Jackson sez he swung *empty* camera up rather than *loaded* one!
dcwi...@netscape.net
Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the
depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same. See
David Von Pein's valuable posting of this. (Way to go, Dave!) Recall
from Jackson's Commission testimony that the empty camera was on his
lap, the loaded one around his neck. Then listen to this
unintentionally hilarious interview....
dw
David Von Pein
>>> "For those like me who have always suspected that Dallas photographer Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same. See David Von Pein's valuable posting of this. (Way to go, Dave!) Recall from Jackson's Commission testimony that the empty camera was on his lap, the loaded one around his neck. Then listen to this unintentionally hilarious interview." <<<
Just like a CT-Kook -- leaping to incredible conspiratorial
conclusions on the slimmest info imaginable.
Donald Willis just flat-out doesn't like Robert Jackson's "I Swung An
Empty Camera" explanation, so Mr. Willis has decided to disbelieve it
entirely. Simple as that.
In reality, Robert Jackson's comments made during his 1993 interview
are perfectly consistent (in every way) with Jackson's 1964 WC
testimony.
In the '93 interview, Jackson specifically says that the camera he
"swung" around toward the 6th-Floor TSBD window after seeing the rifle
sticking out of the SN window was the camera WITH THE LONG LENS --
i.e., the SAME camera that Jackson had just emptied of its film at the
corner of Main & Houston (he threw the roll of film to Jim
Featherstone at that corner).
Jackson explains in the '93 interview that he used the long-lens
camera (the one without any film in it) in order to zoom in on the SN
window and get a closer view of the window.
Now, yes, Jackson also had a loaded camera around his neck. But he
specifically stated in '93 that it was the EMPTY ("long lens") camera
that he used when he swung the camera up toward the sniper's window to
get a zoomed-in view.
COULD Bob Jackson have swung his LOADED camera up toward the sixth
floor that day in Dallas? Sure, he could have. But the plain fact is:
he did not do that. He swung his empty camera toward the window.
Maybe that was a stupid, unthinking move on Jackson's part. But that's
irrelevant here, because the fact is (stupid move or not) Mr. Jackson
swung his EMPTY camera toward the SN window that day...and no amount
of Donald Willis whining and disbelieving is going to change that
fact.
Part of Jackson's WC session is shown below, and it is testimony that
perfectly matches Mr. Jackson's recollections during his 1993
interview (also linked below).
I.E.: Jackson saw the rifle sticking out of the 6th-Floor window at
the SOUTHEAST CORNER of the Book Depository. There is no other window
he could possibly be describing here, since he specifically refers to
the "two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them".
And Jackson says that exact same thing in his '93 interview as well.
Or do some CTers now want to invent a theory that has "two Negro men"
ALSO in a fifth-floor window at the OTHER end of the Texas School Book
Depository Building at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63?:
"Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking
all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have
been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men
in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed
right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what
looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and
just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building,
and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in
the window." -- BOB JACKSON; VIA HIS WC TESTIMONY
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jackson.htm
http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1993.011.0018
Bud
> For those like me who have always suspected that Dallas photographer
> Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the
> depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same.
How could he take a picture with an empty camera?
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "For those like me who have always suspected that Dallas photographer Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same. See David Von Pein's valuable posting of this. (Way to go, Dave!) Recall from Jackson's Commission testimony that the empty camera was on his lap, the loaded one around his neck. Then listen to this unintentionally hilarious interview." <<<
>
>
> Just like a CT-Kook -- leaping to incredible conspiratorial
> conclusions on the slimmest info imaginable.
>
> Donald Willis just flat-out doesn't like Robert Jackson's "I Swung An
> Empty Camera" explanation, so Mr. Willis has decided to disbelieve it
> entirely. Simple as that.
Of course. When reality conflicts with a kook`s expectations, it is
always reality that is considered suspect.
> In reality, Robert Jackson's comments made during his 1993 interview
> are perfectly consistent (in every way) with Jackson's 1964 WC
> testimony.
