Question for Sam McClung
Jane Shelton
I looked at your photo comparisons of Oswald's chin in the BY photo, as
compared to another photo. There is a distinctive discrepancy in
comparison, but couldn't some photographic anomaly have occurred when the
BY photo was taken?
How do you address, make allowances for, the testimony of the 22
photographic experts who testified before the HSCA, using all sorts of
tests that Oswald's camera took the BY photos to the exclusion of all other
cameras; that the grain pattern was unique to each photo; that 56 different
marks on the MC rifle were compared to the photos of the rifle held by
Oswald in the BY shots and matched?
I'm not making a sarcastic challenge here, Sam, but don't you need to
address how the experts' conclusions were all wrong, and yours is the
correct one?
Respectfully,
Jane
Sam McClung
Howdy Jane.
I have not come to a conclusion.
Can you share with me any conclusion I've stated and where?
Thanks.
Sam
Jane Shelton
Sam McClung <sa...@flash.net> wrote in article
<37DE6FF0...@flash.net>...
Hi Sam,
If you have come to no conclusion about the BY photos, then by logical
deduction, you have a doubt.
Would you share with me the basis of your doubt, other than Oswald's chin
being too broad in the photo, or, is that it?
Personally, I still have a very slight problem with Oswald's severe lean to
the right in the one photo; however, I am willing to concede that it could
be a photographic anomaly. I would just like for someone, anyone, to
reproduce a lean like that in another photograph. If it could be done
once, surely it could be done again, and I know of no one who has made the
attempt.
Would you also tell me where your website may be found?
Thanks, Sam.
Jane
>
>
>
Sam McClung
> Hi Sam,
>
> If you have come to no conclusion about the BY photos, then by logical
> deduction, you have a doubt.
> Would you share with me the basis of your doubt, other than Oswald's chin
> being too broad in the photo, or, is that it?
I was not there when the photo was taken,
assuming it is a valid photo and not manmade.
This detains certainty.
> Personally, I still have a very slight problem with Oswald's severe lean to
> the right in the one photo; however, I am willing to concede that it could
> be a photographic anomaly. I would just like for someone, anyone, to
> reproduce a lean like that in another photograph. If it could be done
> once, surely it could be done again, and I know of no one who has made the
> attempt.
>
> Would you also tell me where your website may be found?
Sure. It's at:
Sam
> Thanks, Sam.
>
> Jane
> >
> >
> >
DAnde9348
>From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Tue, 14 September 1999 11:30 AM EDT
>Message-id: <01befec6$7fe5d120$35e8490c@pavilion>
>
>
>that 56 different
>marks on the MC rifle were compared to the photos of the rifle held by
>Oswald in the BY shots and matched?
Hello Jane.....
Please post the testimony from the Warren Commission documents that support
this statement.....
Walt
DAnde9348
>From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Tue, 14 September 1999 11:30 AM EDT
>Message-id: <01befec6$7fe5d120$35e8490c@pavilion>
>
>
> 56 different
>marks on the MC rifle were compared to the photos of the rifle held by
>Oswald in the BY shots and matched?
Hello Jane,
I was just reviewing the Warren Report to see what the warren Commission said
about any identifying marks on the rifle in Oswald's hands in the B.Y. photo. (
CE 133A)
I was pretty sure that the FBI photo expert , Lyndal Shaneyfelt, testified that
THOUGHT he was saw a faint notch on the rifle in Oswald's hands and a similar
notch on the TSBD rifle. He testified that he was unable to find any
identifying marks to verify that the rifle in Oswald's hands was the same rifle
that was found in the TSBD …..
Of course he couldn't find anything to verify that they were the same
rifle…..because they weren't. Shaneyfelt's testimony is nothing but a clever
way of saying that the vaunted FBI could find no differences between the two
rifles…… and since they couldn't find any differences they must be the same
rifle….. It's nothing but a clever way of lying about he obvious bottom sling
swivel on the rifle in Oswald's hands……
The 56 identifying marks that you mentioned is another of those latter day
"discoveries" like the finger prints on the rifle.
