Did The Police "Fake" Or "Plant" Evidence In The Sniper's Nest?
David Von Pein
PART OF SOME NEFARIOUS "PLOT" TO FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD) MOVED THE
BOXES IN THE SIXTH-FLOOR SNIPER'S NEST PRIOR TO THE BOXES BEING
PHOTOGRAPHED.....
AND MANY CTers ALSO THINK THAT THE PAPER BAG FOUND IN THE NEST WAS
"MANUFACTURED" OR "FAKED" BY THE COPS IN SOME MANNER, TOO.....
BUT DOES ANY OF THE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE BEAR OUT SUCH VILE
CONSPIRATORIAL ALLEGATIONS AIMED AT THE D.P.D.?.....
SIMPLY PUT -- NO, IT DOES NOT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple DPD and Sheriff officials provided evidence (via their Warren
Commission testimony and their official DPD photographs) that proves
the conspiracy theorists are wrong when they accuse the DPD and Dallas
Sheriff's Department of all kinds of lies and conspiracy-favoring
activity with respect to the "box" evidence found inside the "Sniper's
Nest" on the 6th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building
shortly after John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.
Luke Mooney, Carl Day, and Robert Studebaker all provided such
evidence and testimony. Are they all liars? And are BOTH sets of DPD
photos (taken by Day and Studebaker) to be considered "faked"?
Mooney testified (plain as day) that there was a box "tilted" (on the
windowsill) when he first saw the box arrangement in the Sniper's
Nest.
A portion of Mooney's Warren Commission testimony regarding this
matter is shown below. .....
~~~~~~~
JOE BALL -- "Is that the way the boxes looked?"
(Ball is referring to CE509, linked below....)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce509.jpg
LUKE MOONEY -- "That is [sic] the three boxes, but one of them was
tilted off just a little, laying down on the edge, I believe, to my
knowledge."
BALL -- "Are they arranged as they were when you saw them?"
MOONEY -- "I am not positive. As I remember right, there was one box
tilted off."
BALL -- "Do I understand that you say that it appeared to you that the
top box was tilted?"
MOONEY -- "The end of it was laying this way."
BALL -- "Now, in this same picture, {CE} 511, you see a box in the
window. Does that seem to be about the angle?"
MOONEY -- "Yes; that box was tilted."
BALL -- "That was tilted in that way?"
MOONEY -- "Yes, sir."
~~~~~~~
Here is CE511 that Mooney was referring to:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124b.htm
By the way, CE511 depicts the exact same thing that is also shown in
"Studebaker Exhibit B", and is also the same as CE715 (with 715
lacking the circles around the two bullet shells that are visible in
the photo shown in 511; the reason that all three shells aren't seen
is due to the angle of the picture; the third shell is out of sight in
that photograph)....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0263a.htm
There's also this testimony from Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Luke
Mooney.....
MOONEY -- "So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers."
~~~~~~~
Footnote -- Why on Earth Joe Ball didn't utilize either CE1301 or
Studebaker Exhibit J (the latter being a "re-creation" done by
Studebaker himself of the original box configuration in the SN window)
when questioning Luke Mooney is a mystery to me. .....
CE1301:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255a.htm
Studebaker Exhibit J:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0337a.htm
Either one of those exhibits linked above would have been much better
to use than CE509 or CE511. CE509, btw, was verified by Robert
Studebaker as being a picture taken (by Studebaker) AFTER the boxes
had already been moved and dusted for prints by the DPD.
So using CE509 when questioning Mooney about the "original box
configuration" is just plain silly. It makes me wonder if Mr. Ball of
the WC was deliberately trying to "trip up" Mooney in some fashion
(i.e., trying to find out if a member of Dallas law enforcement would
be willing to lie under oath to the WC about some of the evidence).
A pretty good trick, I think, if that was what Ball had in mind. But,
of course, Mr. Mooney was not tripped up in any way when he was asked
if CE509 depicted the SN boxes before they had been moved.
I guess it's possible that Ball, himself, didn't realize that CE509
was not the true "Before The Boxes Were Moved" configuration. But it
seems mighty strange to me that Ball would not have known that fact
before questioning Mooney.
