THE BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS
David Von Pein
Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio was interviewed by Jim Fetzer on
December 16, 2009 (the program is linked above). During the last few
minutes of the interview, the subject of the backyard photos came up,
with both DiEugenio and Fetzer (predictably) claiming that the
pictures are frauds, and claiming that the recent study done by a
Dartmouth professor is all wet.
It just makes me wonder HOW MUCH PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY it takes for
these conspiracy clowns to finally admit that the backyard pictures of
Lee Harvey Oswald are genuine, unaltered photographs?
Firstly, of course, there was the investigation of this matter done
way back in 1964 by the Warren Commission (see the Warren Report,
beginning at page 592, linked below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0308b.htm
During his work for the Warren Commission, photographic expert Lyndal
Shaneyfelt of the FBI concluded beyond all doubt that the negative to
the backyard photo known as CE133-B (which is a negative that was
recovered from Ruth Paine's garage along with two of the backyard
photos themselves, CE133-A and CE133-B) was positively a negative that
came from Lee Oswald's very own Imperial-Reflex camera to the
exclusion of all other cameras ever made.
Therefore, CE133-B is NOT A FAKED, FORGED, FRAUDULENT, or COMPOSITE
photograph. Period.
And if CE133-B is not a fake or a composite photo (and it certainly
isn't), then NONE of the other backyard photos depicting Lee Oswald
with a rifle and a revolver and two newspapers are fakes either.
Or do some conspiracists actually want to believe that only SOME of
the existing backyard pictures are forgeries, while one of them is the
real deal and genuine? Such a strange belief, of course, is just
downright silly.
In addition to Shaneyfelt's determination regarding the negative to
CE133-B having positively been taken with Oswald's very own camera,
there is, of course, the testimony of the person who admitted to
having taken the backyard photos--Marina Oswald.
Marina has said on multiple occasions that she positively remembers
taking pictures of her husband, Lee, while Lee was dressed all in
black and was holding a rifle and some newspapers. As recently as
November 30, 2000, Marina told a researcher (Vincent Bugliosi) that
she had, indeed, taken the backyard photos herself.
Plus, there is the re-creation of the backyard photos that was done by
CBS-TV in 1967 for the June '67 CBS four-part special "A CBS NEWS
INQUIRY: THE WARREN REPORT".
During the photo re-creation, a man went to the location where Marina
Oswald took the backyard pictures (214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas)
to see if an exact replica of the original photos could be achieved.
On March 31, 1967, at approximately noontime (luckily it was a sunny
day on 3/31/67, as it was on the day when Marina took the pictures of
LHO, which was 3/31/63), a man was photographed in the Neely Street
backyard.
The end result of the photo re-enactment was that the shadows that
appear in the 1967 photo were EXACTLY THE SAME as they appear in the
1963 Oswald backyard photographs, right down to the ANGLED body shadow
and the STRAIGHT nose shadow.
The 3/31/67 photo reconstruction, which was an actual AT THE NEELY
STREET SITE test (not just a test done on paper or on a computer),
verifies beyond all possible doubt that the shadow patterns exhibited
in the 1963 Oswald backyard photos are perfectly consistent with
shadows that exist in a photo that was taken in 1967 for comparison
purposes.
Do conspiracy theorists now want to believe that the 1967 CBS photo
(which contains the exact same shadow pattern as the LHO photos) is a
fake and a fraud too? If not, then how can conspiracists continue to
cry "foul" when it comes to one of their favorite gripes--the so-
called "shadow problems" with the LHO backyard photos?
Mr. DiEugenio and Prof. Fetzer should watch the video linked below. It
forever debunks the conspiracists who continue to insist that the
backyard pictures are phonies based on any kind of "shadow" anomalies
or discrepancies.
I apologize for the poor quality of this 1967 video excerpt, but my
only source material for this CBS program is not very good. But even
though the picture quality of this clip is fuzzy, the conclusions
about the backyard photos that are revealed in this video segment are
quite clear and persuasive:
http://www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos.html
IN SUMMARY:
In light of all the rock-solid evidence (such as the evidence
mentioned above) that indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the
"backyard photographs" of Lee Harvey Oswald have not been tampered
with, conspiracy promoters who continue to want to peddle the theory
that the photos are fakes are merely living in a dream world....a
world where their conspiracy-filled fantasies have somehow been able
to trump the known facts.