Walt
Lurker
Sam McClung wrote:
> This detains certainty.
DAnde9348
>From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Tue, 14 September 1999 05:59 PM EDT
>Message-id: <01befefc$d2680a40$aff7490c@pavilion>
>Hi Walt,
>
>You've caught me in a crossfire! I took it out of the LN Bible, Case
>Closed. Posner said
>56 identifying marks. Posner needs to cite his source. Where's McNally?
>He always knows
>the volume #, page, paragraph and line in the WR.
>
>Disregard the notch on the rifle for a moment. Argue for me, against the
>testimony of the
>photo experts at the HSCA that the photos were genuine. Were they all
>wrong?
>
>Regards,
>
>Jane
>
hello Jane It's been my contention for a long time that only ONE B.Y. photo is
authentic.
That is CE 133A .....It is the photo that Marina snapped and it is the same
photo that Lee gave to De Morenschildt.....
The others are fakes..... CE 133B was created to incriminate Oswald ...The
conspirators knew of the existence of the B.Y. photo that Marina had snapped
but they couldn't get a copy of it so they created their own...they created
133C at the same time but it was hidden immediately when Oswald spotted the
fakery and laughed in their face at the fake photo.
Walt
>
>
Jane Shelton
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990914191740...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
> >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
> >Date: Tue, 14 September 1999 05:59 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <01befefc$d2680a40$aff7490c@pavilion>
>
> >Hi Walt,
> >
> >You've caught me in a crossfire! I took it out of the LN Bible, Case
> >Closed. Posner said
> >56 identifying marks. Posner needs to cite his source. Where's
McNally?
> >He always knows
> >the volume #, page, paragraph and line in the WR.
> >
> >Disregard the notch on the rifle for a moment. Argue for me, against
the
> >testimony of the
> >photo experts at the HSCA that the photos were genuine. Were they all
> >wrong?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Jane
> >
> hello Jane It's been my contention for a long time that only ONE B.Y.
photo is
> authentic.
> That is CE 133A .....It is the photo that Marina snapped and it is the
same
> photo that Lee gave to De Morenschildt.....
Walt, educate me. How many photos did Marina say she took?
>
> The others are fakes..... CE 133B was created to incriminate Oswald
..The
> conspirators knew of the existence of the B.Y. photo that Marina had
snapped
> but they couldn't get a copy of it so they created their own...they
created
> 133C at the same time but it was hidden immediately when Oswald spotted
the
> fakery and laughed in their face at the fake photo.
Did not the experts testify about all three photos at the HSCA? Are you
assuming
that Roscoe White kept the photo hidden because of Oswald's statements? May
I have
some evidence that the photo was deliberately secreted away? I showed you
mine, (Posner)
now you show me yours. That would make the DPD complicit in a cover-up.
Are you
saying that? Oswald was a sneak and a pathological liar. How can you give
any credence
to anything Oswald ever said? IOW, Walt, on what *factual* evidence are
your contentions
regarding the BY photos based? "They", who? If you believe there were
conspirators, who
were they? And still one final unanswered question: Do you believe all
those photo experts
were wrong?
>
>
> Walt
> >
Regards,
Jane
>
>
>
Jane Shelton
Sam McClung <sa...@flash.net> wrote in article
> Jane Shelton wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > If you have come to no conclusion about the BY photos, then by logical
> > deduction, you have a doubt.
> > Would you share with me the basis of your doubt, other than Oswald's
chin
> > being too broad in the photo, or, is that it?
>
> I was not there when the photo was taken,
> assuming it is a valid photo and not manmade.
> This detains certainty.
Sam, Sam,
Please don't take offense, but are you telling me the only reason "this
detains certainty"
is because you weren't there to see the photos taken? Is that the basis
for your doubt?
Sam, if a tree is hewn in the forest, are you going to assume it wasn't
done with an axe
because you weren't there to see it?
Nobody wants to challenge the testimony of the experts. I wonder why?
Regards,
Jane
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <01beff0f$a5435c00$53e6490c@pavilion>
>Walt, educate me. How many photos did Marina say she took?