>
> In the '93 interview, Jackson specifically says that the camera he
> "swung" around toward the 6th-Floor TSBD window after seeing the rifle
> sticking out of the SN window was the camera WITH THE LONG LENS --
> i.e., the SAME camera that Jackson had just emptied of its film at the
> corner of Main & Houston (he threw the roll of film to Jim
> Featherstone at that corner).
>
> Jackson explains in the '93 interview that he used the long-lens
> camera (the one without any film in it) in order to zoom in on the SN
> window and get a closer view of the window.
>
> Now, yes, Jackson also had a loaded camera around his neck. But he
> specifically stated in '93 that it was the EMPTY ("long lens") camera
> that he used when he swung the camera up toward the sniper's window to
> get a zoomed-in view.
>
>
>
> COULD Bob Jackson have swung his LOADED camera up toward the sixth
> floor that day in Dallas? Sure, he could have. But the plain fact is:
> he did not do that. He swung his empty camera toward the window.
>
> Maybe that was a stupid, unthinking move on Jackson's part. But that's
> irrelevant here, because the fact is (stupid move or not) Mr. Jackson
> swung his EMPTY camera toward the SN window that day...and no amount
> of Donald Willis whining and disbelieving is going to change that
> fact.
Consider that Malcolm Couch also saw the rifle protruding from the
TSBD window, yet when he brought his motion picture camera to bear, he
filmed... the crowd.
Kooks will be second guessing what people did during this brief
surprise attack forever, never being able to take one step from their
suspicions.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:02e78f6f-de35-45c8...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "For those like me who have always suspected that Dallas photographer Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same. See David Von Pein's valuable posting of this. (Way to go, Dave!) Recall from Jackson's Commission testimony that the empty camera was on his lap, the loaded one around his neck. Then listen to this unintentionally hilarious interview." <<<
>
> Just like a CT-Kook -- leaping to incredible conspiratorial
> conclusions on the slimmest info imaginable.
>
> Donald Willis just flat-out doesn't like Robert Jackson's "I Swung An
> Empty Camera" explanation, so Mr. Willis has decided to disbelieve it
> entirely. Simple as that.
Well, how do *you* like Jackson's *other* explanation, that he didn't
get a photo because he had only the wide-angle-lens camera loaded & it
"wouldn't have done any good"!
Not quite perfectly--he doesn't mention (in '63) swinging up *any*
camera....
>
> I.E.: Jackson saw the rifle sticking out of the 6th-Floor window at
> the SOUTHEAST CORNER of the Book Depository. There is no other window
> he could possibly be describing here, since he specifically refers to
> the "two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them".
> And Jackson says that exact same thing in his '93 interview as well.
>
> Or do some CTers now want to invent a theory that has "two Negro men"
> ALSO in a fifth-floor window at the OTHER end of the Texas School Book
> Depository Building at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63?:
>
> "Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking
> all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have
> been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men
> in a window straining to see directly above them
Funny, Norman testified, in answer to Ball's question, Did you ever
put your head out the window?,
"No, sir. I don't remember ever putting my head out the window
(v3p196)."
And if he didn't put his head out the window, he could hardly have
been "straining to see directly above"....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
You omit that Jackson saw the rifle first, & had to call the attention
of the others to it.
>
> Kooks will be second guessing what people did during this brief
> surprise attack forever, never being able to take one step from their
> suspicions.
>
>
>
> > Part of Jackson's WC session is shown below, and it is testimony that
> > perfectly matches Mr. Jackson's recollections during his 1993
> > interview (also linked below).
>
> > I.E.: Jackson saw the rifle sticking out of the 6th-Floor window at
> > the SOUTHEAST CORNER of the Book Depository. There is no other window
> > he could possibly be describing here, since he specifically refers to
> > the "two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them".
> > And Jackson says that exact same thing in his '93 interview as well.