In any event, Mooney's answers were perfectly consistent with an ABOVE-
BOARD AND TRUTHFUL Dallas Sheriff's Department with respect to the box
evidence found in the SN on 11/22/63.
~~~~~~~
There's also the evidence provided by the photo taken by news
photographer Tom Dillard within seconds of the last shot being fired
at President Kennedy (picture is linked below).
Dillard's photo verifies that there WAS, indeed, a box positioned in
the southeast 6th-Floor window in the general manner described by
Mooney, with a corner of the box clearly visible in Dillard's photo,
indicating that the box was angled in such a way during the shooting
as described by multiple DPD and Dallas Sheriff's officers (i.e.,
angled in a fashion where the box configuration would serve nicely as
a "rifle rest" for a gunman who was firing a weapon in a southwesterly
direction).
That 6th-Floor gunman was later positively identified as Lee Harvey
Oswald....with Oswald's very own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being found
tucked between boxes on the northwest side of that very same sixth
floor of the Book Depository (and with bullet shells from that same
gun being found near the assassin's window as well).
The Dillard photo:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
~~~~~~~
In addition, there is also the testimony given by Lt. J.C. Day of the
DPD (which is testimony that indicates the "tilted" box on the window
ledge was there ORIGINALLY...before any of the boxes inside the
Sniper's Nest were moved).
Day also acknowledges the fact, via his WC testimony, that the three
spent bullet shells ("hulls") discovered inside the Sniper's Nest were
photographed PRIOR to any of the shells being moved by any DPD
officer. .....
DAVID BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715
were taken before these hulls were moved?"
J.C. DAY -- "They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of
my knowledge."
BELIN -- "I notice boxes throughout the picture {referring to CE715},
including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had
any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit
715, was taken?"
DAY -- "No, sir; they had not."
BELIN -- "Now, as you face the picture {referring to CE482; linked
below} -- the box to the right, which would be to the east, has a
corner sticking out, or just a corner of the box shows. Is that the
same box that appears to be resting on the window ledge in Exhibit
715?"
DAY -- "In my opinion, it is."
CE482:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
~~~~~~~
That brings us to the photos and testimony of Robert L. Studebaker of
the DPD.....
JOE BALL -- "Were there any boxes on the ledge of this window?"
ROBERT STUDEBAKER -- "Yes."
BALL -- "Did you take some pictures showing those boxes?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Yes."
BALL -- "Was that before any of them were moved?"
STUDEBAKER -- "That picture right there is the one that shows them,
and the other pictures show them before they were moved."
BALL -- "You mean Exhibit A and B?"
STUDEBAKER -- "A and B." {Studebaker Exhibits A and B linked
below....}
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studea.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studeb.jpg
BALL -- "Do you have a picture that shows the boxes themselves, just
shot of those boxes in the window?"
STUDEBAKER -- "This one, Exhibit A, shows that--this is the exact--now
this print here isn't too good, but you can see the indentation in
this box right here. This is before it was ever moved. ... If I had
known what you wanted, I would have brought you a better print--picked
out a better print."
BALL -- "Now, you say on Exhibit A it shows a box in the window?"
STUDEBAKER -- "These boxes [indicating], yes, sir."
BALL -- "Is that the way they were piled up?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, just exactly like that."
~~~~~~~
The boxes were moved, of course, at some point after being initially
photographed....and they were then photographed again, for some
reason, by Studebaker, after the boxes had been moved.
The additional photo of the SN boxes after those cartons had obviously
been moved will (naturally) lead the conspiracy freaks to reach the
unprovable conclusion that the DPD was up to no good on November 22nd
by moving a box from the windowsill to the top of another box.
However, Robert Studebaker unambiguously explained in his WC testimony
that CE509 (which is the very same picture that appears in Studebaker
Exhibit D) depicts a photograph of the SN boxes AFTER those boxes had
been moved and dusted for fingerprints. .....
CE509:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce509.jpg
BALL -- "Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as
Exhibit D. Was that taken by you?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Yes."
BALL -- "Does that show the position of the boxes before or after they
were {moved}?"
STUDEBAKER -- "That's after they were dusted; there's fingerprint dust
on every box."
BALL -- "And they were not in that position then when you first saw
them?"
STUDEBAKER -- "No."
~~~~~~~
As an aside -- There's also this testimony (below) given by Mr.
