The Men Who Killed Kennedy
Dave Reitzes
History Channel, I've added a modest page of commentary on the series to my Web
site, primarily to gather in one place a number of links to relevant
information on the Web, where available. Feedback is welcome, particularly in
relation to topics in TMWKK or Web links I've overlooked.
http://www.jfk-online.com/tmwkk.html
Feel free to razz me about the advertising banner up at the top of the page.
\:^)
Dave
Perpetual Starlight: Original fiction, music and more
http://www.reitzes.com
JFK Online: John F. Kennedy assassination
http://www.jfk-online.com
John McAdams
>In response to the frequent airings of *The Men Who Killed Kennedy* on the
>History Channel, I've added a modest page of commentary on the series to my Web
>site, primarily to gather in one place a number of links to relevant
>information on the Web, where available. Feedback is welcome, particularly in
>relation to topics in TMWKK or Web links I've overlooked.
>
>http://www.jfk-online.com/tmwkk.html
>
>Feel free to razz me about the advertising banner up at the top of the page.
>\:^)
>
Was Jean Hill in TMWKK? Maybe I've disappeared into the Twilight Zone
or something, but I don't remember that.
I think it might be fair to acknowledge that there are some fine video
clips not readily available elsewere. I have a couple on my site:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/marguerite2.ram
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.ram
I think of this as the TKOAP of videos. There is a lot of great
stuff, but just don't believe any of the commentary.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Reitzes
>
>On 4 Dec 2002 08:17:40 -0500, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>
>>In response to the frequent airings of *The Men Who Killed Kennedy* on the
>>History Channel, I've added a modest page of commentary on the series to my
>Web
>>site, primarily to gather in one place a number of links to relevant
>>information on the Web, where available. Feedback is welcome, particularly
>in
>>relation to topics in TMWKK or Web links I've overlooked.
>>
>>http://www.jfk-online.com/tmwkk.html
>>
>>Feel free to razz me about the advertising banner up at the top of the page.
>
>>\:^)
>>
>
>Was Jean Hill in TMWKK? Maybe I've disappeared into the Twilight Zone
>or something, but I don't remember that.
Actually, I don't recall her being in it, but when I was putting my Web
page together, I did a Google search for "Jean Hill" and "Men Who Killed
Kennedy" and it came back with a zillion hits, so I assumed she must have
been in there somewhere. I'll have to go back and check the video; if
she's not in it, I'll just delete the paragraph about her.
Rick Gibson
Marguerite, I marvel anew. What the hell was she talking about?
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message news:<3dee3f56....@news.alt.net>...
Caeruleo
rickgi...@hotmail.com (Rick Gibson) wrote:
> Thanks, John, for reminding me. Every time I see that clip of
> Marguerite, I marvel anew. What the hell was she talking about?
"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his
country than any other living human being."
Hmmm.
Guilty or innocent of the assassination, I'm having trouble discerning
how LHO could quite merit such superlative praise.
Ritchie Linton
Poor innocent kid took the fall for what other really evil people actually
did and as soon as the next Gov't rolled-over on that story, the crisis of
confrontation that loomed othewhise was averted.As I have been explaining
to Ed Dolan and Jerry=before the assassination the Oswald file was a
"military responsibility"=who do you send to arrest them?LBJ is on record
explaining the stakes to Warren.
Crisis averted=no retaliation against conspiracy we know as fact=and this
former Marine fell as we know he did.Very tough call in sacrificing an
innocent;but it was a democratic Government in crisis over the generals in
revolt=after all, the Oswald file was a "military responsibility"=who do
you send to arrest them in retaliation? We all know that the cover-up that
ensued next targeted only the frailities in the case alleged against
Oswald.Price paid.
Rouser
>>"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his
country than any other living human being."
Hmmm.
Guilty or innocent of the assassination, I'm having trouble discerning how
LHO could quite merit such superlative praise.<<
In addition to his honorable service in the Marine Corps, and in Naval
Intelligence, and perhaps his work in the USSR as a CIA agent, her son
also was involuntarily assigned the role of PATSY in the Crime of the
Century by the very government he so loyally served naively trusted. What
did that do for the country? Well, it allowed the country to move on
without a massive revolt against a government which had just murdered its
own president and staged a successful coup d'etat. Ponder that, and
perhaps you will have a clue as to why LHO could merit such praise from
his grieving mother for her son, Lee Oswald, an innocent martyr who died
in the service of his country.
WinBear
On 7-Dec-2002, rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote:
> In addition to his honorable service in the Marine Corps, and in Naval
> Intelligence, and perhaps his work in the USSR as a CIA agent, her son
> also was involuntarily assigned the role of PATSY in the Crime of the
> Century by the very government he so loyally served naively trusted. What
> did that do for the country? Well, it allowed the country to move on
> without a massive revolt against a government which had just murdered its
> own president and staged a successful coup d'etat. Ponder that, and
> perhaps you will have a clue as to why LHO could merit such praise from
> his grieving mother for her son, Lee Oswald, an innocent martyr who died
> in the service of his country.
<snicker>
I love your sense of humor.
WinBear
Ed Cage
Rouser, would you mind posting the BEST single peice of evidence that
you have to support your claim that LHO was a "Patsy?"
Regards,
Ed Cage / 972-964-3826
________________________________
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.02120...@posting.google.com>...
Chad Zimmerman
Chad
ECag...@aol.com (Ed Cage) wrote in message news:<88e2b237.02120...@posting.google.com>...
Jerry Organ
>Oswald said it himself!
>
>Chad
Just like Lizzie Borden, Bruno Hauptmann, James Earl Ray, OJ ...
80-percent of the current prison population ...
Sirhan Sirhan has "no memory" of that night ...
Jack Ruby claims on reflection he was used ...
Bill Clinton was the victim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" ...
And on it goes.
JO
Rouser
>>Rouser, would you mind posting the BEST single peice of evidence
that
you have to support your claim that LHO was a "Patsy?"<<
Hmmm. There are so many... The independently corroborated accounts of
Sam Giancana, James Elrod, Marita Lorenz and Z-Rifle among others. But
as to the single best piece of "evidence"? In the words of Robert
Blakely, if it could be shown that the backyard photos were fake, that
would be evidence of a government conspiracy to frame an innocent man.
