Paul Brancato Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Megalomaniacs need an audience. I'm out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Gilbride Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 On November 8 Paul Trejo asked, who gave the BYP to LIFE- and how do we know this? According to a March 25, 1964 internal FBI memo from Assistant Director Alex Rosen to Alan Belmont, #3 man at the Bureau, "an enterprising young man in the Dallas Police Department" provided the backyard photo to LIFE. Roscoe White is the overwhelming choice, considering that his widow found a previously unknown version (with the rifle in the other hand) among his effects. So not only did he pose for them, he had possession of an alternative copy, worked in the ID division, and had a talent for composite photography. It's not a stretch to conclude that he's the guy who made the backyard composites, and sent one off to LIFE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Roscoe White is the overwhelming choice, considering that his widow found a previously unknown version (with the rifle in the other hand) among his effects. So not only did he pose for them, he had possession of an alternative copy, worked in the ID division, and had a talent for composite photography. It's not a stretch to conclude that he's the guy who made the backyard composites, and sent one off to LIFE. This has been theorized on before because it's a good theory. I agree that Roscoe is the suspect at the top of the list if Alex Rosen's statement is accurate. The "trick" that would cement the theory, or reclassify it as fact, would be discovering which photo the pasted-on Oswald head came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Chris, if you can't defend your arguments with logic, then please just admit you have nothing. I can't help it if you've run out of material for your long winded diatribe and the crowd around your soapbox is slowly dwindling. You asked for Ruth Paine rumors and I gave you one. There is documentation. Making jokes just shows your insecurity. Just trying to point out absurdity when I see it. j Ruth immediately thought … and Ruth thought that… Ruth changed her mind about Lee -- she really thought Michael thought to himself Ruth Paine just thought Ruth always thought people have thought they thought LHO Ruth Paine was very disturbed by this news, and promptly thought Ruth thought that she could Ruth thought she thought LHO *couldn't* have shot JFK Ruth Paine herself thought that LHO Liebeler thought this was kind of dumb thought Ruth Paine Michael thought the letter LHO had nothing to be worried about -- or so he thought. They were returning the "Walker Note" since they thought it was from her Walker thought that It was not her first thought She never thought at these times she thought this interviewer thought Ruth thought Marina was or what Marina thought she understood they thought it prudent to cut off ties with Ruth Paine Ruth Paine thought this was abuse Really? In this thread alone, you told us what Lee Harvey Oswald was thinking, what the Paines and Marina were thinking. You've told us what the Warren Commission and the Secret Service were thinking and what the Nicaraguans and General Walker were thinking. Did I leave anyone out? You have a lot of inside knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I'm bumping this great post by Chris Newton because I think it so clearly demonstrates what is glaringly obvious - that Paul Trejo cannot subject his own theory to the kind of scrutiny he reserves for DiEugenio. No one else here puts thoughts in the minds of key players in the assassination story. Hewitt and DiEugenio point out what Ruth was doing, and how her actions struck those around her for instance in Nicaragua. They don't presume to know for a fact what she was thinking. And no one has more than circumstantial evidence that she was up to something there, or in Dallas, nor do they claim otherwise. It is the accumulation of circumstantial evidence that is thought provoking. It is not proof of anything, so Paul Trejo's insistence on proof is misplaced, and he doesn't subject his own theories to that kind of scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) I'm bumping this great post by Chris Newton because I think it so clearly demonstrates what is glaringly obvious - that Paul Trejo cannot subject his own theory to the kind of scrutiny he reserves for DiEugenio. No one else here puts thoughts in the minds of key players in the assassination story. Hewitt and DiEugenio point out what Ruth was doing, and how her actions struck those around her for instance in Nicaragua. They don't presume to know for a fact what she was thinking. And no one has more than circumstantial evidence that she was up to something there, or in Dallas, nor do they claim otherwise. It is the accumulation of circumstantial evidence that is thought provoking. It is not proof of anything, so Paul Trejo's insistence on proof is misplaced, and he doesn't subject his own theories to that kind of scrutiny. Two things, Paul B. First, I did answer Christ Newton. Every single time I stated what a given person "thought" I also gave the source -- their WC testimony -- in which they themselves said, "I thought." So, that's fully answered. Chris didn't acknowledge my clear answer to his challenge, and neither did you. Secondly, you said you were "out" of this thread yesterday. Please be true to your own word, because your contribution here is merely negative. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Roscoe White.jpgbackyard CE 133-C.jpg On November 8 Paul Trejo asked, who gave the BYP to LIFE- and how do we know this? According to a March 25, 1964 internal FBI memo from Assistant Director Alex Rosen to Alan Belmont, #3 man at the Bureau, "an enterprising young man in the Dallas Police Department" provided the backyard photo to LIFE. Roscoe White is the overwhelming choice, considering that his widow found a previously unknown version (with the rifle in the other hand) among his effects. So not only did he pose for them, he had possession of an alternative copy, worked in the ID division, and had a talent for composite photography. It's not a stretch to conclude that he's the guy who made the backyard composites, and sent one off to LIFE. In other words, Richard, we're saying that LIFE magazine executives themselves refuse to give the source of the BYP that they published in February 1964 ?? And therefore, the FBI had to investigate it, and in March 1964 they only identified, "an enterprising young man in the Dallas Police Department" ?? If that's the case, Richard, then I'm inclined to agree that Roscoe White was a good choice -- but there are six other choices just as handy -- namely, the half-dozen DPD officers who descended upon Ruth Paine's house at about 2pm CST because of the murder of J.D. Tippit -- they are equally good choices. They confiscated much material from Ruth Paine's house in that first raid, and they found BYP in that first haul. Each one of them had access to the haul, and so any one of them could have filtered through all the material to know what was in there. But it doesn't stop there -- the DPD officers who received the confiscated items took a full and complete inventory of each and every item. One of those DPD officers is another excellent candidate for a "leak" to the press. We know that Roscoe White had a BYP, but it was a different pose than the one that was given to LIFE. So, yes, if Roscoe White had more than one BYP, it is possible that he gave one to LIFE -- but why would he do that -- since actually it was his own chin, neck, shoulders, right wrist and back-leaning stance in every BYP we have ever found? Was Roscoe White daring the world to recognize his likeness in the BYP, to force him to confess? Or was he seeking money? It makes more sense to me that one of the several other DPD officers, who had access to the original haul from Ruth Paine's garage, was that "enterprising young man in the Dallas Police Department." I mean, as long as we're guessing. It's fairly amazing to me that after 50 years that LIFE magazine never revealed the name of that DPD Officer, or how much they paid him for the photo. Given my theory that rogues inside the DPD were involved in the JFK murder, and that the JFK killers had intended to blame the Communists for the JFK murder, then it is equally plausible that the DPD officer who gave LIFE magazine the BYP was also part of the plot to murder JFK. So, now I really want to know which DPD officer gave LIFE magazine the BYP. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 First, I did answer Christ Newton. Every single time I stated what a given person "thought" I also gave the source -- their WC testimony -- in which they themselves said, "I thought." So, that's fully answered. Chris didn't acknowledge my clear answer to his challenge, and neither did you. In a word: No. The issue I had then and still have today is that I would look at your list of counter allegations and accusations and try to decipher which were actually verifiable. I ignored the the ones that were impossible to verify because they were based on one resource Texas apparently has plenty of: bull____t. So it took me TIME to investigate and verify and in EVERY case when I did, I discovered that your allegations turned out to be WRONG. Finally I just stopped looking at your allegations and accusations because I was no longer motivated to continue to WASTE my TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 First, I did answer Christ Newton. Every single time I stated what a given person "thought" I also gave the source -- their WC testimony -- in which they themselves said, "I thought." So, that's fully answered. Chris didn't acknowledge my clear answer to his challenge, and neither did you. In a word: No. The issue I had then and still have today is that I would look at your list of counter allegations and accusations and try to decipher which were actually verifiable. I ignored the the ones that were impossible to verify because they were based on one resource Texas apparently has plenty of: bull____t. So it took me TIME to investigate and verify and in EVERY case when I did, I discovered that your allegations turned out to be WRONG. Finally I just stopped looking at your allegations and accusations because I was no longer motivated to