Well actually she originally said that she took only one..... But then the
Warren Commission attornet showed her the fake photo CE 133B and pointed out
that it was different than CE 133A, It looked enough like the photo she had
taken that she in her in her confusion said " yes, I see that this is a
different photo but I don't remember taking it. I thought I had only snapped
one picture but I must have snapped two"
So she said she took two but she was tricked into saying that she took CE 133B
133C which was taken at the same time as CE 133B turned up years later in the
hands of the widow of a Dallas Cop ( Roscoe White) That same photo 133C was
also found in the files of the Dallas Police Department and it was the photo
they used in creating the B.Y. photo that has a silhouette of "Oswald" but no
person. ( proof that the DPD had this photo but with held it from the Warren
Commission) 133C also up in the briefcase of a retired Photo expert of the DPD
(Livingston)
>Did not the experts testify about all three photos at the HSCA?
Jane the HSCA was nothing more than a continuation of the cover up.... please
keep that in mind......
Are you assuming
>that Roscoe White kept the photo hidden because of Oswald's statements?
I don't know what White's motives were...All I know is he told his wife to hang
onto the photo because it would be worth a lot of money someday......
May I have
>some evidence that the photo was deliberately secreted away? I showed you
>mine, (Posner) now you show me yours. That would make the DPD complicit in a
cover-up.
>Are you saying that?
Absolutely I'm saying that.....
Oswald was a sneak and a pathological liar.
I Totally disagree.... Oswald was naive kid playing James Bond.... he got
burned... by real professional liars .... The DPD and the FBI.......
How can you give
>any credence
>to anything Oswald ever said? IOW, Walt, on what *factual* evidence are
>your contentions
>regarding the BY photos based? "They", who? If you believe there were
>conspirators, who
>were they? And still one final unanswered question: Do you believe all
>those photo experts
>were wrong?
>>
>>
>> Walt
Jane, the BIGGEST hurdle for me was the realization that the all powerful FBI
(Hoover)
was the " Conspirators" .... once I got over that hurdle I wasno longer nagged
by the sort of questions that obviously nag you...
I think I've answered all your questions in my post but if I missed one let me
know.....
Walt
Sam McClung
> Sam McClung <sa...@flash.net> wrote in article
> <37DE8D00...@flash.net>...
> > Jane Shelton wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sam,
> > >
> > > If you have come to no conclusion about the BY photos, then by logical
> > > deduction, you have a doubt.
> > > Would you share with me the basis of your doubt, other than Oswald's
> chin
> > > being too broad in the photo, or, is that it?
> >
> > I was not there when the photo was taken,
> > assuming it is a valid photo and not manmade.
> > This detains certainty.
>
> Sam, Sam,
>
> Please don't take offense, but are you telling me the only reason "this
> detains certainty"
> is because you weren't there to see the photos taken? Is that the basis
> for your doubt?
> Sam, if a tree is hewn in the forest, are you going to assume it wasn't
> done with an axe
> because you weren't there to see it?
Hello Jane.
I used to walk down the mountain in the forest in absolute darkness
when I got off work sometimes, my trusty M-16 in hand in temperatures
60 degress below.
Sight is not required to navigate the forest.
Chatter is not engaged in.
Sam
AnthonyMarsh
>
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Question for Sam McClung
> >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
> >Date: Tue, 14 September 1999 11:30 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <01befec6$7fe5d120$35e8490c@pavilion>
> >
> >
>
> >marks on the MC rifle were compared to the photos of the rifle held by
> >Oswald in the BY shots and matched?
>
>
> Please post the testimony from the Warren Commission documents that support
> this statement.....
>
> Walt
It is not 56 marks and she is thinking about the HSCA study. If you
don't have the HSCA study, then you need to start doing your homework.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
AnthonyMarsh
> > ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Question for Sam McClung
> > >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
> > >Date: Tue, 14 September 1999 11:30 AM EDT
> > >Message-id: <01befec6$7fe5d120$35e8490c@pavilion>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >marks on the MC rifle were compared to the photos of the rifle held by
> > >Oswald in the BY shots and matched?