>
> > Or do some CTers now want to invent a theory that has "two Negro men"
> > ALSO in a fifth-floor window at the OTHER end of the Texas School Book
> > Depository Building at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63?:
>
> > "Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking
> > all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have
> > been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men
> > in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed
> > right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what
> > looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and
> > just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building,
> > and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in
> > the window." -- BOB JACKSON; VIA HIS WC TESTIMONY
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jackson.htm
>
> >http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1993.011.0018- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Jul 14, 2:19 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > For those like me who have always suspected that Dallas photographer
> > Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the
> > depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same.
>
> How could he take a picture with an empty camera?
>
photographer--why would he use an empty camera when he had a choice?
Clearly, he did not, & got a picture with the one hanging around his
neck, at the ready!
dw
>
> > See
> > David Von Pein's valuable posting of this. (Way to go, Dave!) Recall
> > from Jackson's Commission testimony that the empty camera was on his
> > lap, the loaded one around his neck. Then listen to this
> > unintentionally hilarious interview....
David Von Pein
>>> "Funny, Norman testified, in answer to Ball's question, 'Did you ever put your head out the window?', 'No, sir, I don't remember ever putting my head out the window (v3p196).' And if he didn't put his head out the window, he could hardly have been [per Robert Jackson] 'straining to see directly above'." <<<
Well, Bonnie Ray is certainly darn close to having his head "out the
window" in CE482, and in the Powell photo as well (linked below). And
Norman's not too far from it either in 482. (Do you want to now give
Bob Jackson "half a truth point" on this one?):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4241.jpg
>>> "Jackson was a photographer--why would he use an empty camera when he had a choice? Clearly, he did not, & got a picture with the one hanging around his neck, at the ready!" <<<
As I said earlier, Willis just doesn't want to believe Jackson--
period. So...he won't believe him...period. He'd rather believe in
fantastic theories about gunmen in OTHER Depository windows (gunmen
that never existed, as we all know).
Plus: How does Mr. Willis, within his make-believe theory, reconcile
the "two Negro men" directly below the window with the rifle that
Jackson saw?
Will Don W. now make up some additional nonsense about there being 2
Negroes in WEST-side TSBD windows?
You can easily see that Donald Willis has NOPLACE TO GO with his
bullshit theory re. Robert Hill Jackson. Nowhere at all.
Jackson grabbed the empty camera because that camera HAD THE ZOOM LENS
FOR ZOOMING IN ON OBJECTS (like the sixth-floor window that Bob wanted
to get a close-up view of).
Simple as that.
But to a CTer bent on finding conspiracy where none exists at all --
even a photographer named Jackson, who just happened to be riding in
the motorcade that day, is considered a liar and a cover-upper in this
never-ending series of plotters that CTers imagine existed.
What possible reason would Bob Jackson have had to want to involve
himself in some kind of cover-up plot in the assassination of his
President? Please tell us.
Who's the next "suspect" going to be? Mrs. Robert Reid? Colonel
Swindal? Lumpy Rutherford?
Bud
> On Jul 14, 11:18 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> On Jul 14, 2:19 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > > For those like me who have always suspected that Dallas photographer
> > > Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the
> > > depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same.
>
> > How could he take a picture with an empty camera?
>
> Mind like a steel trap, yours--that's the point.
Yah, I have the ability to cut right to the heart of the matter.
So, I take it your contention is that he actually did take a picture.
So, my question remains, how could he take picture with an empty
camera. He says it was, and you haven`t offered any conflicting
evidence.
> Jackson was a
> photographer--why would he use an empty camera when he had a choice?
Photographers spend their whole lives waiting for a shot like the
one you describe, it`s a Pulitzer winner.
> Clearly, he did not, & got a picture with the one hanging around his
> neck, at the ready!
TA-DA! dw knocks out what the witness said with... nothing.
Bud
What bearing does that have on what I wrote? Fact is, I didn`t know
who this guy was until DVP mentioned, and his actions have as much to
do Oswald shooting Kennedy as Donald Duck`s middle name.
> > Kooks will be second guessing what people did during this brief
> > surprise attack forever, never being able to take one step from their
> > suspicions.
>
> > > Part of Jackson's WC session is shown below, and it is testimony that
> > > perfectly matches Mr. Jackson's recollections during his 1993
> > > interview (also linked below).
