MSNBC News Video, RFK

Peter,
Please contact John McAdams, your colleague, to find out why 'some of
my missives' were rejected. They were in response (and 'response'
only) to unjustified and insulting attacks from some of your posters -
like the vicious John Hunt, for example:

(http://www.moldea.com/JHunt.html)

Ommitting these facts in your reponse above shows how disingenuous you
really are.

You know very well who your supporters on the Education Forum are with
regard to the ridiculous 'Sirhan' photo.The vast majority of members,
who are conspiracy buffs, act sychophantically whenever they get
someone like you on their side - in this instance there were a number
of posters who agreed with you that your captured image looked like
Sirhan.

And no, I don't agree the photos I isolated from the LAPD footage were
anything like the blurred photos you provided which is why I didn't
include it in my article.

In actuality, MEL DID USE A PHOTO I ISOLATED FROM THE VIDEO. It
appears along with the article at the HNN website.

Mel's a touchy guy.

Peter Fokes

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 11:33:12 PM3/26/08

to

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:29:59 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
wrote:

>On 26 Mar 2008 13:34:03 -0400, marki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23809302#23809302
>>
>>~Mark
>
>
>Also
>
>http://www.nbc30.com/news/15712020/detail.html
>
>
>I discovered an image of a polka dot lady several years ago.
>
>
>She is standing in the pantry area:
>
>http://www.toronto.hm/polkadotlady.html
>
>
>She has been identified as Valerie Schulte, a Kennedy campaign worker.
>
>I also found several other images of interest:
>
>http://www.toronto.hm/sirhanlookalike.html
>
>(Fellow above left shoulder of man in striped jacket)
>
>The woman above the right shoulder of the same man in striped jacket
>is shown here:
>
>http://www.polkadotlady2.jpg

Excuse me ... the correct url is

http://www.toronto.hm/polkadotlady2.jpg

Peter Fokes

unread,

Mar 27, 2008, 12:12:38 AM3/27/08

to

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:33:12 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:29:59 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>wrote:
>
>>On 26 Mar 2008 13:34:03 -0400, marki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23809302#23809302
>>>
>>>~Mark
>>
>>
>>Also
>>
>>http://www.nbc30.com/news/15712020/detail.html
>>
>>
>>I discovered an image of a polka dot lady several years ago.
>>
>>
>>She is standing in the pantry area:
>>
>>http://www.toronto.hm/polkadotlady.html
>>
>>
>>She has been identified as Valerie Schulte, a Kennedy campaign worker.
>>
>>I also found several other images of interest:

Corected url is

http://www.toronto.hm/sirhanlookalike.jpg

>>(Fellow above left shoulder of man in striped jacket)
>>
>>The woman above the right shoulder of the same man in striped jacket
>>is shown here:

Corrected url is

http://www.toronto.hm/polkadotlady2.jpg

Excuse incorrect urls ... I had not looked at these images for some
time...

PF

Message has been deleted

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 28, 2008, 10:57:55 PM3/28/08

to

John Hunt wrote:
> <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fc6798ab-aaaf-4b9f...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23809302#23809302
>>
>> ~Mark
>>
>
>
> Joling is simply wrong about the trajectory of the bullets that went
> through RFK.
>
> He continually cites the attached diagram by Greg Stone as if it were
> accurate. It is no such thing, as I explained to him on the phone
> recently.
>
> I advised him of his mistake and he didn't flinch. The notion that all the
> bullet paths through RFK were back to front and sharply inclined upward is
> simply not true. The through and through chest shot was much flatter than
> previously understood. The one that entered the right rear armpit ended up
> just beneath the skin at C6. That is a virtually side to side trajectory
> with a slight backward angle. As for the headshot, there were two bullet
> tracts in the brain: one which went forward and one which went to the
> rear. Which one do you pick? Not only that, but the head is capable of a
> great amount of rotation not related to which way the body is facing and
> so it could well have been technically front to back.
>
> Listening to the report stating as fact that "all" the witnesses said RFK
> and Sirhan were face to face is simply untrue. If she picked that up from
> the conference, one of those experts need to pull his head out of the
> shadows.
>
> John Hunt
>

Have you diagrammed the wound tracks in the head? If so, please upload
that. On the Stone diagram I saw only one hole. Does that mean there was
no exit? I hope you realize that a small caliber bullet can leave one
track in the head, then ricochet off the other side of the skull and leave
a rebounding track.