> >
>
> You've caught me in a crossfire! I took it out of the LN Bible, Case
> Closed. Posner said
> 56 identifying marks. Posner needs to cite his source. Where's McNally?
> He always knows
> the volume #, page, paragraph and line in the WR.
Footnote 60 points to HSCA volume VI, page 66.
>
> Disregard the notch on the rifle for a moment. Argue for me, against the
> testimony of the
> photo experts at the HSCA that the photos were genuine. Were they all
> wrong?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jane
>
> >
> >
Jane Shelton
Jane Shelton
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990914210144...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
> >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
Walt, having watched many hearings over the years, I have come to the
conclusion
that none ever really accomplishes the goal they set for themselves; to get
to the truth.
With that in mind, it means that 22 experts came to the Committee and lied
under oath,
or some of them did. That's hard for me to swallow. There were just 4
toxocologists who testified
in the Waco Congressional Hearings and the four disagreed on several
points having looked
at the same evidence, having the same access to information regarding CS
gas.
>
> Are you assuming
> >that Roscoe White kept the photo hidden because of Oswald's statements?
>
> I don't know what White's motives were...All I know is he told his wife
to hang
> onto the photo because it would be worth a lot of money someday......
>
> May I have
> >some evidence that the photo was deliberately secreted away? I showed
you
> >mine, (Posner) now you show me yours. That would make the DPD complicit
in a
> cover-up.
> >Are you saying that?
>
> Absolutely I'm saying that.....
>
> Oswald was a sneak and a pathological liar.
>
> I Totally disagree.... Oswald was naive kid playing James Bond.... he got
> burned... by real professional liars .... The DPD and the FBI.......
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
>
> How can you give
> >any credence
> >to anything Oswald ever said? IOW, Walt, on what *factual* evidence are
> >your contentions
> >regarding the BY photos based? "They", who? If you believe there were
> >conspirators, who
> >were they? And still one final unanswered question: Do you believe all
> >those photo experts
> >were wrong?
> >>
> >>
> >> Walt
>
>
> Jane, the BIGGEST hurdle for me was the realization that the all powerful
FBI
> (Hoover)
> was the " Conspirators" .... once I got over that hurdle I wasno longer
nagged
> by the sort of questions that obviously nag you...
> I think I've answered all your questions in my post but if I missed one
let me
> know.....
>
> Walt
>
Just one and thanks in advance for your time and patience: I just like to
get straight in my own mind who believes what here. You believe Hoover was
behind the assassination?
Jane
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <01beff31$e667df40$acf7490c@pavilion>
> You believe Hoover was
>behind the assassination?
>
>Jane
>
>
No Jane I don't "BELIEVE" J. Edgar Hoover was behind the cowardly cold
blooded murder from ambush in Dealey Plaza..... I KNOW he was....
Walt
DAnde9348
>Date: Tue, 14 September 1999 11:38 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37DF14FA...@quik.com>
>It is not 56 marks and she is thinking about the HSCA study. If you
>don't have the HSCA study, then you need to start doing your homework.
>
>--
>Anthony Marsh
Hey Tony ..... Perhaps you should heed you own advice and start doing yer
homework..... as a prerequisite yer gonna have to take a course in logical
thinking....
If you think the HSCA was anything other than a continuation of the cover-up
you are either extremely naive, or obtuse, or perhaps you're both....
Walt
DAnde9348
>Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 12:19 AM EDT
>Message-id: <01beff31$e667df40$acf7490c@pavilion>
> Walt, having watched many hearings over the years, I have come to the
>conclusion
>that none ever really accomplishes the goal they set for themselves; to get
>to the truth.
>With that in mind, it means that 22 experts came to the Committee and lied
>under oath,
>or some of them did. That's hard for me to swallow.
Really??..... You can't believe powerful men lie to cover their worthless
butts..... You can't believe that those liars will call in "EXPERTS" to support
their lie??
Where have you been the last ten years?
Have you ever heard of people named Bill and Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, O.J.
Simpson, Bob Ricks, Lon Horuchi.....