So, I'll go with the fake backyard photos as the best single piece of
evidence that Oswald was set up as a Patsy and knowingly framed by
elements of the government itself.
You're welcome.
Dave Reitzes
>
>>Come on, Ed. You know that answer. Lee Harvey
>>Oswald said it himself!
>>
>>Chad
Somewhere in my database I have some information on this, but I can't locate it
at present. One particular broadcaster said this, and, as one might guess, the
remark's provenance is dubious to the extreme.
>Jack Ruby claims on reflection he was used ...
This is a common misunderstanding. Ruby didn't say he was used in the sense
that he was manipulated to kill Oswald; he said he was used by anti-Semites
after the fact for propaganda purposes to "frame" him for supposedly silencing
Oswald, and to make it look like Jews had been involved in a conspiracy to kill
Kennedy. This is a thread that runs consistently through his WC testimony,
extant letters from prison, and statements to the press. The only difference is
that, after President Johnson "refused" (in Ruby's view) to listen to his story
(that is, when Ruby was denied his plea to speak to LBJ personally), he began
to believe that LBJ himself was part of this "Nazi" conspiracy.
I may have to expand my "In Defense of Jack Ruby" article a bit, as these
misconceptions just go on and on.
Rouser
RE:
>
> >Jack Ruby claims on reflection he was used ...
>
>
> This is a common misunderstanding. Ruby didn't say he was used in the sense
> that he was manipulated to kill Oswald;<<
Of course he did.
>> he said he was used by anti-Semites
> after the fact for propaganda purposes to "frame" him for supposedly silencing
> Oswald, and to make it look like Jews had been involved in a conspiracy to kill> Kennedy. This is a thread that runs consistently through his WC testimony,
> extant letters from prison, and statements to the press.<<
All of which he impeached by telling the WC they would never get the
truth out of him unless taken to Washington.
> I may have to expand my "In Defense of Jack Ruby" article a bit, as these
> misconceptions just go on and on.<<
You should indeed "expand". You can start expanding by including
Ruby's courtroom recess interview, where he says the truth has never
come out, which seems to include all of his Warren Commission
blatherings and about his "true" motives, and the people who PUT him
in the situation he was in:
"The only thing I can say is, everything pertaining to what's
happening has NEVER come to the surface. The world will never know the
TRUE facts of what occurred -- my MOTIVE. In other words, I am the
only person in the background to know the TRUTH pertaining to
everything relating to my circumstances"
Interviewer: "Do you think the truth will ever come out?"
Ruby: "No. Because, unfortunately, these people, who have so much to
gain and have such an ulterior motive to PUT me in the position I'm in
will never let the TRUE facts come aboveboard to the world."
Interviewer: "Are these people in very high positions, Jack?"
Ruby: "Yes."
Dave Reitzes
>
>drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote in message
>
>RE:
>>
>> >Jack Ruby claims on reflection he was used ...
>>
>>
>> This is a common misunderstanding. Ruby didn't say he was used in the sense
>> that he was manipulated to kill Oswald;<<
>
>Of course he did.
Here we go again. Lurkers, please see this article of mine that Rouser has yet
to address, much less refute:
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
Dave
Rouser
RE:
>>>> This is a common misunderstanding. Ruby didn't say he was used in
the sense
>> that he was manipulated to kill Oswald;<<
>
>Of course he did.
Here we go again. Lurkers, please see this article of mine that Rouser has
yet to address, much less refute:
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
Dave<<
Comment: Here we go again.Mr. Reitzes, unable to make a pithy comment
pertaining to the direct quotes from Ruby, can only refer to his
off-point Ruby propaganda piece. Fact is, Ruby made it clear there was
a conspiracy involved in his actions. And it wasn't the one Mr.
Reitzes tries to make it out to be. "It was a complete conspiracy; If
you knew the whole truth, you would be amazed." -- Quoted by Sylvia
Meagher in "Accessories After the Fact," another Ruby quote not to be
found at www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html.
Dave Reitzes
>
>>From: jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ)
>>
>>>Come on, Ed. You know that answer. Lee Harvey
>>>Oswald said it himself!
>>>
>>>Chad
>
>
>Somewhere in my database I have some information on this, but I can't locate
>it
>at present. One particular broadcaster said this, and, as one might guess,
>the
>remark's provenance is dubious to the extreme.
I think it was Gordon McLendon who broadcast the alleged quote.
Dave
>>Jack Ruby claims on reflection he was used ...
>
>
>This is a common misunderstanding. Ruby didn't say he was used in the sense
>that he was manipulated to kill Oswald; he said he was used by anti-Semites
>after the fact for propaganda purposes to "frame" him for supposedly
>silencing
>Oswald, and to make it look like Jews had been involved in a conspiracy to
>kill
>Kennedy. This is a thread that runs consistently through his WC testimony,
>extant letters from prison, and statements to the press. The only difference
>is
>that, after President Johnson "refused" (in Ruby's view) to listen to his
>story
>(that is, when Ruby was denied his plea to speak to LBJ personally), he began
>to believe that LBJ himself was part of this "Nazi" conspiracy.
>
>I may have to expand my "In Defense of Jack Ruby" article a bit, as these
>misconceptions just go on and on.
>
>Dave
And on and on . . .
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
Ed Cage
Rouser thanks for your response.
You say your best evidence that LHO was
a "Patsy" is that the BY photos were fake.
Here's some evidence from me that they were legit:
* The HSCA did extensive testing on the
BY photos and determined them to be legit.
* Oswald's wife Marina, claimed they were
legit bc she remembered taking them.
Rouser: What is YOUR EVIDENCE the
BY photos were fakes?
Thanks, Ed
_________________________
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.0212...@posting.google.com>...
Ed Cage
Chad, your point is irrefutable!
Indeed, what could be more convincing than
Oswald himself saying he was a "Patsy."
Case Closed.
Ed
______________________________
Doc...@cableone.net (Chad Zimmerman) wrote in message news:<abf9ca5.02121...@posting.google.com>...
Ricky Tobias
>________________________
>Rouser thanks for your response.
>
>You say your best evidence that LHO was
>a "Patsy" is that the BY photos were fake.
>Here's some evidence from me that they were legit:
>
>* The HSCA did extensive testing on the
>BY photos and determined them to be legit.