>
> > > I.E.: Jackson saw the rifle sticking out of the 6th-Floor window at
> > > the SOUTHEAST CORNER of the Book Depository. There is no other window
> > > he could possibly be describing here, since he specifically refers to
> > > the "two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them".
> > > And Jackson says that exact same thing in his '93 interview as well.
>
> > > Or do some CTers now want to invent a theory that has "two Negro men"
> > > ALSO in a fifth-floor window at the OTHER end of the Texas School Book
> > > Depository Building at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63?:
>
> > > "Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking
> > > all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have
> > > been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men
> > > in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed
> > > right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what
> > > looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and
> > > just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building,
> > > and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in
> > > the window." -- BOB JACKSON; VIA HIS WC TESTIMONY
>
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jackson.htm
>
> > >http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1993.011.0...Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "Funny, Norman testified, in answer to Ball's question, 'Did you ever put your head out the window?', 'No, sir, I don't remember ever putting my head out the window (v3p196).' And if he didn't put his head out the window, he could hardly have been [per Robert Jackson] 'straining to see directly above'." <<<
>
> Well, Bonnie Ray is certainly darn close to having his head "out the
> window" in CE482, and in the Powell photo as well (linked below). And
> Norman's not too far from it either in 482. (Do you want to now give
> Bob Jackson "half a truth point" on this one?):
>
"I saw 2 colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward
the top of the building, trying, I suppose, to determine where the
shots were coming from." (v6p169) Underwood & Dillard are supposedly
looking up at the same time, just after the rifle has disappeared.
Yet, Dillard's photo, taken at this time, shows no such thing as heads
turned upwards. And yet Jackson sez that image is what led him to see
the window with the rifle.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
>
> http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4241.jpg
>
> >>> "Jackson was a photographer--why would he use an empty camera when he had a choice? Clearly, he did not, & got a picture with the one hanging around his neck, at the ready!" <<<
>
> As I said earlier, Willis just doesn't want to believe Jackson--
> period. So...he won't believe him...period. He'd rather believe in
> fantastic theories about gunmen in OTHER Depository windows (gunmen
> that never existed, as we all know).
>
> Plus: How does Mr. Willis, within his make-believe theory, reconcile
> the "two Negro men" directly below the window with the rifle that
> Jackson saw?
As noted above, it doesn't seem to have happened as Jackson said, or
Dillard would have a picture of the upward-turned heads. In both the
Dillards & the Powell, Williams is looking towards his right, not
upwards. If Jackson, then, were following Williams' gaze, he'd have
seen a rifle to the right of W, not above him....
>
> Will Don W. now make up some additional nonsense about there being 2
> Negroes in WEST-side TSBD windows?
>
> You can easily see that Donald Willis has NOPLACE TO GO with his
> bullshit theory re. Robert Hill Jackson. Nowhere at all.
Are we perhaps protesting a bit too much? Are we nervous, David?
>
> Jackson grabbed the empty camera because that camera HAD THE ZOOM LENS
> FOR ZOOMING IN ON OBJECTS (like the sixth-floor window that Bob wanted
> to get a close-up view of).
Unconcerned as he was with getting picture, altho he was purportedly a
professional picture-taker! And David ignores the fact that Jackson
has pulled an alternate rabbit out of his hat to explain why he didn't
use the loaded camera--the wide-angle lens. In '93, the explanation
is different, but the result is the same--incredibility!
>
> Simple as that.
>
> But to a CTer bent on finding conspiracy where none exists at all --
> even a photographer named Jackson, who just happened to be riding in
> the motorcade that day, is considered a liar and a cover-upper in this
> never-ending series of plotters that CTers imagine existed.
>
> What possible reason would Bob Jackson have had to want to involve
> himself in some kind of cover-up plot in the assassination of his
> President? Please tell us.
I'd like to get to what actually happened, first, then we can deal
with motivations. Why did Officer Haygood lie about the 12:37 radio
transmission which was actually sent by officer 22?