There were just 4
>toxocologists who testified
> in the Waco Congressional Hearings and the four disagreed on several
>points having looked
>at the same evidence, having the same access to information regarding CS
>gas.
>>
> There were just 4 toxocologists who testified in the Waco Congressional
Hearings and the four disagreed on several
>points having looked at the same evidence, having the same access to
information regarding CS gas.
That's the way things are done Jane....
That's how the rich and powerful get away with murder...... Just trot out
"experts" and cast doubt on the evbidence.... The average boob wil simply shrug
his shoulders and say.... " Hey if the experts can't agree, how the Hell can I
know"... They have been using this tactic since the murder of JFK and it
works.... There are far too many Americans who refuse to use their own brains
and rely on "EXPERTS" to tell them what to think..... Martin Shackleford is an
excellent example of a non thinking individual who cites "Experts".....
Walt
Leo Sgouros
Too bad it describes you and others on this group.
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <01befefc$d2680a40$aff7490c@pavilion>
> Argue for me, against the
>testimony of the
>photo experts at the HSCA that the photos were genuine.
Researchers for decades have been proclaiming the B.Y. photos to be fakes….
This claim had it's roots in Oswald laughing at the fake photo Fritz showed
him…. Fritz showed him 133C and Oswald sneered at the photo, and obvious
fakery…. Whether the fakery is all that obvious is questionable but Oswald
knew immediately the pic they were showing him was a fake because he knew what
the real Back Yard photo ( CE 133A ) looked like.
At any rate researchers have latched onto Oswald's proclamation and ASSUMED
that he had been shown CE 133A . Since Oswald was adamant that the photo they
were showing him was a fake, and he could easily prove it researchers have
picked up that idea and attempted to show that CE 133A is a fake. If the DPD
had not hidden 133C away and researchers had known that it was the photo that
Oswald declared a fake…. There would be no controversy over the B.Y. pictures.
However that is not the case and now the entire episode surrounding the B.Y.
photos is tainted.
Walt
Jane Shelton
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990914150753...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Question for Sam McClung
> >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
Hi Walt,
Disregard the notch on the rifle for a moment. Argue for me, against the
testimony of the
Leo Sgouros
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990915175439...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
> >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
> >Date: Tue, 14 September 1999 05:59 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <01befefc$d2680a40$aff7490c@pavilion>
>
> >testimony of the
> >photo experts at the HSCA that the photos were genuine.
>
> This claim had it's roots in Oswald laughing at the fake photo Fritz
showed
> fakery.. Whether the fakery is all that obvious is questionable but
Oswald
> knew immediately the pic they were showing him was a fake because he knew
what
> the real Back Yard photo ( CE 133A ) looked like.
>
> At any rate researchers have latched onto Oswald's proclamation and
ASSUMED
> that he had been shown CE 133A . Since Oswald was adamant that the photo
they
> were showing him was a fake, and he could easily prove it researchers have
> picked up that idea and attempted to show that CE 133A is a fake. If the
DPD
> had not hidden 133C away and researchers had known that it was the photo
that
pictures.
> However that is not the case and now the entire episode surrounding the
B.Y.
> photos is tainted.
>
>
> Walt
>
Walt, what is the point if there already existed legit photo's of Lee
incriminating himself for the Walker incident?
I mean, why the hell would conspirators need to add another photo?
Jane Shelton
> Really??..... You can't believe powerful men lie to cover their
worthless
> butts..... You can't believe that those liars will call in "EXPERTS" to
support
> their lie??
>
> Where have you been the last ten years?
> Have you ever heard of people named Bill and Hillary Clinton, Janet
Reno, O.J.
> Simpson, Bob Ricks, Lon Horuchi.....
Whoa Walt,
Favor me with a withdrawal of that condescending attitude!
I don't believe Bill and Hill, Reno, Ricks and I didn't see Horuchi
testify. I don't believe Higgins, Sessions, Jamar, or Sage, or Potts. I
didn't believe Livingstone, Marseca, Hubbell. But, I do believe Freeh.