>
>* Oswald's wife Marina, claimed they were
>legit bc she remembered taking them.
>
>Rouser: What is YOUR EVIDENCE the
>BY photos were fakes?
>
http://www.members.aol.com/a1eah71/mysite/backyard/backyardphotos.htm
>Thanks, Ed
>_________________________
>
snip
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Rouser
>>You say your best evidence that LHO was
a "Patsy" is that the BY photos were fake.
Here's some evidence from me that they were legit:<<
>>* The HSCA did extensive testing on the
BY photos and determined them to be legit.<<
That is not evidence but a conclusion.
>>* Oswald's wife Marina, claimed they were
legit bc she remembered taking them.<<
Marina insisted she took one single photo. Then when shown two, she
said, well it must have been two. Then when a third turned up, she
said she didn't know how many she took. Now she claims that none of
the photos in evidence are the ones she took.
>>Rouser: What is YOUR EVIDENCE the
BY photos were fakes?<<
This is a re-run of a previous thread. The photos are fake because of
anomalies in them that cannot be replicated. I don't put much credence
in "experts" because for every "expert" on one side, there are
"experts" on the other side. The alleged photo experts on the House
Committee were not excluded for their association with American
Intelligence. But independent experts such as Malcomb Thompson of
England and Thomas Picard of Canada have declared the photos fake. So
much for "experts". Much better is evidence that the average person
can see and can test. Thus, of all the anomalies, the shadow in 133B
is to me the most obvious, showing a man holding a rifle with arms
vertically upstretched with the rifle pointed at 11 o'clock while the
reflected shadow shows a man holding a rifle with arms horizontally
outstretched and pointed at 9 o'clock. Before telling me all about the
HSCA jargon involving "vanishing point analysis" and "photogrametry",
take a stick outside in the sun or inside under a spot and duplicate
this particular anomaly. It is obvious that it is a optical
impossibility. Moreover, we know that in 1993 a backyard photo with
Oswald & rifle ghosted out was found in a Dallas Police locker,
betraying a preliminary step to creating a composite forgery. And we
also know that two photo technicians claim that they processed empty
backyard photos for the FBI the day prior to their "discovery" in the
Paine garage. I don't know what more evidence a rational person could
possibly need. The photos are fake. Clearly fake. Mr. McAdams can't
refute it; Mr. Reitzes cannot refute it. Nuff said.
Rob Spencer
Oh Pleeeaaase, Kodak spectral analysis of the pixels concluded that
there was no anomalies in the pixalation of the photo. The only way
that this picture could be "altered" at the pixel level is with a
computer, a modern one running photoshop, or pagemaker. Not available
before Life Mags 1964 Cover photo.
Don't be devieved readers, check out
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
Spence
Ed Cage
WELL DONE SPENCE!
That (Below) is the MOST convincing JFK
presentation of evidence I have EVER seen!
Bar none.
Ed Cage
__________________________________
rob_s...@elementk.com (Rob Spencer) wrote in message news:<91cf87f2.02121...@posting.google.com>...
Rouser
Re: Fake Backyard Photos
>>Oh Pleeeaaase, Kodak spectral analysis of the pixels concluded that
there was no anomalies in the pixalation of the photo. The only way
that this picture could be "altered" at the pixel level is with a
computer, a modern one running photoshop, or pagemaker. Not available
before Life Mags 1964 Cover photo.
Don't be devieved readers, check out
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt<<
Kodak did not do any spectral analysis of pixels. Nor is it alleged
that any alterations of the photos were done at the "pixel" level. Nor
does the McAdams backyard photo page have anything to do with
"Pixels". The way to dis-prove the proveably impossible shadow in 133B
is to REPLICATE, not OBSFUSCATE. You cannot replicate those anomalies.
Nor could the House Committee, nor anyone else. The Rule of Science is
that if a thing cannot be replicated, it is not worthy of belief. What
the devil are you smokin'? "Oh, Pleeeeese" yourself.
Rouser
> WELL DONE SPENCE!
>
> That (Below) is the MOST convincing JFK
> presentation of evidence I have EVER seen!
>
> Bar none.
>
> Ed Cage
> >
> > Oh Pleeeaaase, Kodak spectral analysis of the pixels concluded that
> > there was no anomalies in the pixalation of the photo. The only way
> > that this picture could be "altered" at the pixel level is with a
> > computer, a modern one running photoshop, or pagemaker. Not available
> > before Life Mags 1964 Cover photo.
> >
> > Don't be devieved readers, check out
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
> >
> > Spence<<<
Pixels have nothing whatsoever to do with photos unless and until the
image is placed inside a computer monitor. No one alleges alteration
of computer generated reproductions. Original photos consist of a
continuous tone; printed reproductions consist of dots, not pixels.
The poster makes absolutely no sense. Sorry to have to burst your "
most convincing JFK evidence presentation...bar none" bubble.
Rob Spencer
> WELL DONE SPENCE!
>
> That (Below) is the MOST convincing JFK
> presentation of evidence I have EVER seen!
>
> Bar none.
>
> Ed Cage
>
I live up here in Kodak land (the frozen tundra of Rochester NY) I
work with a lot of ex-Kodak people. One in particular (for reasons of
his privacy, he will reman unnamed) did some work for the FBI at Kodak
on this particular case. It was clearly evident to him at that time
(1964)the the photographs were genuine and had not been altered.
He also did some follow up work in 1990 on digitized versions of the
original negatives and came up with the same result.
FYI Kodak has long been the difinitive source for spectral analysis
and other aspects of photography for the government. All of our cpast
as well as current satellte imaging technology came right out of the
frozen buildings of Kodak at Rochester NY. Of course you could say
they had a vested intrest in government contracts and grants. If I
were a CT'er I would be screaming CONSPIRACY!!
Spence
> > Don't be decieved readers, check out
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
> >
> > Spence
Rob Spencer
Readers, dont take my word for it, read for youself what the HSCA had
to say on the subject. Pay close attention to the last section,
section 511, draw your own conclusions.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
As far as Kodak never doing any analisys of the backyard photos or
negatives , I will have to rely on the honesty and integrity of my
co-worker, who spent 29+ years at Kodak, mostly at the Hawkeye plant.