David Von Pein
December 22, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com/2009/10/jfk-assassination-lone-gunman-viewpoint.html
Walt
> http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-jim%20die...
I would agree...If people can't see that CE 133B is a fake then they
are blind..... A person doesn't have to be a photo expert to see that
the shadow of the rifle points to nine o'clock ( relative to Oswald's
body shadow) while the rifle is actually being held with the rifle
pointing to 11:00 o'clock.
There other item that indicates CE 133B is a fake is the tip of the
rifle butt that was left on the white picket fence. There is a black
triangle on the fence to the rear of Oswald. This triangle is a
remnant from a pose of an Oswald image in front of the fence with the
rifle. When the manipulator moved the Oswald image he obviously
forgot to white out that tip of the rifle butt and when he staged CE
133B the black triangle remained on the fence.
> http://www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos....
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/045b.+BACKYARD+PHOTO+O...
>
> IN SUMMARY:
>
> In light of all the rock-solid evidence (such as the evidence
> mentioned above) that indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the
> "backyard photographs" of Lee Harvey Oswald have not been tampered
> with, conspiracy promoters who continue to want to peddle the theory
> that the photos are fakes are merely living in a dream world....a
> world where their conspiracy-filled fantasies have somehow been able
> to trump the known facts.
>
> David Von Pein
> December 22, 2009
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
>
> http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com/2009/10/jfk-assassination-lone-g...
David Von Pein
>>> "If people can't see that CE 133B is a fake then they are blind. A person doesn't have to be a photo expert to see that the shadow of the rifle points to nine o'clock (relative to Oswald's body shadow) while the rifle is actually being held with the rifle pointing to 11:00. The other item that indicates CE 133B is a fake is the tip of the rifle butt that was left on the white picket fence. There is a black triangle on the fence to the rear of Oswald. This triangle is a remnant from a pose of an Oswald image in front of the fence with the rifle. When the manipulator moved the Oswald image, he obviously forgot to white out that tip of the rifle butt and when he staged CE 133B, the black triangle remained on the fence." <<<
Everything Walt just said above is total bunk (of course), as
illustrated by the verbiage we find on page #596 of the Warren
Commission Report:
"The negative [to CE133-B], Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed
absolutely no doctoring or composition. Since the negative was made in
Oswald's Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, a composite of
133-B could have been made only by putting two pictures together and
rephotographing them in the Imperial camera--all without leaving a
discernible trace. This, to [Lyndal] Shaneyfelt, was “in the realm of
the impossible”." -- WCR; Page 596
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0310b.htm
http://www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos.html
Spence
Not to mention the HSCA report.
David Von Pein
>>> "Not to mention the HSCA report." <<<
Absolutely.
Spence
> >>> "Not to mention the HSCA report." <<<
>
> Absolutely.
Have there been ***any credible*** photographic experts that have
claimed that the photos are faked?
Walt
PHOTOS????...... Why don't you learn to read.... CE 133B is ONE photo,
robcap...@netscape.com
> http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-jim%20die...
>
> Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio was interviewed by Jim Fetzer on
> December 16, 2009 (the program is linked above). During the last few
> minutes of the interview, the subject of the backyard photos came up,
> with both DiEugenio and Fetzer (predictably) claiming that the
> pictures are frauds, and claiming that the recent study done by a
> Dartmouth professor is all wet.
He is and CJ posted a good story by Fetzer and Marrs showing why he
is.
> It just makes me wonder HOW MUCH PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY it takes for
> these conspiracy clowns to finally admit that the backyard pictures of
> Lee Harvey Oswald are genuine, unaltered photographs?
LOL! He acts like "proof" has been given showing these photos are
authentic already! What was this "proof" again Dave Von Con?
> Firstly, of course, there was the investigation of this matter done
> way back in 1964 by the Warren Commission (see the Warren Report,
> beginning at page 592, linked below):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0308b.htm
An investigation that did NOT deal with any of the issues the pictures
suffer from, and I'm afraid all the LNers on here who argue they are
real, or that one is real, do not deal with them either.
> During his work for the Warren Commission, photographic expert Lyndal
> Shaneyfelt of the FBI concluded beyond all doubt that the negative to
> the backyard photo known as CE133-B (which is a negative that was
> recovered from Ruth Paine's garage along with two of the backyard
> photos themselves, CE133-A and CE133-B) was positively a negative that
> came from Lee Oswald's very own Imperial-Reflex camera to the
> exclusion of all other cameras ever made.