>
> Who's the next "suspect" going to be? Mrs. Robert Reid? Colonel
> Swindal? Lumpy Rutherford?
Don't you think Eddie Haskell is a more likely suspect?
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Jul 14, 9:37 pm, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 11:18 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> On Jul 14, 2:19 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > > > For those like me who have always suspected that Dallas photographer
> > > > Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the
> > > > depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same.
>
> > > How could he take a picture with an empty camera?
>
> > Mind like a steel trap, yours--that's the point.
>
> Yah, I have the ability to cut right to the heart of the matter.
> So, I take it your contention is that he actually did take a picture.
> So, my question remains, how could he take picture with an empty
> camera. He says it was
"It" is not exactly the right word--"they" would be better, since he
had 2 cameras, & one was loaded & rarin' to go. (Use me, Bob, use
me!)
, and you haven`t offered any conflicting
> evidence.
>
> > Jackson was a
> > photographer--why would he use an empty camera when he had a choice?
>
> Photographers spend their whole lives waiting for a shot like the
> one you describe, it`s a Pulitzer winner.
>
> > Clearly, he did not, & got a picture with the one hanging around his
> > neck, at the ready!
>
> TA-DA! dw knocks out what the witness said with... nothing.
>
>
>
> > dw
>
> > > > See
> > > > David Von Pein's valuable posting of this. (Way to go, Dave!) Recall
> > > > from Jackson's Commission testimony that the empty camera was on his
> > > > lap, the loaded one around his neck. Then listen to this
> > > > unintentionally hilarious interview....
> > > > dw- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "Don't you think Eddie Haskell is a more likely suspect?" <<<
Or Larry Mondello. Or Mary Ellen Rogers. Doesn't really matter.
Because you conspiracy-happy clowns don't care who you accuse of being
accessories after the fact to murder. Anybody and everybody is
eligible.
Bud
> On Jul 15, 3:48 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 9:37 pm, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 11:18 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> On Jul 14, 2:19 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > > > > For those like me who have always suspected that Dallas photographer
> > > > > Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the
> > > > > depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same.
>
> > > > How could he take a picture with an empty camera?
>
> > > Mind like a steel trap, yours--that's the point.
>
> > Yah, I have the ability to cut right to the heart of the matter.
> > So, I take it your contention is that he actually did take a picture.
> > So, my question remains, how could he take picture with an empty
> > camera. He says it was
>
> "It" is not exactly the right word--"they" would be better, since he
> had 2 cameras, & one was loaded & rarin' to go. (Use me, Bob, use
> me!)
Yah, but the one he picked up had no film, so he couldn`t take a
picture. Perhaps the empty camera was his primary camera, since it was
the one he had ran out of film.
But, your contention is that he took a photo of that window during
the assassination, and that photo was somehow squashed. How do you
explain him lightheartedly perpetuating a lie years later, shouldn`t
he be bitter that a potential Pulitzer winner was snatched away from
him? If the Church confiscated the Mona Lisa, I wouldn`t expect
Leonardo would be joking in interviews about how he accidently burnt
it.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Leavelle pic, from that Sunday.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Ah! "Clowns". I guess we've graduated from mere "kooks".... And
what do you call someone who believes that a professional
photographer--when given a choice--picked up an empty camera rather a
loaded? Let's try Gullible....
dw
David Von Pein
>>> "Ah! "Clowns". I guess we've graduated from mere "kooks"." <<<
Not a chance. I was merely adding a little variety into the asylum's
proceedings.
>>> "And what do you call someone who believes that a professional photographer--when given a choice--picked up an empty camera rather a loaded [one]?" <<<
Answer: A person who isn't willing to call the professional
photographer a liar and/or a cover-up operative on a whim.
That's what I'd call that person. AKA: a reasonable individual.