Ask any Kodaker old or new, they know exactly what goes on in that
building.
More on the pixel debate later
Spence
Dave Reitzes
>From: rob_s...@elementk.com (Rob Spencer)
>Date: 12/17/02 11:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <91cf87f2.02121...@posting.google.com>
Well, well, well. If it isn't that would-be "Rouser," making up claims
about me. I take it "Rouser" is unaware that one of the very first items I
posted to Usenet some four years ago was a simple, step-by-step guide
allowing anyone with an IQ of double digits or so to verify for themselves
that the DPD "ghost" photo was made for the DPD's investigative
reconstruction of the backyard photos, not for any alleged intermediary
step in the creation of the originals.
Here's a repost for people who, unlike that most unrousing "Rouser," are
inclined to do their homework before making false claims about people.
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
The Origin of the Oswald "Ghost" Picture
Take a look at the tree branches visible over the wall in back of the
various "backyard" photos. CE 133-A, 133-B and 133-C show the trees to be
thick with leaves (consistent with the testimony that they were taken in
the spring) while the "ghost picture" or cut-out version and the
unretouched reenactment photo (top left, TKOAP, p. 170) show the tree to
be virtually bare (consistent with the testimony that they were taken
after the assassination, in the winter).
Now look at the unretouched reenactment photo (top left) and try to view
it for the two dimensional image it is; in other words, try to tune out
the depth in the photo. (Painters in the fine arts are generally trained
to do this when painting from life.) Find the small, dark, rectangular
shape located directly over the lawman's head at about an eleven o'clock
or eleven-thirty position. It appears to be a window that has been bricked
over on the neighboring house.
Found it?
Okay. Now look at the reenactment photo (TKOAP, p. 170, top right). Find
the same bricked-over window in this picture. Notice that it's not in the
same position in relation to the rearmost wooden post of the staircase.
The window appears lower, and its left edge is slightly obscured by the
post. (It's also been unnaturally darkened like many other details in this
photo, and the tree branches have been retouched to look fuller. These
details aren't important; they were apparently just done to make the
retouched version LOOK as retouched as possible.) The camera lens has
shifted slightly to the right and is higher. Everybody with me so far?
Okay. Now look at the same bricked-over window in the cut-out version or
"ghost picture" (TKOAP, p. 170, center). The window is farther right and
higher in relation to the post than in the retouched reenactment photo
(but slightly lower than in the unretouched reenactment photo). In other
words, the camera lens is in a different position in each picture, and we
can judge this by certain "landmarks" in the pictures themselves.
Is this important? Only if you want to know where the "ghost picture" came
from.
Turn to page 168 and look at the large photo in the center, the wide-angle
backyard view. Find the bricked-over window. Notice it appears to be in
the exact same position as in the "ghost picture." Also notice on page 168
the unusual shadow that darkens a little less than the top third of the
roughly four-foot-tall bush towards the right, the same bush that is
visible at the right of all the "backyard" photos.
Notice that nothing even vaguely like this shadow appears in CE 133-A, -B
and -C, although it is similar to the one in the unretouched reenactment
photo.
Okay, still with me? This shadowed area of the bush is partly cut from the
"ghost picture," but careful study of the details of the bush that are
still visible around the edge of the excision. The bush appears to have
been artifically darkened just below the "ghost" image of Oswald's left
arm (on the right to the viewer -- the arm holding the rifle). Compare
this to the wide-angle photo in the center of page 168. From some of the
odd minute details that are visible, I can state confidently that the
photo that was cut to make the "ghost picture" was one of two things: It
was either the exact same photograph as the one in the center of page 168,
or a second photograph taken at approximately the same time, with the
camera situated on a tripod, keeping the angle precisely the same.
I could only guess why this cut-out was made. The common-sense explanation
is that it was an intermediate step in the creation of the police
reenactment photo. There is no way I know to prove or disprove this. The
photo was only found something like ten years ago, which means it could
have been created long after the assassination for unknown reasons. But
one thing is clear: The "ghost image" has absolutely nothing to do with
the alleged forgery of any of the "backyard" photos.
Dave Reitzes
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
For more information, including an interview with Officer Bobby Brown, who
created the "ghost" photo for the DPD's reconstruction of the backyard
photos, check out Gary Savage's FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.
>Oh Pleeeaaase, Kodak spectral analysis of the pixels concluded that
>there was no anomalies in the pixalation of the photo. The only way
>that this picture could be "altered" at the pixel level is with a
>computer, a modern one running photoshop, or pagemaker. Not available
>before Life Mags 1964 Cover photo.
>
>Don't be devieved readers, check out
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>
>Spence
Also, be sure to check out this factual information on some of "Rouser's"
star conspiracy witnesses:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf.htm
http://www.jfk-online.com/lorenz.html
Notice that when "Rouser" is asked to name the most compelling evidence of
conspiracy, he avoids like the proverbial plague the actual forensic
evidence in John F. Kennedy's murder.
There's a reason for that, folks.
Check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm
Rob Spencer
Bang zoom Dave, EXCELLENT information. I have some additional
information that I will post later from one of our digital photography
experts about what happens when you scan this picture from a higher
resolution and do an analysis in photoshop. In basic terms it has to
do with the gradients of grayscale pixels. If the photos were altered,
the you could easily do an analysis of the degree of gradation between
adjoining pixels.
Spence
Rouser
>>The common-sense explanation is that it was an intermediate step in the
creation of the police reenactment photo. There is no way I know to prove
or disprove this. The photo was only found something like ten years ago,
which means it could have been created long after the assassination for
unknown reasons. But one thing is clear: The "ghost image" has absolutely
nothing to do with the alleged forgery of any of the "backyard" photos.<<
The common-sense explanation for the ghosted photo is that the creation of
such a photo makes absolutley no sense if the original backyard photos
were legit. Nor have I made the claim the the background of the ghosted
photo is the same as 133A or B or C. While a re-enactment makes no sense,
what does make sense is a priminary photo of the backyard taken in in a
different season, perhaps around Nov. 22nd, for the purpose lf lining up
proper perspectives for the ultimate forgery which would use the spring
background of a previously shot photo. There are other explanations which
are all speculation as is your reenactment speculation. As to Bobby Brown,
the admitted creator or co-creator of the ghosted photo, we have what the
La Fontaines quoted him as to his stated reason. When asked why he made
the ghosted photo, his reply? "Oh, I did it just to be doing something."