What happened to the negative for CE-133A??? Let's say for the sake
of arguing the photos did come from LHO's camera, what does this
prove? The reason I ask is it is common knowledge to any honest
person that the HEAD OF LHO was PASTED onto the body of someone else!
PROOF for this was given by Jack White when he did an OVERLAY of the
two DIFFERENT photos and as expected NOTHING matched up, but wait, THE
HEAD DID!
This is IMPOSSIBLE IF THE TWO PHOTOS were taken seperately as claimed!
So all you have left is the point of someone, or even LHO, taking a
couple of pictures of someone else standing with a rifle, a holstered
pistol and some Commie literature.
This is a thought I don't think ANYONE in the CT research community
has even researched (if I'm wrong please correct me), that LHO WAS
TOLD TO TAKE SOME PHOTOS OF A "COLLEAGUE" with these items for some
mission he was on, then they swapped out his head with the other
person's! That way you leave some incriminating photo negatives
(allegedly) on his OWN camera.
> Therefore, CE133-B is NOT A FAKED, FORGED, FRAUDULENT, or COMPOSITE
> photograph. Period.
Sorry but the chin issue, the bulge issue, the shadow issues, the
disproportional issues between the body and head issue, the head
matching perfectly in the overlay issue, the stubby fingers issues,
the body proportions NOT matching the rifle proportions issue, the
black clothes that could never be shown to belong to LHO issue, and
many more show these photos were faked by superimposing LHO's head on
to someonelse's body just as LHO said 46 years ago!
> And if CE133-B is not a fake or a composite photo (and it certainly
> isn't), then NONE of the other backyard photos depicting Lee Oswald
> with a rifle and a revolver and two newspapers are fakes either.
Of course they are as LNers like Wally argue 133C came from the
NEGATIVE OF CE-133A yet as YOU just said this negavtive was NEVER
DISCOVERED! So how do you prove this claim? Furthermore, 133C was
UNCROPPED so it had to be the master and NOT the copy, yet it was NOT
"found" UNTIL 1967!
Please explain this for us Dave Von Con!
> Or do some conspiracists actually want to believe that only SOME of
> the existing backyard pictures are forgeries, while one of them is the
> real deal and genuine? Such a strange belief, of course, is just
> downright silly.
They are all fake, and you are right when you say it is "silly" to
claim one of them are real, but we have TWO guys claiming to be CTers
who MAKE THIS EXACT CLAIM!
Given the vast issues facing these photos I agree with you on the
point that they are ALL either fake or real. I of course believe they
are ALL fake given the issues.
> In addition to Shaneyfelt's determination regarding the negative to
> CE133-B having positively been taken with Oswald's very own camera,
> there is, of course, the testimony of the person who admitted to
> having taken the backyard photos--Marina Oswald.
She said she took one, then two, so which is it? Who can CORROBORATE
her story? What evidence can CORROBORATE her story? Do you have a
receipt from the place they developed these photos? Any witness that
can say he saw LHO "develop" them at Jaggers while he worked there?
Any neighbor who said they saw LHO posing for these photos in his
"Darth Vadar" getup? Any evidence at all?
> Marina has said on multiple occasions that she positively remembers
> taking pictures of her husband, Lee, while Lee was dressed all in
> black and was holding a rifle and some newspapers. As recently as
> November 30, 2000, Marina told a researcher (Vincent Bugliosi) that
> she had, indeed, taken the backyard photos herself.
She continues to lie, what else is your point? She has NO
CORROBORATING evidence or witnesses for her claim, and we know from
the get-go she did things for money! I guess Bugman paid her enough
to say this!
> Plus, there is the re-creation of the backyard photos that was done by
> CBS-TV in 1967 for the June '67 CBS four-part special "A CBS NEWS
> INQUIRY: THE WARREN REPORT".
>
> During the photo re-creation, a man went to the location where Marina
> Oswald took the backyard pictures (214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas)
> to see if an exact replica of the original photos could be achieved.
So they could make things go INTO FULL BLOOM on March 31st! Are you
saying our government can NOW control the weather too? Of course some
claim they can, but I doubt they did in this case if they can.
> On March 31, 1967, at approximately noontime (luckily it was a sunny
> day on 3/31/67, as it was on the day when Marina took the pictures of
> LHO, which was 3/31/63), a man was photographed in the Neely Street
> backyard.
