The Left and the Death of Kennedy

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

You shifted gears on me pretty fast there.

All I said was that I don't think Ray's image was Badge Man.

You then said that since Jack White did not buy the image, then its no wonder that Ray could not convince anyone.

I don't think you have followed this debate.

Because the reaction is quite the contrary. As can be seem by reading through this:

http://www.ctka.net/2009/pigs.html

And also Ray's article. If you read that carefully, you will see that almost everyone Ray showed his evidence to bought into it. Even Chomsky! Which to me is the key to the article. That is how convincing Ray's package was.

As per the late Jack White's verdict, well not very many people had the original. So who could check the work? But as John Kelin writes, what Ray had was a first generation print. Later on the original may have deteriorated, and there were many reports that this is what happened over time.

Jim,

You're right. I misunderstood something you said earlier, and that got me off on a tangent. When you said

"I don't think Badge Man is what Ray or John Kelin is talking about."

I didn't recognize the name "John Kelin" and so I didn't know you were referring to the White/Kelin debate that Kathy had linked to. I thought you were saying only that you didn't think Badge Man was the Moorman photo figure that Marcus was showing his left-wing intellectuals.

And you are right, I didn't follow the debate carefully. At least not if you are talking about the White/Kelin debate over the Marcus's Man #5 figure, which was linked to by Kathy. I merely skimmed it. I have only now come to see it's significance. I also found in it a couple of very useful links -- ironically also posted by Kathy -- that answer some of my questions. (Thanks for a second time, Kathy.)

That said, I do want to correct something you wrote. (It's not really important. I just don't want my words to be taken the wrong way.)

I didn't say that there's "no wonder Ray couldn't convince anyone." What I said is that if they weren't impressed by Marcus's photos, it could be because they couldn't see the alleged men in the photo. (Like I can't.)

And then, to make sure nobody misunderstood what I had written, I wrote this follow-on clarification:

"(Please note that I'm not saying that they were not impressed by the photos. But if they weren't, it could be because they couldn't see any of these alleged figures, all of whom have been debunked.)"

And yes, I do know that many were impressed by Marcus's material . I'm just surprised that the Moorman photo could be so impressive, and that is why I've been delving into it.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

See, when the reader sees the material that Ray actually had in its original format, its quite suggestive.

Ray Marcus was not say the equivalent of Richard Sprague, photo analyst, who's exhibition went on for something like three hours for the HSCA, but back then, in about 1964-65-66, his work was sort of pioneering in the photo analysis and Z film field.

By about 1968, as he writes in this fine essay, he had closed shop for more than one reason, and he decided to try and convince liberal intellectuals to take up the cause. As he chronicles, he was not very successful for reasons he recites, but then again, how many others even tried.

And as we now know, he was right about the whole issue. Because what happened from 1963-68 more or less crushed the left in America. As Jean Genet said after RFK's murder, "America is gone."

Edited July 21, 2016 by James DiEugenio