continue to WASTE my TIME. "Well, Chris..." lol --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 First, I did answer Christ Newton. Every single time I stated what a given person "thought" I also gave the source -- their WC testimony -- in which they themselves said, "I thought." So, that's fully answered. Chris didn't acknowledge my clear answer to his challenge, and neither did you. In a word: No. The issue I had then and still have today is that I would look at your list of counter allegations and accusations and try to decipher which were actually verifiable. I ignored the the ones that were impossible to verify because they were based on one resource Texas apparently has plenty of: bull____t. So it took me TIME to investigate and verify and in EVERY case when I did, I discovered that your allegations turned out to be WRONG. Finally I just stopped looking at your allegations and accusations because I was no longer motivated to continue to WASTE my TIME. If any of the allegations was WRONG, Chris, then you should have SHOWN it. You didn't. I'm here waiting. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) I just got the Caufield book last night. Wow, talk about guesswork. Talk about lacunae. Talk about assumptions. (He doesn't even get the publication date of Garrison's book right.) What can you say about a book that deals with David Phillips in all of two pages with one index entry. While Leander Perez has about thirty entries, and is mentioned on dozens of pages. And we all know how important Leander was in the conspiracy. And how Phillips did nothing. This is Lamar Waldron country. I did two long reviews of him. This is going to be just as interesting to critique as well. Along the way I think everyone will learn a bit about what critical standards are, and how Paul Trejo cannot be trusted with them. Edited November 11, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) I just got the Caufield book last night. Wow, talk about guesswork. Talk about lacunae. Talk about assumptions. (He doesn't even get the publication date of Garrison's book right.) What can you say about a book that deals with David Phillips in all of two pages with one index entry. While Leander Perez has about thirty entries, and is mentioned on dozens of pages. And we all know how important Leander was in the conspiracy. And how Phillips did nothing. This is Lamar Waldron country. I did two long reviews of him. This is going to be just as interesting to critique as well. Along the way I think everyone will learn a bit about what critical standards are, and how Paul Trejo cannot be trusted with them. Actually, James, although Lamar Waldron made many mistakes (especially about General Walker), this new book by Jeff Caufield about General Walker and the murder of JFK is uncommonly well-researched, with more than 3,900 Endnotes. Your writing about General Walker, James, is clearly naïve as you take him at his word before the Warren Commission. That was your wrong turn. Jeff Caufield's treatment of Ruth Paine in the JFK saga is sober and objective -- unlike your wildly biased view. I look forward to critiquing your critique of Jeff Caufield. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) LOL Paul, I did not use Walker in my discussion. Not in any extensive or important way. As per Caufield, his writing on good old Michael Paine is about as lengthy and analytical as his writing about Phillips. As per your writing, as you can see from Tommy's poll, you are making thousands of converts to your Walker did it cause. Soon, you can hold your own convention. It will be as well populated as Non Conspiracists United. Ken Rahn's group. Edited November 11, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 LOL Paul, I did not use Walker in my discussion. Not in any extensive or important way. As per Caufield, his writing on good old Michael Paine is about as lengthy and analytical as his writing about Phillips. As per your writing, as you can see from Tommy's poll, you are making thousands of converts to your Walker did it cause. Soon, you can hold your own convention. It will be as well populated as Non Conspiracists United. Ken Rahn's group. James, welcome back to my thread on Ruth Paine. I invite you to respond to my criticisms of your weak arguments against Ruth Paine in the second edition of your book, Destiny Betrayed (2012). Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) I am not here to talk about Ruth Paine. I will be opening up other threads on her soon. Because the Ruth in Nicaragua post at CTKA is in the top ten according to the stats. Hundreds of people are reading it daily. I just wanted to let everyone know that your posts about the new Walker book are not critically reliable. There is an art form to writing book criticism, with rules and regulations involved. Just as there is with film and stage reviews. You comments seem to be totally divorced from those guidelines. I can understand O'Neill. He is the main person Jeff acknowledges at the end. But to anyone else, such should not be the case. Because that is not criticism. Its cheerleading. Edited November 11, 2015 by James DiEugenio 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