HSCA FROM : EISENDRATH, DAVID B. TO : REPORT ON FAKE PHOTOGRAPY PROJECT TITLE : [No Title] DATE : 11/00/1978 PAGES : 14 DOCUMENT TYPE : REPORT SUBJECTS : PHOTOGRAPHS AND FILM, BACKYARD PHOTO; PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 08/09/1993 COMMENTS : FOLDER LIST IN BOX 1. SOME MATERIAL SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS. BOX 3. FOLDER TITLE: 2 COPIES. Audit history for this Record Identification Form UH... AGENCY : HSCA RECORD NUMBER : 180-10115-10011 RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED FILES. AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 014385 DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : EISENDRATH, DAVID. FROM : EISENDRATH, DAVID. TO : [No To] TITLE : FAKE PHOTOGRAPH PROJECT. DATE : 11/00/1978 PAGES : 13 DOCUMENT TYPE : REPORT. SUBJECTS : PHOTOGRAPHS AND FILMS, BACKYARD PHOTOS.; CONSPIRACY THEORIES. CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL CURRENT STATUS : OPEN DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 06/29/1993 COMMENTS : Box 257. OK my suspicion that it might have been just a figment of Hunt's imagination has been shown to be false, still waiting for Jim or anyone else to quote any relevant passages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 His report is at NARA, the place Lammy has never been to and does not even know where its located. It was declassified as part of the ARRB. Since Eisendrath wanted it destroyed since he knew it completely vitiated the panel's credibility. But Blakey did not. He just classified it, so he could float the BS about the BYP being genuine, without anyone saying, "But how can that be if your panel did not even figure out how a photo was forged when they knew if was fake?" BTW, I know about the Eisendrath Report through John Hunt. A guy who goes to NARA a lot. He scanned in the cover sheet and summarized its contents for me at Lancer. So Jim have you ever been to the NARA? If so why can't you quote directly from the report? Why did Hunt scan the cover but not the relevant pages or even it seems make direct quotes in his notes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now