Peter Fokes

unread,

Mar 29, 2008, 8:52:48 AM3/29/08

to

On 27 Mar 2008 20:21:14 -0400, MELA...@talktalk.net wrote:

>On Mar 27, 3:29 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2008 13:34:03 -0400, markina...@yahoo.com wrote:

Hardly worth the effort trying to answer you, Mel.

Apparently you believe making $$$'s off the murder of two fine
individuals is a must to obtain any credibility. Pathetic.

Gives us a glorious glimpse of your mindset.

>Peter,
>You wrote: "In actuality, MEL DID USE A PHOTO I ISOLATED FROM THE

>VIDEO. It appears along with the article at the HNN website."
>

>Yes, Peter, I acknowledged that fact in the article. But you know full
>well the photo I was referring to was the image posted here -
>http://www.toronto.hm/sirhanlookalike.html

>I didn't use it in my article because I thought it looked more like a
>gargoyle than Sirhan. It's as simple as that.

Nonsense. You wrote:

"I don't agree the PHOTOS I isolated from the LAPD footage were
anything like the blurred PHOTOS you provided which is why I didn't

include it in my article."

"Photos?"

OF course you did use a photo (not particularly blurred). The video
was taken in the dark pantry with a handheld camera, Mel. Were you
expecting a wedding portrait?

Clue in, Mel. Legitimate researchers don't ignore evidence simply
because it is not "studio" quality. Zapruder's film is blurry too.
Thus, according to your logic, of no importance?

>And how come you didn't isolate the other images I provided from the
>LAPD footage, Peter? Do I detect a hint of envy here? I'm sure forum
>members will agree they look a hell of a lot more like Sirhan than
>your blurred gargoyle image.

No, I'm afraid your guy has much less resemblance to Sirhan Sirhan
than the fellow in the image I provided, Mel.

You are seeing what you want to see. There is a vague similarity but
nothing like the nearly identical features of the fellow standing in
front of the guy in the striped jacket.

Are you so insecure about your argument that you need to resort to
nonsensical psychological profiling of my motive?

That is the art of the propagandist, Mel. Is that what you are, a
propagandist?

>I also see that my article challenging Van Praag's acoustics analysis
>has been ignored - please don't get touchy when I say your balanced
>approach to research should have included it. http://hnn.us/articles/44466.html
>You were. after all, commenting on the new acoustics evidence.

Earth to Mel ... since when are researchers under any obligation to
follow your directives when it comes to discussing issues here?

I was discussing the photos, not the acoustics.

>And
>please don't say you weren't aware of it - you managed to access my
>polka-dot girl article ok. But this comes as no surprise - conspiracy
>mongerers bury their heads in the sand when evidence they don't like
>surfaces.

More rhetoric. I'll leave the acoustics to someone who is familiar
with the acoustics. I am not.

>The 'sychophantic posters' I was referring to are on the Education
>Forum, not the McAdams' site. They all appear to agree with you - the
>'gargoyle' looks like Sirhan - let McAdams' forum members decide that
>one!
>
>You accused me of 'vibrant sarcasm'.

Yes. You are guilty as charged.

>It looks like a case of the kettle
>calling the pot black in your reply here: "Mel, I didn't say it 'was'
>Sirhan. I merely said it resembled him. In fact, Mel, it may very well be
>the same person you identify as resembling Sirhan in the bottom photo in
>your article! Mel, how about that? In effect, you are labelling the man
>YOU identify as resembling Sirhan as a "gargoyle"! Self-criticism a good
>trait, Mel. Keep it up!"
>
>Well done, Peter! You can be sarcastic all you like but your opponents
>can't!

Who said you were not allowed to be sarcastic?

Mel, another strawman. By trying too hard, you fail.

>
>I'm sorry Peter, but you haven't got much to show off with your polka
>dot girl research.

Show off? Is that your goal, Mel?

Or is it tossing another personal insult?

>Has your work been published by anyone other than your good self?

I haven't made a penny off these murders. Nor have I tried.

Have you?

Is that your real goal?

Or the truth.

Peter Fokes

Message has been deleted