Yeah, right. Poor cop. A President and a fellow copper had just been
murdered in his jurisdication and he just had nothing better to do with
his time. But I do note that none of this addresses the absurdity of
"pixelations" referred to in this thread.
> Notice that when "Rouser" is asked to name the most compelling evidence of
> conspiracy, he avoids like the proverbial plague the actual forensic
> evidence in John F. Kennedy's murder.<<
> There's a reason for that, folks.<<
Indeed there is, that reason being the questioner didn't ask for the
forensic evidence of the assassination, but the best evidence for Oswald
framed as a Patsy.
Now if you would like to educate yourself, just what is it you would like
to know about the forensics????
> Check out:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm
>
> Dave<<
Don't bother. It's the same ole, same ole rehash of dubious "evidence"
uncorroborated, altered, forged, perjured and/or substituted based on
conclusions that are unsupported by facts.
Ed Cage
Rouser, cast yer CT peepers on this..
-------------------------------------
"(511) Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would
include strong pincushion distortion caused by adding a
supplementary lens, loss of graduation in highlight areas and
loss of detail in shadow areas which typically occurs when copies
are made, and possible detection of imperfect retouching or other
alterations. Pincushion distortion was much more evident on the
copy photograph made with the Oswald camera than on the original
negative of Oswald or on other photographs made with the Oswald
camera without the supplementary lens. Since there is no
wide-angle effect when two-dimensional photographs are copied, to
avoid detection of fakery, appropriate variations in the shape of
Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original
photographs. In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs
that are acceptable as originals. Nevertheless, because such a
process poses many technical problems, any one of which if not
solved would lead to detection under close examination of the
photographs, we do not believe such a procedure was used to
produce the three, backyard photographs of Oswald."
-------------------------------------
Rouser you I-M-P-L-Y that both me & Spence
were/are unaware that early 60's photos
did not involve pixels..
NOT SO..
Most people know Digital cameras did not
come in until decades later..
Nice try though..
Rouser, the HSCA goofed on the McClain tape.
IMO, they did not goof on their Oswald BY
photo analysis. Their use of pixels was bc
the most sophisticated photo analysis
equipment in the late 70's and nowadays is
composed of an array of individual sensors,
or PIXELS..
Additionally, a close examination by the
HSCA of the BY photos and the camera by the
HSCA revealed the unmistakable "finger prints"
of the camera Marina used.. Tiny "scratchings"
from the camera itself..
UNIQUE to that camera alone..
It's old news that the BY dilemma was solved
long ago..
It appears you were not informed..
If you take exception w the HSCA Report take
it up w them.. Pleeeeeze Don't flame Spence
for posting their report..
FYI: I personally BELIEVE the HSCA Report on
the BY photos being legit.
Sorry to have to burst your
CRITIQUE of the HSCA
"Analysis of the Back Yard photos"
bubble Rouser..
Ed
_____________________________________
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.02121...@posting.google.com>...
Dave Reitzes
>
>drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote in message
>
>>>The common-sense explanation is that it was an intermediate step in the
>creation of the police reenactment photo. There is no way I know to prove
>or disprove this.
The operative words in that sentence are "no way I know." You cannot know
what you refuse to study.
Let's just put back that PROOF of mine that "Rouser" felt compelled to
SNIP for some obscure reason. \:^)
And note that this PROOF exists independently of the evidence in Gary
Savage's FIRST DAY EVIDENCE, which explains precisely who created the
photo, how, and why. In fact, it serves to confirm Savage's information.
The Origin of the Oswald "Ghost" Picture
Take a look at the tree branches visible over the wall in back of the
various "backyard" photos. CE 133-A, 133-B and 133-C show the trees to be
thick with leaves (consistent with the testimony that they were taken in
the spring) while the "ghost picture" or cut-out version and the
unretouched reenactment photo (top left, TKOAP, p. 170) show the tree to
be virtually bare (consistent with the testimony that they were taken
after the assassination, in the winter).
Now look at the unretouched reenactment photo (top left) and try to view
it for the two dimensional image it is; in other words, try to tune out
the depth in the photo. (Painters in the fine arts are generally trained
to do this when painting from life.) Find the small, dark, rectangular
shape located directly over the lawman's head at about an eleven o'clock
or eleven-thirty position. It appears to be a window that has been bricked
over on the neighboring house.
Found it?
Okay. Now look at the obviously retouched reenactment photo (TKOAP, p.
170, top right). Find the same bricked-over window in this picture. Notice
that it's not in the same position in relation to the rearmost wooden post
of the staircase. The window appears lower, and its left edge is slightly
obscured by the post. (It's also been unnaturally darkened like many other
details in this photo, and the tree branches have been retouched to look
fuller. These details aren't important; they were apparently just done to
make the retouched version LOOK as retouched as possible.) The camera lens
has shifted slightly to the right and is higher.Everybody with me so far?
Okay. Now look at the same bricked-over window in the cut-out version or
"ghost picture" (TKOAP, p. 170, center). The window is farther right and
higher in relation to the post than in the obviously retouched reenactment
photo (but slightly lower than in the unretouched reenactment photo). In
other words, the camera lens is in a different position in each picture,
and we can judge this by certain "landmarks" in the pictures themselves.
Is this important? Only if you want to know where the "ghost picture" came
from.
Turn to page 168 and look at the large photo in the center, the wide-angle
backyard view. Find the bricked-over window. Notice it appears to be in
the exact same position as in the "ghost picture." Also notice on page 168
the unusual shadow that darkens a little less than the top third of the
roughly four-foot-tall bush towards the right, the same bush that is
visible at the right of all the "backyard" photos. This shadow looks
unnatural and could conceivably have been retouched already, but that's
not important.
Notice that nothing even vaguely like this shadow appears in CE 133-A, -B
and -C, although it is similar to the one in the unretouched reenactment
photo.