Bud
And if that "Ruby shooting Oz" photo was taken from him, you think
he would just make up some excuse for the people who took it, and tell
it for years afterward? The photographer who missed getting the
picture that Jackson got by a split second never got over it, and that
was just a case of luck, not the purposeful repression of an important
photo you are proposing occurred with Jackson in Dealy.
dcwi...@netscape.net
the years. His first newspaper article, the weekend of the
assassination, gave no reason for his not getting a photo. The second
one, a few days later, ended with him saying something like "It
happened too fast". Already, he was beginning to feel he should have
an explanation, but in the long run this would not be it. His later
explanations pretty much contradicted this first attempt--in the last
15 years, he has said he was just not interested in getting a photo of
the TSBD with a non-zoom-type lens. It's now, he sez, not a question
of how fast everything was happening. In '93, he just wanted to get a
better view of the upper windows; more recently, he told Connie
Kritzberg that his other camera was no good for shooting at a
distance. Yet (as Connie notes), *Dillard* got a non-zoom-lens photo
of the depository. So, Jackson feels obligated to explain why he
didn't get a picture of the rifle, but he can't come up with a buyable
one.
Oddly, he didn't offer an explanation in his WC testimony. He didn't
mention trying to get a better view with the empty, didn't pooh pooh
his loaded camera, didn't risk offering untenable explanations.
Perhaps he should have left it at that, 'cause every *explanation* he
has since come up with has made it sound more & more like he did get a
pic of the rifle, whether or not he really did....
dw
Bud
> On Jul 17, 3:32 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 10:14 pm, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jul 16, 12:19 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Jul 14, 9:37 pm, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
How significant an event was his inability to get a picture that it
should have been included in an article about the assassination?
> The second
> one, a few days later, ended with him saying something like "It
> happened too fast".
It was a brief surprise attack.
> Already, he was beginning to feel he should have
> an explanation, but in the long run this would not be it. His later
> explanations pretty much contradicted this first attempt--
Why, did he later say it happened slow? That would be a
contradiction, what you are producing is not.
>in the last
> 15 years, he has said he was just not interested in getting a photo of
> the TSBD with a non-zoom-type lens. It's now, he sez, not a question
> of how fast everything was happening. In '93, he just wanted to get a
> better view of the upper windows; more recently, he told Connie
> Kritzberg that his other camera was no good for shooting at a
> distance. Yet (as Connie notes), *Dillard* got a non-zoom-lens photo
> of the depository.
Jackson had a wide-angle camera, probably for panoramic crowd
shots. If that camera was for taking a specific type of specialty
shots, it might explain why he didn`t go for it.
> So, Jackson feels obligated to explain why he
> didn't get a picture of the rifle, but he can't come up with a buyable
> one.
Sure he did. He didn`t have film in the camera he reached for.
> Oddly, he didn't offer an explanation in his WC testimony. He didn't
> mention trying to get a better view with the empty, didn't pooh pooh
> his loaded camera, didn't risk offering untenable explanations.
You aren`t offering anything to contest his explainations, how can
they be "untenable"?
> Perhaps he should have left it at that, 'cause every *explanation* he
> has since come up with has made it sound more & more like he did get a
> pic of the rifle, whether or not he really did....
It might sound that way to a person desperate to hear it that way.
Bud
Some people think an obsessed political fanatic wouldn`t be the
least bit curious that the world`s most important political leader was
killed on the doorstep of his work, but would just leave work and go
home. Talk about gullible...
> dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
someone at the theatre....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
> How significant an event was his inability to get a picture that it
> should have been included in an article about the assassination?
>
He got a picture. The rifle was shown at the wrong window. Pretty
significant.
> > The second
> > one, a few days later, ended with him saying something like "It
> > happened too fast".
>
> It was a brief surprise attack.
\\
> > Already, he was beginning to feel he should have
> > an explanation, but in the long run this would not be it. His later
> > explanations pretty much contradicted this first attempt--
>
> Why, did he later say it happened slow? That would be a
> contradiction, what you are producing is not.
What he said later implied that nothing depended on how *fast* it
happened. He did not want to use the loaded camera at all, he later
sez!
>
> >in the last
> > 15 years, he has said he was just not interested in getting a photo of
> > the TSBD with a non-zoom-type lens. It's now, he sez, not a question
> > of how fast everything was happening. In '93, he just wanted to get a
> > better view of the upper windows; more recently, he told Connie
> > Kritzberg that his other camera was no good for shooting at a
> > distance. Yet (as Connie notes), *Dillard* got a non-zoom-lens photo
> > of the depository.