Studebaker (regarding the empty paper bag that was found in the
southeast corner of the TSBD's sixth floor, which was never
photographed prior to being picked up by Studebaker....which is
something that invariably causes CTers to scream "It Was Fake!").
But is it truly reasonable to believe that Robert Studebaker is lying
through his teeth here? If anyone thinks that is a reasonable thing to
believe...please tell us why it's reasonable?.....
BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, sir."
BALL -- "Where?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there...in the southeast corner of the
building, folded."
BALL -- "Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top
two were Rolling Readers?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Directly east. ... I drew a diagram in there for the
FBI...he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found."
BALL -- "Where you have the dotted lines?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Yes."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255a.htm
BALL -- "Now, there is something that looks like steam pipes or water
pipes in the corner there?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Yes."
BALL -- "Where was that with reference to those pipes--the paper
wrapping?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Laying right beside it."
BALL -- "Was it folded over?"
STUDEBAKER -- "It was doubled; it was a piece of paper about this long
and it was doubled over."
BALL -- "How long was it, approximately?"
STUDEBAKER -- "I don't know. I picked it up and dusted it, and they
took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I
have seen of it, and I don't know."*
[* = Later in this same WC session, Studebaker did provide a size
estimate for the paper bag.]
BALL -- "Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?"
STUDEBAKER -- "No."
BALL -- "Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?"
STUDEBAKER -- "No, it doesn't show in any of the pictures."
BALL -- "Was it near the window?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, sir."
BALL -- "Which way from the window?"
STUDEBAKER -- "It was east of the window."
BALL -- "Over in the corner?"
STUDEBAKER -- "Over in the corner -- in the southeast corner of the
building; in the far southeast corner; as far as you can get is where
it was."
[Later testimony....]
BALL -- "Now, how big was this paper that you saw? You saw the
wrapper; tell me about how big that paper bag was; how long was it?"
STUDEBAKER -- "It was about, I would say, 3-and-a-half to 4 feet
long."
[The bag was 38 inches long, which makes Studebaker's estimate a
fairly good one, IMO. Oswald's rifle, found on the 6th Floor at 1:22
PM on 11/22/63, measured 34.8 inches when it was disassembled.]
~~~~~~~
So, when all the dust has settled after examining the official WC
documents and the officers' WC testimony, who should I now trust?
Should I believe the officials of the DPD and the Dallas Sheriff's
Office who said that the box was IN THE WINDOW when the DPD got to the
6th Floor on November 22nd?
Or should I believe the persistent rantings of rabid conspiracists who
desperately WANT some kind of conspiracy to exist in the JFK murder
case, despite the total lack of direct support to prop up such
unprovable rantings?
Not a real tough call to make, now is it?
David Von Pein
February 2007
Walt
> SOME CONSPIRACY THEORISTS SEEM TO THINK THAT THE DALLAS POLICE (AS
> PART OF SOME NEFARIOUS "PLOT" TO FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD) MOVED THE
> BOXES IN THE SIXTH-FLOOR SNIPER'S NEST PRIOR TO THE BOXES BEING
> PHOTOGRAPHED.....
>
> AND MANY CTers ALSO THINK THAT THE PAPER BAG FOUND IN THE NEST WAS
> "MANUFACTURED" OR "FAKED" BY THE COPS IN SOME MANNER, TOO.....
>
> BUT DOES ANY OF THE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE BEAR OUT SUCH VILE
> CONSPIRATORIAL ALLEGATIONS AIMED AT THE D.P.D.?.....
>
> SIMPLY PUT -- NO, IT DOES NOT.
>
>
> By the way, CE511 depicts the exact same thing that is also shown in
> "Studebaker Exhibit B", and is also the same as CE715 (with 715
> lacking the circles around the two bullet shells that are visible in
> the photo shown in 511; the reason that all three shells aren't seen
> is due to the angle of the picture; the third shell is out of sight in
> that photograph)....
>
>
> There's also this testimony from Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Luke
> Mooney.....
>
> MOONEY -- "So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
> until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers."
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> Footnote -- Why on Earth Joe Ball didn't utilize either CE1301 or
> Studebaker Exhibit J (the latter being a "re-creation" done by
> Studebaker himself of the original box configuration in the SN window)
> when questioning Luke Mooney is a mystery to me. .....