Why is it "lucky" that is was a sunny day? The ACTUAL WEATHER ON
MARCH 31, 1963 was OVERCAST if one looks it up! Why is it SUNNY in
the BY photos? So on 3/31/63 we had an OVERCAST day yet in the photos
it is SUNNY and everything is in FULL BLOOM already! NOW that is some
"magic" photography, huh?
> The end result of the photo re-enactment was that the shadows that
> appear in the 1967 photo were EXACTLY THE SAME as they appear in the
> 1963 Oswald backyard photographs, right down to the ANGLED body shadow
> and the STRAIGHT nose shadow.
So the photos were FAKED in the re-enactment too???? That is the ONLY
way to get shadows SHOWING DIFFERENT times in ONE photo!
> The 3/31/67 photo reconstruction, which was an actual AT THE NEELY
> STREET SITE test (not just a test done on paper or on a computer),
> verifies beyond all possible doubt that the shadow patterns exhibited
> in the 1963 Oswald backyard photos are perfectly consistent with
> shadows that exist in a photo that was taken in 1967 for comparison
> purposes.
Sure they did, ONLY a moronic, lying WC shill like you would believe
it is POSSIBLE to have shadows showing different times IN ONE PHOTO!
There is a whole field of study on shadows for time telling so UNLESS
you can produce some expert from that field who tells us it is NORMAL
to see TWO DIFFERENT TIMES (based on shadows) in one photo you are out
of luck.
How did our ancestors use "SUN DIALS" IF you can get TWO DIFFERENT
times in a span of a second or less?
> Do conspiracy theorists now want to believe that the 1967 CBS photo
> (which contains the exact same shadow pattern as the LHO photos) is a
> fake and a fraud too?
Yes, because the original were fakes for VERY SOUND REASONS, so
anything that claims to match the results are faked too!
> If not, then how can conspiracists continue to
> cry "foul" when it comes to one of their favorite gripes--the so-
> called "shadow problems" with the LHO backyard photos?
ONLY an imbecile of the highest grade would believe this junk you are
spewing.
IT destroys the centuries of knowledge gathered in regards to sun
dials in one stroke.
Just how dumb are you?
> Mr. DiEugenio and Prof. Fetzer should watch the video linked below. It
> forever debunks the conspiracists who continue to insist that the
> backyard pictures are phonies based on any kind of "shadow" anomalies
> or discrepancies.
There are of course about 15 or more issues but he won't even tackle
one of them, huh?
> I apologize for the poor quality of this 1967 video excerpt, but my
> only source material for this CBS program is not very good. But even
> though the picture quality of this clip is fuzzy, the conclusions
> about the backyard photos that are revealed in this video segment are
> quite clear and persuasive:
Propaganda viewed in any quality is STILL PROPAGANDA!
> http://www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos....
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/045b.+BACKYARD+PHOTO+O...
>
> IN SUMMARY:
>
> In light of all the rock-solid evidence (such as the evidence
> mentioned above) that indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the
> "backyard photographs" of Lee Harvey Oswald have not been tampered
> with, conspiracy promoters who continue to want to peddle the theory
> that the photos are fakes are merely living in a dream world....a
> world where their conspiracy-filled fantasies have somehow been able
> to trump the known facts.
You are a liar Dave, but we all know this already. The bottom line is
this--the photos are fake BASED ON MANY SOUND REASONS, but even if
they were not, they do NOT PROVE that LHO took a rifle to work on
11/22/63 and shot JFK and JBC by themselves! They have NO real
evidence to show this claim is correct, so they hang their hats on
some very unreliable photos taken NEARLY 8 MONTHS BEFORE THE CRIME
THEY ACCUSED LHO OF!
(snip the additional propaganda!)
Spence
wrote:
>
> read more »
James Fetzer, now there is an accurate source. <snicker>
Spence
>
> read more »
Hummm trust the HACK Jack White or a photographic expert like Andrew
Davidhazy? No there is a tough one...
mucher1
Also not to mention: ShutterBun's recent 3D study:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/thread/3c0ca56d1d1bedb
Spence
I'm sure Jack White or that nut Fetzer could whip up something like
this in no time!
curtjester1
> On Dec 22, 9:30 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wro
>
> James Fetzer, now there is an accurate source. <snicker>
That's one stupendous LNT'er rebuttal, eh??!! LMAO!