Okay, still with me? This shadowed area of the bush is partly cut from the
"ghost picture," but careful study of the details of the bush that are
still visible around the edge of the excision. The bush appears to have
been artifically darkened just below the "ghost" image of Oswald's left
arm (on the right to the viewer -- the arm holding the rifle). However, as
far as the natural details go, this appears to be the same exact
photograph as the wide-angle photo in the center of page 168. From some of
the odd minute details that are visible, I can state confidently that the
photo that was cut to make the "ghost picture" was one of two things: It
was either the exact same photograph as the one in the center of page 168,
or a second photograph taken at approximately the same time, with the
camera situated on a tripod, keeping the angle precisely the same. In all
probability, it is the same photograph as the one on TKOAP, page 168.
Obviously, the "ghost" image was cut out to approximate Oswald's figure in
CE 133-C, the one that turned out in the Whites' possession. (There is
also -- for reasons I don't know -- a white line running almost
vertically, angled just slightly towards the left, just to the left of the
"Oswald" cut-out.)
I could only guess why this cut-out was made. The common-sense explanation
is that it was an intermediate step in the creation of the police
reenactment photo. There is no way I know to prove or disprove this. The
photo was only found something like ten years ago, which means it could
have been created long after the assassination for unknown reasons. [Note:
this was written before I read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE, which explains
everything.]
Ah. "Rouser" wants you all to avoid the evidence, just as he does.
That about says it all, doesn't it?
John McAdams
>
> drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote in message
>
> >>The common-sense explanation is that it was an intermediate step in the
> creation of the police reenactment photo. There is no way I know to prove
> or disprove this. The photo was only found something like ten years ago,
> which means it could have been created long after the assassination for
> unknown reasons. But one thing is clear: The "ghost image" has absolutely
> nothing to do with the alleged forgery of any of the "backyard" photos.<<
>
> The common-sense explanation for the ghosted photo is that the creation of
> such a photo makes absolutley no sense if the original backyard photos
> were legit. Nor have I made the claim the the background of the ghosted
> photo is the same as 133A or B or C. While a re-enactment makes no sense,
> what does make sense is a priminary photo of the backyard taken in in a
> different season, perhaps around Nov. 22nd, for the purpose lf lining up
> proper perspectives for the ultimate forgery which would use the spring
> background of a previously shot photo.
OIC. The foliage in the background grew *backwards* between November
1962 and April 1963 when the Backyard Photos were faked.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Reitzes
Don't waste your time, John. This is the same guy who believes that The
Conspiracy was capable of faking photographs with such skill that the
forgeries defy detection even four decades later . . . but then was
somehow incapable of DEVELOPING them. (They had to have them processed
commercially -- even the "intermediate" steps!)
Rouser
> I live up here in Kodak land (the frozen tundra of Rochester NY) I
> work with a lot of ex-Kodak people. One in particular (for reasons of
> his privacy, he will reman unnamed) did some work for the FBI at Kodak
> on this particular case. It was clearly evident to him at that time
> (1964)the the photographs were genuine and had not been altered.<<
So your unnamed source is consistent with the HSCA photo "experts".
Did you ask him if he could replicate the divergent shadow in 133B?
>
> He also did some follow up work in 1990 on digitized versions of the
> original negatives and came up with the same result.<<
Access to the orignial negatives, eh? Some anonymous source of yours
must have been pretty important to have analyed the stuff and kept his
findings secret all these years, except to a certain acquaintance.
> FYI Kodak has long been the difinitive source for spectral analysis
> and other aspects of photography for the government. All of our cpast
> as well as current satellte imaging technology came right out of the
> frozen buildings of Kodak at Rochester NY.<<
What is at issue here is not Kodak, but your assertion that "spectral
analysis of the pixels concluded that there was no anomalies in the
pixalation of the photo". But of course the only way there could be
anomalies in the pixelation of the photo would be if your friend made
his own forged composite on a computer. The notion of anomalies in
"pixelation" has absolutely nothing to do with whether the original
photo was or was not a forgery. The computer pixels would be
consistent in either case. Next time you see your anonymous friend,
you might ask him where his findings were written up so that we may
all be educated, or was he too, doing this "just to be doing
something" like our DPD forger, Bobby G. Brown. Not that I believe
your cock and bull story.
Rouser
> >From: rou...@core.com (Rouser)
> >
> >drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote in message
> >
> >>>The common-sense explanation is that it was an intermediate step in the
> >creation of the police reenactment photo. There is no way I know to prove
> >or disprove this.
>
>
> The operative words in that sentence are "no way I know." You cannot know
> what you refuse to study.<<
Yes,indeed. But the quote you attribute to me are your words, not mine.
Rob Spencer
Bang Zoom, Home Run Dave, one for the debate record books!
Spence
Rob Spencer
Ah the old growing backwards trick, how could I have missed it??
Spence
Rob Spencer
I don't know Ed, I kinda like getting flamed. makes me feel all kinda
tingly inside. Any idiot with a good scanner and Photoshop 5.5 or
above can figure this one out.
Over and out.
Spence
Rouser
>>Readers, dont take my word for it, read for youself what the HSCA had to
say on the subject. Pay close attention to the last section, section 511,
draw your own conclusions.<<
Well, let's see just what #511 has to say about pixels:
"Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would include strong
pincushion distortion caused by adding a supplementary lens, loss of
graduation in highlight areas and loss of detail in shadow areas which
typically occurs when copies are made, and possible detection of imperfect
retouching or other alterations."
Comment: But what about pixels???
>>Pincushion distortion was much more evident on the copy photograph made
with the Oswald camera than on the original negative of Oswald or on other
photographs made with the Oswald camera without the supplementary lens.
Since there is no wide-angle effect when two-dimensional photographs are
copied, to avoid detection of fakery, appropriate variations in the shape
of Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original
photographs.<<
Comment: Dectection of fakery? Why couldn't you HSCA "experts" simply
replicate the anomalies instead of pontificating hyptheticals? And what
about "Pixels"???
>>In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs that are acceptable
as originals.<<
Commnet: Well, duh!!!!! What does that have to do with fakery? And where
are the pixels???
>> Nevertheless, because such a process poses many technical problems, any
one of which if not solved would lead to detection under close examination
of the photographs, we do not believe such a procedure was used to produce
the three, backyard photographs of Oswald. <<
Comment: Then just what procedure WAS used to make those fake BY photos?
And where the hell are all the PIXELS?????