>
>
> There were just 4
> >toxocologists who testified
> > in the Waco Congressional Hearings and the four disagreed on several
> >points having looked
> >at the same evidence, having the same access to information regarding CS
> >gas.
> >>
> > There were just 4 toxocologists who testified in the Waco
Congressional
> Hearings and the four disagreed on several
> >points having looked at the same evidence, having the same access to
> information regarding CS gas.
>
>
> That's the way things are done Jane....
> That's how the rich and powerful get away with murder...... Just trot
out
> "experts" and cast doubt on the evbidence.... The average boob wil simply
shrug
> his shoulders and say.... " Hey if the experts can't agree, how the Hell
can I
> know"...
That's what juries are for and unfortunately in JFK, there will never be
one. Juries can sort it out most of the time. For example, the Louise
Woodward trial. The jury didn't believe Barry Scheck and did believe the
prosecution's expert who testified that the blood clot in Baby Eappen's
brain was a new clot, not an old one as Scheck contended and Woodward was
convicted. She didn't help her own case on the witness stand, however.
They have been using this tactic since the murder of JFK and it
> works.... There are far too many Americans who refuse to use their own
brains
> and rely on "EXPERTS" to tell them what to think..... Martin Shackleford
is an
> excellent example of a non thinking individual who cites "Experts".....
I don't know if the 22 experts were government paid witness or independent
expert witnesses. Independent experts have reputations to consider and
don't usually walk in lock step if they disagree.
Who are the photographic experts (excluding researchers) who come to the
table and substantiate your claims that the photos are fake. You need
independents with impeccable credentials to refute, challenge, the 22 for
the government. I'd start with Jerry Richards, Dan Petrocelli's
photographic expert.
Then we could all read the opinions of both and decide for ourselves.
However, it still wouldn't settle
the matter. There are those here who will stand by their own leanings
regardless of what evidence is
presented to them. I don't believe the issue of the BY photos will ever be
resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The only thing everyone agrees on
here is that JFK is dead!
This place is awash in testosterone!
Regards,
Jane
>
> Walt
>
>
>
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <01beffe5$31dfd960$8ee6490c@pavilion>
>Who are the photographic experts (excluding researchers) who come to the
>table and substantiate your claims that the photos are fake.
Hell I don't know Jane..... I can't name namesoff the top of my head.... but
if you read enough of the books you'll find
"experts" with impeccable credentials arguing both sides of the B.Y. photo
issue.
And THAT makes my point..... There is little hope of resolving the backyard
photo controversy until researchers start using their own heads and forget the
damned "experts".......
Walt
DAnde9348
>Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 08:55 PM EDT
>Message-id: <EdXD3.7827$lU4....@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>
>Walt, what is the point if there already existed legit photo's of Lee
>incriminating himself for the Walker incident?
>I mean, why the hell would conspirators need to add another photo?
Leo, I hesitate to answer your question because I don't believe your actions of
attacking other "buffs" is right.
If you don't agree with them just ignore them don't attack people with whom
you share common ground......
There are many "buffs" that I disagree with but I try to ignore them .......
Now the answer.....
The conspirators knew of the B.Y. photo but they could not get their hands on
it....
Oswald gave one copy to De Morenschildt and another copy to Marina to give to
June. Paine had seen the photo but it was a cropped version of the print.
( After the assassination George
De Morenschildt's claimed copyright on his photo ( see the back of his print)
Since they couldn't get their hands on the original but recognized that it was
an excellent way to frame Oswald they decided to fake one... ( They actually
made two CE 133B and 133C )
Walt
DAnde9348
>From: "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com>
>Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 08:55 PM EDT
>Message-id: <EdXD3.7827$lU4....@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>
> what is the point if there already existed legit photo's of Lee
>incriminating himself for the Walker incident?
You raise a good point here, Leo.....
That point is referring to the "incriminating" nature of the B.Y. photo. and
connecting it to the Walker incident....
I believe that was the original intent of THE ( singular) photo. Lee, George
and Walker had cooked up a scheme to get Oswald into Castro's Cuba.....