CJ
tomnln
"Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62550d4d-8a19-479c...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
"Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e83f81f2-8d9d-4ac8...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
"Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:07aec71d-9612-4649...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 22, 10:45 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Dec., 14:18, Spence <rob.spen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 7:58 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "If people can't see that CE 133B is a fake then they are blind. A
> > > >>> person doesn't have to be a photo expert to see that the shadow of
> > > >>> the rifle points to nine o'clock (relative to Oswald's body
> > > >>> shadow) while the rifle is actually being held with the rifle
> > > >>> pointing to 11:00. The other item that indicates CE 133B is a fake
> > > >>> is the tip of the rifle butt that was left on the white picket
> > > >>> fence. There is a black triangle on the fence to the rear of
> > > >>> Oswald. This triangle is a remnant from a pose of an Oswald image
> > > >>> in front of the fence with the rifle. When the manipulator moved
> > > >>> the Oswald image, he obviously forgot to white out that tip of the
> > > >>> rifle butt and when he staged CE 133B, the black triangle remained
> > > >>> on the fence." <<<
>
> > > Everything Walt just said above is total bunk (of course), as
> > > illustrated by the verbiage we find on page #596 of the Warren
> > > Commission Report:
>
> > > "The negative [to CE133-B], Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed
> > > absolutely no doctoring or composition. Since the negative was made in
> > > Oswald's Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, a composite of
> > > 133-B could have been made only by putting two pictures together and
> > > rephotographing them in the Imperial camera--all without leaving a
> > > discernible trace. This, to [Lyndal] Shaneyfelt, was �in the realm of
> > > the impossible�." -- WCR; Page 596
Walt
wrote:
Hey SB..... You don't heve a clue...
You said ..."Of course they are as LNers like Wally argue 133C came
from the NEGATIVE OF CE-133A "
I have NEVER made any such argument, because I don't believe what you
claim I believe.
The problem arose due to your ignorance ....You don't know how to
identify one BY photo from another. I said that CE 133A and the De
morhenschildt print were both made from the same negative....but in
your stupidity you thought that the De Morhenschildt print was 133c.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Okay, show us evidence that CE-133A and 133D came from the same
negative then!
Like a letter will change anything I guess!
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Walt
robcap...@netscape.com
Games won't save you liar. YOU claimed the DeMohrenschildt photo and
CE-133A came from the SAME NEGATIVE and all you have done is RUN from
showing this is correct.
How come WC shill?
Walt
When you get your head out of your ass....let me know so I can point
out to you that CE 133a and the De Morhenschildt print are the same
picture. The only difference is Ce 133A has been cropped...while the
De m print is full frame.
robcap...@netscape.com
Claims of things that you CANNOT SUPPORT won't save you WC shill!
Evidence that supports you is YOUR only hope, but of course we know
you can NEVER provide this stuff!
Run WC SHILL, run!
crgs...@gmail.com
Below, is a portion of Marina Oswald Porter HSCA testimony. She responds to questions regarding the camera she used for the backyard photos.
Fourteen years have passed since she took the photos, considering the importance placed on the photos, surprising she was not accurate describing the color of the camera. She certainly did not hold 'this' camera to her eye while taking the backyard photos.
DEPOSITION OF MARINA OSWALD PORTER
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1977
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
----------------------------------------------
.../...
Q. This camera, do you recall whether to take pictures with this camera, you would look down into the viewfinder or
whether you would hold the camera up to your eye and look straight ahead?
A. I just recall I think it is straight.
Q. You would put the camera up by your eye?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what color the camera was?
A. I think it was black.
Q. Do you remember anything else about it?
A. Not the name; no. But again, since I am not expert with the camera, that is what I remember, I think?
The camera was a white Rolex style box camera, you look down from the top!
Link to a photograph Of the actual camera.
http://www.copweb.be/Imperial_Camera.htm
I'm on the fence about this whole thing.
But two things I do know.
The winners Compose history.
Every empire has engaged in power struggles that result in assassination.
Why should the United States be any difference?
Has anyone done any investigation of the photograph of George Bush At the Texas school depository.
Taken later on the day of the assassination?
crgs...@gmail.com
a roll of film for that camera would be 12 or 24 pictures?
Where are the remaining negatives?
It's strange they're not available?
The consistency of the entire roll of film would go along way to proving the point that these were not Fake photographs.
1. The entire roll of negatives, would establish an incontrovertible timeline.
2. It would also be able to establish imperfections in the negatives based on that particular camera Over the entire set.