>>As far as Kodak never doing any analisys of the backyard photos or
negatives , I will have to rely on the honesty and integrity of my
co-worker, who spent 29+ years at Kodak, mostly at the Hawkeye plant. Ask
any Kodaker old or new, they know exactly what goes on in that building.<<
The honesty and integrity of your anonymous friend, eh? And what about
your own integrity? Hey, you ever see the movie "Meet John Doe"?
"Oh, I'd say Mr. Doe was pixelated." "Oh, yes, very definitely, he's
pixelated alright!.
>>More on the pixel debate later<<
Can hardly wait. Why don't you head it "Meet Rob Spencer".
Rouser
>>Rouser, the HSCA goofed on the McClain tape.
IMO, they did not goof on their Oswald BY
photo analysis. Their use of pixels was bc
the most sophisticated photo analysis
equipment in the late 70's and nowadays is
composed of an array of individual sensors,
or PIXELS.<<
Funny, I just can't even find a single reference to the word "pixels"
in the entire HSCA report. Are you and Spence seeing things no one
else can see? Ever hear of the term "pixelated"???
>>Additionally, a close examination by the
HSCA of the BY photos and the camera by the
HSCA revealed the unmistakable "finger prints"
of the camera Marina used.. Tiny "scratchings"
from the camera itself..
UNIQUE to that camera alone.<<
"Scratchings" are forgeable. But the camera used is irrelevent to the
fact that the analomies in the photos are there and have never been
replicated.
>>It's old news that the BY dilemma was solved
long ago.<<
Oh, it's no dilemma, but an out and out forgery that neither you nor
the HSCA the guts to try and replicate. It's as though your motto is,
"Replication? We don't need no stinkin' Replication. Who needs
Replication when we got plenty of Obsfucation?
But Science Rules that if a thing cannot be Replicated, it is NOT
worthy of belief. Nuff said.
Ed Cage
Excellent point Dave!
I Think I "knew" but I musta somehow FORGOTTEN
the BY photos were not even developed..(!)
Yeah, I think the mistaken idea that the BY
photos were fakes came from Oswald making that
transparent semi-silly claim..
Remember, Oswald worked @ Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall
in Dallas and one of their specialties was
sophisticated photo work of all sorts..
In about 1975 I had some elaborate photo work
done on my own letterhead for my graphics company
done at the JCS (As they were known), photo Lab..
Email me your address again and I'll mail ya one..
Done right there @JCS were LHO once worked..
It's kinda neat living here and be'n my age.
I run into lotsa JFK stuff I'm probably more
familiar/accessible to than the mainstream..
Ed / ECag...@aol.com
_______________________________________
drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote in message news:<20021219221432...@mb-ck.aol.com>...
Ed Cage
LOL Spence & John re the old "backward growing
foilage!"..
Another thing that struck me as fUnY about some
say'n the shadows in the BY photos were not
consistent therefore, it was a clear case of forgery..
LOL, If you are gonna stick a fake head on somebody
one of the basics would be to make the head shadows
consistent w existing shadows...
That part is fairly easy but here's something very
INTERESTING I found many times in the 3 decades I had
my graphic arts studio.. ACTUAL LEGITIMATE shadows
will blow yer mind w their inconsistencies! I will
almost go this far.. More often than not, on an actual
full scale photo you will find shadow "inconsistencies"
that A-P-P-E-A-R to look improper...But are NOT..
I kid theee not..
Ed
__________________________________________
rob_s...@elementk.com (Rob Spencer) wrote in message news:<91cf87f2.02122...@posting.google.com>...
Rouser
>>...but here's something very
INTERESTING I found many times in the 3 decades I had
my graphic arts studio.. ACTUAL LEGITIMATE shadows
will blow yer mind w their inconsistencies! I will
almost go this far.. More often than not, on an actual
full scale photo you will find shadow "inconsistencies"
that A-P-P-E-A-R to look improper...But are NOT..
I kid theee not..<<
Wow! You mean the shadow in 133B could actually be legit???? And you
even "kid thee not???" Would you go so far as to even say that you
yourself could easily replicate such a shadow???
Nah. Didn't think so.
WinBear
On 23-Dec-2002, rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote:
> Wow! You mean the shadow in 133B could actually be legit???? And you
> even "kid thee not???" Would you go so far as to even say that you
> yourself could easily replicate such a shadow???
Will someone who lives in Dallas, who has access to a GPS unit and that
back yard, please get and post the exact coordinates of where Oswald is
standing. We might never expect to have the dough to actually hire a
forensic astronomer to calculate the exact sun angle (and from it the
exact day and time the shots were taken), but maybe someday we can get it,
and thus have the info to exactly replicate the shadow. Which is
apparently the only thing that is going to keep Rouser from playing his
one off-key note in every post for the remainder of eternity. While the
photos do not have any actual anomalies and are clearly, and proven,
legit, he is going to keep harping until we can say "here's the data, if
you think there is something wrong with the photos, pay to find out the
sun angle, and on the equivalent day and time, go to the backyard with a
Carcano and live it up!"
Ed Cage
Lol Bear!
Here's what I think MUSTA happened:
It's Oswald's body & his MC rifle okay..
But methinks it's an "Oswald-look-Alike's"
head! The tricky-pic was put together then
converted to a tiny NEG .. Still w me?
The little negs were INSERTED into Marina's
camera & she was hip-mertized to BELIEVE
she had actually taken the BY photos!!
When the idiot FBI opened the camera, the
ruse was complete! History will show they
fell for the oldest trick in the book..
The old fake-pic/fake neg switcharooski..
mR eD ;~)
PS:Bear, can you be the one to lay this yarn
on Rouser? I think he'd TORCH me if I did..
________________________________________
"WinBear" <ignore-...@thehellhole.com> wrote in message news:<3e079...@news.iglou.com>...
Rob Spencer
Hey I got a new GPS for Christmas, real expensive Magellan. I'm
willing to loan it to Ed and have him go there (He's closer) get the
coordinates, and then hire an expert to do some "credible" shadow
analysis.
What do you think Ed? Are you up for it??
Spence
Rob Spencer
Oh My God Ed, it was one of the Telly Tubbies! Po!