>
>
> Studebaker Exhibit J:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
All the lyin in the world does not change the FACTS.... The photos
speak the truth. However it takes an ability to believe ones own
eyes, and reason, before the truth can be plainly seen. If you
place more trust in the words of some other person than you do of your
own eyes.... You need pschiatric help.
Walt
eca...@tx.rr.com
This may rank as your
worst post ever.. And
that's ReeEALLY saying
something..My question
to you is how do you
find your way home?
Walt the Z film, the
autopsy photos, the
x-rays are photographic
evidence. Have you
objectively reviewed
them? Photos are proof
unless they are ( gULp::)
*altered* son..
You are lost Walt..
I can only hope you have
not reproduced.
MR :~? ED
aeffects
> Spermtank Walt:
Spermtank? boyo -- you sure reference sex *stuff* alot there Eddie,
what's with that, Champ?
This is afterall a JFK conspiracy related USNET board. Should we
assume you and your cohorts are what might be called 'oversexed Lone
Neuter's' with too much time IN your hands?
> This may rank as your
> worst post ever.. And
> that's ReeEALLY saying
> something..My question
> to you is how do you
> find your way home?
>
> Walt the Z film, the
> autopsy photos, the
> x-rays are photographic
> evidence. Have you
> objectively reviewed
> them? Photos are proof
> unless they are ( gULp::)
> *altered* son..
>
> You are lost Walt..
> I can only hope you have
> not reproduced
> ...
>
> read more »
Walt
> PART OF SOME NEFARIOUS "PLOT" TO FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD) MOVED THE
> BOXES IN THE SIXTH-FLOOR SNIPER'S NEST PRIOR TO THE BOXES BEING
> PHOTOGRAPHED.....
>
> AND MANY CTers ALSO THINK THAT THE PAPER BAG FOUND IN THE NEST WAS
> "MANUFACTURED" OR "FAKED" BY THE COPS IN SOME MANNER, TOO.....
>
> BUT DOES ANY OF THE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE BEAR OUT SUCH VILE
> CONSPIRATORIAL ALLEGATIONS AIMED AT THE D.P.D.?.....
>
> SIMPLY PUT -- NO, IT DOES NOT.
If it's so simple and obvious....... Why have you spent so much time
and band with in an effort to discredit the facts?
The faking of the evidence against Oswald can be one of the things
hardest to show unless a person actually LOOKS at the photos and does
a little research. Once a person learns to read the shadows being
cast by the sun it becomes much easier to pick the fake photos from
the real photos of the sixth floor. ( There aren't many real photos in
the records)
Learning to read the suns shadows can be a very enlightening
exercise. By being able to read the shadows to determine when a
photo was taken it's possible to unravel some of the key lies of the
Warren Commission.
The KEY lie was.... Lee Oswald fired a rifle from the SE corner
window of the sixth floor of the TSBD and killed President Kennedy.
When a person can read the shadows cast on the face of the TSBD it's
possible to refute that lie.
There were TWO very similar photos taken of the face of the TSBD at
about 12:30 pm that day. One was taken by Tom Dillard and the other
was taken by a U.S. intelligence agent named James Powell. Powell
Took his photo before the motorcade arrived in Dealey, at about the
time that most spectators were focused on a man who was having a
seizure by the reflecting pool on Houston street. Powell's assignment
was to get a photo that would look like he had caught Oswald in the
act of shooting JFK. Someone poked a rifle from that SE corner window
BEFORE the motorcade arrived and James Powell snapped his shutter just
as he's been instructed. When the man hastily jerked the rifle back
inside the window ( so spectators wouldn't see it and remember that
this event occurred BEFORE the President arrived. ) he bumped the
top box of a stack of three rolling readers and moved it from the
position it was in when Powell had snapped the shutter just seconds
before.