Oswald had credentials as a Commie because he had "defected" to Russia, and had
just returned to Texas a few months earlier. If it could be made to look like
he had attempted to kill Walker, one of Castro's most bitter enemies, and was a
fugitive from justice, then they surmised that Castro would welcome the
fugitive with open arms......
Marina screwed up the plot by not reporting her Husband and his rifle
missing....
If she had called Ruth as they planned Ruth would have called the cops and the
B.Y. photo would have been plastered on the font page of the paper .... They
thought the pic would be convincing evidence that Oswald was a Walker hating
Commie for Castro's spies to relay back to Cuba.
Walt
DAnde9348
>Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 09:43 PM EDT
>Message-id: <01beffe5$31dfd960$8ee6490c@pavilion>
> But, I do believe Freeh.
I could be wrong..... and if I am please feel fre to correct me ....BUT wasn't
Louie Freeh the Director of the FBI when Linda Tripp spilled the beans about
the FBI files under Hillary's bed?
Walt
DAnde9348
>Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 08:55 PM EDT
>Message-id: <EdXD3.7827$lU4....@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
From: "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 08:55 PM EDT
Message-id: <EdXD3.7827$lU4....@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>
>
Walt, what is the point if there already existed legit photo's of Lee
incriminating himself for the Walker incident?
I mean, why the hell would conspirators need to add another photo?
Why the hell would conspirators need to add another photo?
Leo, I hesitate to answer your question because I sense it's a hostile
question and only being asked in a smart ass way…..
You really don't want to hear the answer but nevertheless it is a good question
and I'm glad you asked it………
There was a need to create a fake Back Yard photo because the conspirators
couldn't get their hands on the original B.Y. photo. They knew a B.Y. photo
existed and realized it could be used in the framing of Oswald, but it was in
Marina's possession. ( Oswald had gave Marina the photo under the guise that he
wanted Junie to have it ) Paine had seen a copy of the photo when they were
planning the Walker incident and scheming to get Oswald into Cuba.
So the conspirators decided to create a B.Y. photo of their own. They actually
created two, CE 133B and 133C. 133C is the one Fritz showed Oswald and he
promptly pronounced it to be a fake…. and he could prove it. Oswald's bold
pronouncement scared them…. And caused them to hide that photo. They figured
that if Oswald spotted the fakery so easily they had better not use it.
Leo…. We have no way of knowing exactly which two photos were "discovered" in
the Paine's garage on Saturday afternoon.
It is assumed that one of them was CE 133A, but in reality we don't know that
the two photos weren't CE 133B and 133C.
I strongly suspect that those are the two photos that were "discovered" and CE
133A fell into their hands after Oswald was dead. We know that they got it from
Marina, we just don't know when they got it from her. Remember that the cops
said there was two different prints but only one negative….. I'll bet you that
the negative is the neg for CE 133B …. They don't have the negative for CE 133A
…..
Once they had Marina's copy of CE 133A it was a simple matter to substitute CE
133A for 133C… and hide 133C.
You probably won't accept this….. and that's fine… But I want to thank you for
asking the question that allowed me to present this answer.
Walt
Leo Sgouros
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
> >From: "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com>
> >Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 08:55 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <EdXD3.7827$lU4....@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>
>
> >incriminating himself for the Walker incident?
> >I mean, why the hell would conspirators need to add another photo?
>
actions of
> attacking other "buffs" is right.
>
> If you don't agree with them just ignore them don't attack people with
whom
> you share common ground......
> There are many "buffs" that I disagree with but I try to ignore them
.......
>
> Now the answer.....
> The conspirators knew of the B.Y. photo but they could not get their hands
on
> it....
>
> Oswald gave one copy to De Morenschildt and another copy to Marina to give
to
> June. Paine had seen the photo but it was a cropped version of the print.
>
> ( After the assassination George
> De Morenschildt's claimed copyright on his photo ( see the back of his
print)
>
> Since they couldn't get their hands on the original but recognized that it
was
> an excellent way to frame Oswald they decided to fake one... ( They
actually
> made two CE 133B and 133C )
>
> Walt
why did they fake one that looked like Oswald and amazingly like the real
ones?