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lagoon/4053/COVER.HTM
Spence
Rob Spencer
Hey Rouser, just had a nice conversation with a Mr. Andrew Davidhazy,
his office is only a few miles from mine, he testified in front of the
HSCA in 1978. Read what he and Dr. Leslie Stroebel and Dr. Ronald
Francis had to say in October 1978.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscbkyd.htm
I would not hesitate to say that in Rochester, NY there are more
photographic experts per square inch than on any other place on the
planet. I would take their sworn testimony over your "speculation" any
day.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Spence
Rob Spencer
Ouch babe my butt is SMOKIN! Kind of like the stuff you are tokin on.
I think Reitzes and McAdams did a much better job at smoking you than
I did. As far as my co-worker is concerened, He could very well be
blowing smoke up my butt to, but he is a pretty stand up guy and had a
lot of information that I have not read anywhere else. I'm sure that
in 1964 things at the FBI were a lot different than they are today. I
don't know how many times in the late 70's I asked my cop buddy to run
a plate for me to check out where a cute girl lived or just to get
some personal info about her, harmless stuff.
I'm sure it was just the same way with my co-worker and his FBI
friend. Hey bud, can you do me a favor and check this out for me, let
me know what you think. Just for his own peace of mind. I'm sure it
was all just good old boy stuff, one old college friend confiding in
another. Apparently there was enough of a doubt in his head for him to
want someone else take a look at them.
As far as pixels are concerned, do you own a copy of Photoshop 5.5?
Have you ever used it? You can get pretty granular with a high
resolution image, 256 shades of gray on a 3 x 6002 image. Anomalies
are easy to pick out at that resolution.
I don't think I can change your mind on this issue, you seem pretty
well convinced that the photos were faked. I don;t think that any well
substantiated information will convince you, despite it's credibility.
Of course I don't think I will convert Yasir Arafat to Christianity
either
Go in peace my lost friend, the path to enlightment has eluded you..
for now
Spence
Ed Cage
YEAH, I'm up for it Spence..
But how do we know Rouser won't say I
doctored the measurements, doctored my
photo, and used a Hollywood set instead
of the real location right here in the
Dallas "metroplex" as we call it..
mR eD ;~/
______________________________________
rob_s...@elementk.com (Rob Spencer) wrote in message news:<91cf87f2.02122...@posting.google.com>...
Ed Cage
LOL Spence! My kinda hUmOr !
On your previous subject data/input* on the
BY photos that was profoundedly convincing!
I had seen/read SOME of it but I think the
evidence presented woulda convinced the OJ jury..
I got into that same analysis of the x-rays
and almost fell to sleep..Next time I can't sleep
I'll fish it out and read it.. (I had previously
used Genesis to induce sleepdom)
Thanx, Ed / 972-964-3826
PS:*Be sure to give Mike Russ credit on that super
site info.I assume that's where it came from..
_________________________________________
rob_s...@elementk.com (Rob Spencer) wrote in message news:<91cf87f2.02122...@posting.google.com>...
Rouser
>
> Ouch babe my butt is SMOKIN! Kind of like the stuff you are tokin on.
> I think Reitzes and McAdams did a much better job at smoking you than
> I did. <<
Oh? Then I take it they are both rushing to put your anonymous source
and his secret pixel study on their web pages, eh? No?
>>As far as my co-worker is concerened, He could very well be
> blowing smoke up my butt to, <<
NO!!!!
> As far as pixels are concerned, do you own a copy of Photoshop 5.5?
> Have you ever used it? You can get pretty granular with a high
> resolution image, 256 shades of gray on a 3 x 6002 image. Anomalies
> are easy to pick out at that resolution.<<
I do indeed have photoshop. But if you view the backyard photos therein,
with all their anomalies, the pixels remain uniform. Anomalies in a photo
have nothing to do with the pixels that make up a photograph inside a
computer.
> I don't think I can change your mind on this issue, you seem pretty
> well convinced that the photos were faked. I don;t think that any well
> substantiated information will convince you, despite it's credibility.<<
I'd hardly view an anonymous source with secret information about the
study of pixels in the backyard photos as "well substantiated
information". But I'd change my opinion in an instant if you, your
anonymous friend, Mr. Reitzes, Mr. McAdams or anyone else could simply
replicate the divergent shadow in 133B. Can't be done. The photo is fake.
Solid evidence of a deliberate frameup. End of story.
-- Rouser
Rob Spencer
So the HSCA experts in 78 were wrong? or lied? I'll just have to ask him
Spence
Russ Burr
the phone and ask her if she took the photos. She'll say yes but do this
so you can move to another topic of buffdom. She lives and works in the
Dallas area. She still lives with Ken Porter, I believe. If I could find
both her home and work # than you can. She loves talking to CT's since
she is one after years of believing (the truth) that her late husband
was guilty.
So put your money where your mouth is and do some real research....it's fun.
RB
Rouser wrote:
> "WinBear" <ignore-...@thehellhole.com> wrote in message news:<3e079...@news.iglou.com>...
>
>
>>Will someone who lives in Dallas, who has access to a GPS unit and that
>>back yard, please get and post the exact coordinates of where Oswald is
>>standing. We might never expect to have the dough to actually hire a
>>forensic astronomer to calculate the exact sun angle (and from it the
>>exact day and time the shots were taken), but maybe someday we can get it,
>>and thus have the info to exactly replicate the shadow. Which is
>>apparently the only thing that is going to keep Rouser from playing his
>>one off-key note in every post for the remainder of eternity. <<
>
>
>
> Of course the notion that you need a GPS unit, the authentic back
> yard, exact coordinates and a foresic astronomer is nonsense. All you
> need do is get yourself a photo spot and move it anywhere you want.
> Have the subject hold the rifle vertically at 11 o'clock at whatever
> pitch and get your authentic replication. Impossible, of course. And
> that is why you posit an impossible investigative hypothetical. The
> shadow cannot be replicated and is thus not worthy of belief. And thus
> that photo and probably all the others are fake. End of story.
Rob Spencer
Oh not not this one again. I thought this topic was dead. I had
extensive conversations with Andrew Davidhazy who testified in 78 in
fron of the HSCA, that the photos are legit. Most CT'ers have
abandoned this long ago, realizing that it was a "dog that won't hunt"
Only far extreme CT'ers cling to the notion that the backyard photos
are faked.
End of story Rouser, case dead and buried on this one.
Spence