A few minutes later DURING DURING the shooting Tom Dillard snapped
his camera's shutter on a nearly identical scene except there was no
rifle there and the box was now in a different position. Not only was
there no rifle there in that window there wasn't ANYBODY in that
window. The window was VACANT DURING the shooting. And that blows
the KEY lie of the Warren Commission out of the water. Dillard's
camera recorded the truth, and it created major problems for Hoover's
henchmen. They had planned to show James Powell's photo to the whole
wide world as proof that Oswald had fired from the SE corner window
and killed JFK, but Tom Dillard inadvertantly ruined that plot. The
FBI had Powell's photo ready for the public but when Dillards was
immediately published they were screwed. They knew they couldn't
publish Powell's "incriminating" photo because some sharp eyed
investigator would compare the Dillard photo with the Powell photo and
start asking embarassing questions...and the fat would have been in
the fire. So the FBI hid the Powell photo and kept it secret from the
public for ten years until a CT forced them to give it up. But by
that time they had invented a bizzarre story that Dillard had snapped
his photo about 30 seconds after the shooting and Powell had snapped
his about 30 seconds after Dillard. When CT's started asking for an
explanation about the box being positioned differently in the photos
they said well someone "(LHO)" moved the boxes around after Dillard
snapped the shutter. But Dillard's photo shows the so called
"sniper's nest" is vacant at the time of the shooting. The FACT that
the FBI concealed and with held evidence about a KEY aspect of the
case speaks volumnes about who was behind the most horrendous crime in
American History.
Walt
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> By the way, CE511 depicts the exact same thing that is also shown in
> "Studebaker Exhibit B", and is also the same as CE715 (with 715
> lacking the circles around the two bullet shells that are visible in
> the photo shown in 511; the reason that all three shells aren't seen
> is due to the angle of the picture; the third shell is out of sight in
> that photograph)....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> There's also this testimony from Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Luke
> Mooney.....
>
> MOONEY -- "So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
> until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers."
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> Footnote -- Why on Earth Joe Ball didn't utilize either CE1301 or
> Studebaker Exhibit J (the latter being a "re-creation" done by
> Studebaker himself of the original box configuration in the SN window)
> when questioning Luke Mooney is a mystery to me. .....
>
> CE1301:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...
>
> Studebaker Exhibit J:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>
> But is it truly reasonable to ...
>
> read more »
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Feb 21, 10:15 am, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>> Spermtank Walt:
>
>Spermtank? boyo -- you sure reference sex *stuff* alot there Eddie,
>what's with that, Champ?
>This is afterall a JFK conspiracy related USNET board. Should we
>assume you and your cohorts are what might be called 'oversexed Lone
>Neuter's' with too much time IN your hands?
Perhaps I wasn't too far off referencing Eddie as a child molester.... no?
>> This may rank as your
>> worst post ever.. And
>> that's ReeEALLY saying
>> something..My question
>> to you is how do you
>> find your way home?
>>
>> Walt the Z film, the
>> autopsy photos, the
>> x-rays are photographic
>> evidence.
So are Hollywood movies... do you *still* believe that E.T. is phoning home?
>> Have you
>> objectively reviewed
>> them?
Far more than LNT'ers, it would appear.
>> Photos are proof
"Proof" of what? That they exist?
>> unless they are ( gULp::)
>> *altered* son..
Strangely enough, Eddie *refuses* to respond to the evidence that much of the
photography & X-rays *WERE* altered in this case. Seems to be a rather gutless
coward that can keep saying the same thing - despite his inability to support
it.
As a rather simple example, simply take a look at the famous Altgen's photo
showing Chaney looking directly at JFK. Then try to find that particular scene
in the Z-film... (or others)
Seeing is believing... look at the photos.
Herbert Blenner provided another bit of persuasive evidence just today... see
his posts.
>> You are lost Walt..
>> I can only hope you have
>> not reproduced
>> MR :~? ED
>>
>> On Feb 21, 9:27 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On 21 Feb, 09:02, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
[Meaningless and unsupported material snipped...]
eca...@tx.rr.com
"The faking of the evidence against Oswald can be one of the things
hardest to show unless a person actually LOOKS at the photos and does
a little research. Once a person learns to read the shadows being
cast by the sun it becomes much easier to pick the fake photos from
the real photos of the sixth floor. ( There aren't many real photos in
the records)"
Walt to the best of my knowledge
I know of not a single one of the
"fake photos" you refer to. But
please post them if you have them.
Simple verbal reference to "fake
photos" won't cut it Walt. Also
FYI I could have qualified as an
expert of sorts in the older
method(s) of altering photos..
That's no longer true because
that niche has since become far
more sophisticated and advanced.