>
> Jackson had a wide-angle camera, probably for panoramic crowd
> shots. If that camera was for taking a specific type of specialty
> shots, it might explain why he didn`t go for it.
Dillard went for it, used *both* his cameras. Okay, maybe DVP is
right--Jackson was just stupid....
>
> > So, Jackson feels obligated to explain why he
> > didn't get a picture of the rifle, but he can't come up with a buyable
> > one.
>
> Sure he did. He didn`t have film in the camera he reached for.
Okay, you're right--Jackson was just stupid, or had hand-eye-
coordination problems....
>
> > Oddly, he didn't offer an explanation in his WC testimony. He didn't
> > mention trying to get a better view with the empty, didn't pooh pooh
> > his loaded camera, didn't risk offering untenable explanations.
>
> You aren`t offering anything to contest his explainations, how can
> they be "untenable"?
He said the *loaded* camera wasn't any good for that situation. But
(as Connie K notes) *Dillard* used *his* wide-angle-lens camera to
take a pic of the upper floors. But apparently Jackson was too stupid
to research this & wound up with an untenable *explanation*....
>
> > Perhaps he should have left it at that, 'cause every *explanation* he
> > has since come up with has made it sound more & more like he did get a
> > pic of the rifle, whether or not he really did....
>
> It might sound that way to a person desperate to hear it that way.
>
No, I tend to think Jackson wasn't really stupid, as you & DVP do not--
he was just swept up in a cover-up....
David Von Pein
>>> "No, I tend to think Jackson wasn't really stupid, as you & DVP do not--he was just swept up in a cover-up." <<<
Kook talk. (As per usual from The Donster.)
Bud
How is that apparent?
Bud
Produce it.
> The rifle was shown at the wrong window. Pretty
> significant.
>
> > > The second
> > > one, a few days later, ended with him saying something like "It
> > > happened too fast".
>
> > It was a brief surprise attack.
>
> \\
>
> > > Already, he was beginning to feel he should have
> > > an explanation, but in the long run this would not be it. His later
> > > explanations pretty much contradicted this first attempt--
>
> > Why, did he later say it happened slow? That would be a
> > contradiction, what you are producing is not.
>
> What he said later implied that nothing depended on how *fast* it
> happened.
What he said originally does not contradict what he said later. How
sudden and quick the attack was could be a factor in how events
proceeded.
> He did not want to use the loaded camera at all, he later
> sez!
He said the loaded camera would not have been suitable for that
situation in any case.
> > >in the last
> > > 15 years, he has said he was just not interested in getting a photo of
> > > the TSBD with a non-zoom-type lens. It's now, he sez, not a question
> > > of how fast everything was happening. In '93, he just wanted to get a
> > > better view of the upper windows; more recently, he told Connie
> > > Kritzberg that his other camera was no good for shooting at a
> > > distance. Yet (as Connie notes), *Dillard* got a non-zoom-lens photo
> > > of the depository.
>
> > Jackson had a wide-angle camera, probably for panoramic crowd
> > shots. If that camera was for taking a specific type of specialty
> > shots, it might explain why he didn`t go for it.
>
> Dillard went for it, used *both* his cameras. Okay, maybe DVP is
> right--Jackson was just stupid....
Not much use in second guessing how witnesses reacted to a sudden
brief attack, is there?
> > > So, Jackson feels obligated to explain why he
> > > didn't get a picture of the rifle, but he can't come up with a buyable
> > > one.
>
> > Sure he did. He didn`t have film in the camera he reached for.
>
> Okay, you're right--Jackson was just stupid, or had hand-eye-
> coordination problems....
So, you do admit that there are non-sinister explanations available
for his actions. So, how is what he said not "buyable".
> > > Oddly, he didn't offer an explanation in his WC testimony. He didn't
> > > mention trying to get a better view with the empty, didn't pooh pooh
> > > his loaded camera, didn't risk offering untenable explanations.