The fact that this Point has never been brought to light sheds Some further suspicion as to the Authenticity of the photographs?
boogerq...@gmail.com
Marina said she took it.
Next
curtj...@hotmail.com
Better get up to speed!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15525&st=0
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090509170209kays.nb/topstory.html
http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html
http://www.abovetops...hread411261/pg1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b292347ad14cf277/4d43ec6ad081b682
Sam McClung
news:452347ac-732d-41c6...@googlegroups.com...
duress enough to say what the conspirators wanted her to say, or, in the
case of the unsigned testimony produced for her by the Warren Commission,
acquiescence under duress to statements they made purporting to be hers but
she, like so many others, chose due to duress not to imperil her life nor
the lives of her children and possibly others she knew.
merriam-webster.com defines lie as:
<begin quote>
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
<end quote>
One may ask themself "What would I do if I saw my spouse accused of
murdering the President of the USA and then saw my spouse murdered?", the
same person then receiving threats indicating if they didn't say what they
were told to say, or to acquiesce to statements attributed to the person,
then things would happen, knowing what they were capable of after seeing the
President then the person's spouse murdered.
Then the question becomes intent and if the person did not state the truth
when questioned, or did not publicly disagree with statements attributed to
the person, what was the person's intent?
1. "to deceive" or "create a false or misleading impression"?
2. or, was the intent to stay alive or keep someone else alive or out of
harms way?
Tom Rossley has done an excellent job of communicating the threats Marina
was under and I believe he has also put that information on his website.
I recall an attorney once explaining how hard it is to prove intent and must
concur. Look how long it took the government to conclude probable intent as
to conspiracy to murder JFK, from Warren Commission in 1964 to House Select
Committee on Assassinations in 1979.
Given the emerging knowledge about Neo-Nazi involvement in the assassination
of JFK seems to underscore the evil power and hate behind the JFK
assassination. Here is just one instance:
<begin quote>
Some of the more explosive highlights of Skorzeny's revelations include:
...
5. Skorzeny's claim that Reinhard Gehlen, Josef Mengele, and George HW Bush
directly participated in JFK's assassination
<end quote>
from
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/martinbormannphotostocompare02jul07.shtml
Add in underscoring and highlighting that Hitler was alive when JFK was
assassinated by some accounts, including Skorzeny's, and Nagell indicated in
writing that the Nazis were celebrating victory presumably some time between
the end of WWII and the date of Nagell's October 8, 1967 letter to Arthur
Greenstein/Arturo Verdestein (noting verde is green in spanish).
<begin quote>
Are you aware that a Duesseldorf record company has come out with just the
thing for any German who wants to relive the heady days of Nazi victory? It
is two long-playing phonograph records called, "From the Fuehrer's
Headquarters (Aus dem Fuehrerhauptquartier)." Billed as documentary records,
they are comprised of victory announcements and special bulletins from the
Nazi high command, military music and soldier's songs, Nazi songs and
speeches. A booming voice discloses the Nazis are fighting for the German
nation and the security of Europe "against the . . . plot of the
Jewish-Anglo Saxon warmongers . . . and against the . . . Jewish rulers of
the Bolshevik central in Moscow."
<end quote>
Given Nagell's letter seems to be about the JFK assassination, it can be
concluded his quote about the Nazis celebrating victory in that letter may
apply to the JFK assassination.
Sam McClung
> Are you aware that a Duesseldorf record company has come out with just the
> thing for any German who wants to relive the heady days of Nazi victory?
> It is two long-playing phonograph records called, "From the Fuehrer's
> Headquarters (Aus dem Fuehrerhauptquartier)." Billed as documentary
> records, they are comprised of victory announcements and special bulletins
> from the Nazi high command, military music and soldier's songs, Nazi songs
> and speeches. A booming voice discloses the Nazis are fighting for the
> German nation and the security of Europe "against the . . . plot of the
> Jewish-Anglo Saxon warmongers . . . and against the . . . Jewish rulers of
> the Bolshevik central in Moscow."
> <end quote>
document copied at
at http://pdfs.jta.org/1966/1966-12-27_246.pdf
Walt
> On Monday, November 25, 2013 11:40:22 PM UTC-5, boogerq...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Oswald signed the picture.
>
> >
>
> > Marina said she took it.
>
> >
>
> > Next
>
>
>
> Marina not only lied, she was a pathologicial liar.
>
>
>
> Better get up to speed!