However in the era we are talking
about it is true.
I owned the 3rd largest
commercial art company in Dallas
out of an est. 1400 at the time.
(The Art Board in Dallas) We did
88,000 jobs in 23 years. Much of
it was camera work and airbrushing
etc. I have retouched photos
myself.
Walt there may be "faked photos"
as you call them, but I am not
familiar with them. I can explain
different advanced methods and
problems in retouching photos in
that era. And I can tell you that
you're 100% correct about the
complexity of photo shadows. It's
every but as problematic as you
indicate and more.. But I just
haven't seen any. Post 'em if you
got 'em and I'll illustrate my
expertise in that era free of
charge..
Respectfully,
Ed Cage 1713Feb2107
> > DPD (which is testimony that indicates the "tilted" box on the window- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Walt
> ---WALT ON---
> "The faking of the evidence against Oswald can be one of the things
> hardest to show unless a person actually LOOKS at the photos and does
> a little research. Once a person learns to read the shadows being
> cast by the sun it becomes much easier to pick the fake photos from
> the real photos of the sixth floor. ( There aren't many real photos in
> the records)"
> ---WALT OFF---
>
> Walt to the best of my knowledge
> I know of not a single one of the
> "fake photos" you refer to. But
> please post them if you have them.
> Simple verbal reference to "fake
> photos" won't cut it Walt. Also
> FYI I could have qualified as an
> expert of sorts in the older
> method(s) of altering photos..
Dear Dumbass..... I didn't say anything about "ALTERED" photos I said
the DPD created FAKE photos.
When the original photo didn't support their lie they reconstructed
the scene and created another photo that would support their lie.
Example:... The original Studebaker exposure # 19 showed TWO spent
cases on the floor beneath the window of the SE corner window of the
sixth floor. ( The plotters never intended for Oswald to be the
only shooter, they intended for the killing to appear to be the work
of a band of Castro's communists) So they only planted TWO shells in
the Smoker's Nook. When the plot was changed at the last minute
because one of the "communists" they planned to frame never showed up
for the party they were forced to make it look like Oswald had fired
all of the shots. They had at least five shots to account for because
JFK had been hit twice, John Connally had been hit twice, James Teague
had been hit, a bullet had struck the rear view mirror of the limo and
a bullet had struck the curb of Elm street. They knew there was no
way they could account for all of those bullets with just two shells.
So they reconstructed the scene where Studebaker had snapped exposure#
19 and placed three spent shells on the floor and took the photo that
they gave to the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission gave it the
number CE 715.
Walt
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
"The original Studebaker exposure #19 showed TWO spent cases on the
floor..."
"The plotters never intended for Oswald to be the only shooter..."
"They intended for the killing to appear to be the work of a band of
Castro's communists..."
"They only planted TWO shells in the Smoker's Nook..."
"The plot was changed at the last minute..."
"One of the "communists" they planned to frame never showed up..."
"They were forced to make it look like Oswald had fired all of the
shots..."
"They had at least five shots to account for..."
"John Connally had been hit twice..."
"They reconstructed the scene..."
"And placed three spent shells on the floor..."
"And took the photo that they gave to the Warren Commission."
[/KOOKSHIT QUOTES OFF]
All a person can do when reading the above batch of wholly-made-up
kookshit is......
http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/ohbfrank.gif
And:
http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/screwy.gif
(An "LOL" smiley wouldn't hurt either.)
Walt
> WALT SAID:
>
> "The original Studebaker exposure #19 showed TWO spent cases on the
> floor..."
>
> "The plotters never intended for Oswald to be the only shooter..."
>
> "They intended for the killing to appear to be the work of a band of
> Castro's communists..."
>
> "They only planted TWO shells in the Smoker's Nook..."
>
> "The plot was changed at the last minute..."
>
> "One of the "communists" they planned to frame never showed up..."
>
> "They were forced to make it look like Oswald had fired all of the
> shots..."
>
> "They had at least five shots to account for..."
>
> "John Connally had been hit twice..."
>
> "They reconstructed the scene..."
>
> "And placed three spent shells on the floor..."
>
> "And took the photo that they gave to the Warren Commission."
>
> [/KOOKSHIT QUOTES OFF]
>
> All a person can do when reading the above batch of wholly-made-up