>
> > You aren`t offering anything to contest his explainations, how can
> > they be "untenable"?
>
> He said the *loaded* camera wasn't any good for that situation. But
> (as Connie K notes) *Dillard* used *his* wide-angle-lens camera to
> take a pic of the upper floors. But apparently Jackson was too stupid
> to research this & wound up with an untenable *explanation*....
Was Dillard`s camera the same as Jackson`s unused one?
> > > Perhaps he should have left it at that, 'cause every *explanation* he
> > > has since come up with has made it sound more & more like he did get a
> > > pic of the rifle, whether or not he really did....
>
> > It might sound that way to a person desperate to hear it that way.
>
> No, I tend to think Jackson wasn't really stupid, as you & DVP do not--
> he was just swept up in a cover-up....
Because you`ve established that people always make the best split-
second decisions under fire?
Bud
> >>> "No, I tend to think Jackson wasn't really stupid, as you & DVP do not--he was just swept up in a cover-up." <<<
>
> Kook talk. (As per usual from The Donster.)
Yah, when he comes to a part of the evidence that doesn`t sit right
with him, he changes it to something that suits him better. He thinks
he is doing a rewrite on a script.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "No, I tend to think Jackson wasn't really stupid, as you & DVP do not--he was just swept up in a cover-up." <<<
>
> Kook talk. (As per usual from The Donster.)
Got proof. Where is the statement which Jackson made at the Sheriff's
11/22/63? (v19pp526-7) It has never been released, to my knowledge.
Don't need to say anything else to indicate "cover-up"....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
He was wrong. Dillard had the same type lens, used *his* camera, got
perfectly acceptable, infinitely reprinted photo....
dw
Walt
Yes He sure did!! There are two nearly identical photos of the
"Dillard photo" bothe were taken with telephoto lens and from nearly
the same location (the Chevy convertible) I've been posting this
info years in hope that someone with a passion for photography would
pick up on it and investigate my claim.
dcwi...@netscape.net
*not* getting a picture, indicating that he got one....
dw
Bud
He took a photo with no film in his camera?
Bud
You`re sure Dillard used camera and Jackson`s unused camera were
identical?
dcwi...@netscape.net
better with his *empty* camera! Instead of using the *loaded* camera
AROUND HIS NECK! Too bad Jackson's 11/22/63 affidavit hasn't turned
up in the last 4+ decades
dcwi...@netscape.net
mailed me,
"I asked [Jackson] 'why no pix' & he said he only had wide angle left
& it 'wouldn't have done any good'.
Then I noticed that Dillard's famous photo was taken with wide angle
lens & then cropped. So that doesn't
wash."
And on page 443 of "Pictures of the Pain" Richard Trask refers to
"Dillard's wide angle photo" & reproduces it on the facing page....
dw
Bud
Do I really need to point out all the ways this fails to establish
that Dillard`s used camera and Jackson`s unused one were identical?
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
Who would know better what he did? You?
dcwi...@netscape.net
camera. Both used 'em to get pix! They both had a wide-angle lens,
that's all u knead 2 no....
dw
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
dw
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
They both had wide-angle lens according to the hearsay of Connie
Kritzberg.
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
You can`t know what he did. He can.
> ...
>
> read more »
dcwi...@netscape.net
every time he's asked....
dw
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Bud
Not different explanations. The same story told differently, with
elaboration on different aspects.
> ...
>
> read more »
dcwi...@netscape.net
with its "different aspects" & told it at the same time:
"I saw the rifle being pulled back in the window. It happened too
fast, then, for me to get a photo of it". (actual quote, Dallas TH
11/23/63) Of course, to be perfectly frank, I wasn't really uh trying
to get a photo, I was swinging up my empty camera just to get a better
view. I *did* get my camera up, just not to take a photo. So, it
really happened too fast, then, for me to get a better, personal, up-
close view of the rifle, not to get a photo, which I wasn't trying to
do anyway.... Same story, yeah, Bud....
rj