What is the point of this?
if you are going to fake a photo to frame Lee you fake one with him hanging
out of the building shooting Kennedy
why duplicate a real one, and why show an obvious fake to Lee who will
exclaim fake to anyone that listens?
Seems like Lee caught them in that, eh?
whatever
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <EpaE3.21085$VR.1...@newse3.tampabay.rr.com>
>
>
>if you are going to fake a photo to frame Lee you fake one with him hanging
>out of the building shooting Kennedy
They tried that ......See the thread powell vs Dillard photo.....
walt
Jane Shelton
I can't recall now if Freeh knew about all those files going over to
Livingston and Marseca at the time they went, but I do remember that there
were two *different* types of files on each person, one being the raw data
files that were full of rumors and innuendoes. Those raw data files were
*definitely* not the ones that should have gone over to the WH, and those
were the ones that went. If there was anything Hill would want to read, it
was through raw data files. Recall Congressman Dan Burton and the exposure
that he'd fathered an illegitimate child, who is now an adult. From where
do you think that came?
As I recall, Freeh didn't want the job, got his arm twisted and took it.
He was announced as Clinton's choice the same day that Vince Foster got
suddenly dead in Ft. Marcy Park. Again, if I recall correctly, he wasn't
sworn until the following September. Those files started coming over to
the WH in the summer of '93. Craig Livingston was already there, as he
went to help identify the body of Foster on 07-20. Marseca was hired in
August. I don't know who was the interim director, unless it was Eric
Holder, and he's a lackey for the WH, IMO.
Freeh also wanted, much to the dismay of General Reno and the WH, a special
counsel appointed for the campaign finance debacle. You know how far that
went. I believe Freeh is an honorable man and he is already the designated
'patsy' for Waco.
I didn't know Hill kept those files under her bed, never heard that before.
That's probably where the supoenaed Rose Law Firms' billing records were
stashed for a couple of years. There may be Waco files under her bed that
disappeared from Foster's office the night he died. There's no tellin'
what's under her bed. Recall also, that an attorney for the FBI, Shapiro,
gave the WH a heads-up on Aldrich's to be published book, 'Unlimited
Access.' If the reports are true that Hill had a hand in the Waco
decision, it makes one wonder for whom the FBI serves, we the people, or,
the White House, regardless of whom the temporary resident is.
Regards,
Jane
"Freedom's just another word
for nothing left to lose."
Kris Kristofferson from Me and Bobby McGee
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990916120357...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <01bf0083$02f09420$cfe6490c@pavilion>
> As I recall, Freeh didn't want the job, got his arm twisted and took it.
kinda like ol Earl Warren, Huh??
> I believe Freeh is an honorable man and he is already the designated
>'patsy' for Waco.
I would argue that point Jane.....But even if he is made an Oswald they won't
do a damned thing to him..... I mean he won't see the inside of the crossbar
Hotel....
I saw a phot of tombstone from the old west..... that pretty well sums up how I
think the Waco massacre is going to wind up ...
The inscription read .....
Here lies Pete Smith...
Hanged in error ...
Oh well.....
I've got a feeling that this will be the epitaph for the graves of the children
of the Branch Davidians.......
Walt
DAnde9348
>From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Thu, 16 September 1999 04:32 PM EDT
>Message-id: <01bf0083$02f09420$cfe6490c@pavilion>
>
>
>Walt,
>
>I can't recall now if Freeh knew about all those files going over to
>Livingston and Marseca at the time they went, but I do remember that there
>were two *different* types of files on each person, one being the raw data
>files that were full of rumors and innuendoes. Those raw data files were
>*definitely* not the ones that should have gone over to the WH, and those
>were the ones that went. If there was anything Hill would want to read, it
>was through raw data files. Recall Congressman Dan Burton and the exposure
>that he'd fathered an illegitimate child, who is now an adult. From where
>do you think that came?
>
Thanks for the excellent informative post, Jane.
As I said I could not remember if Freeh was in charge when those FBI files
turned up in Hillary the Hellion's parlor but I do believe he should have
forced Janet Reno to give him authorization to investigate the entire
episode....If she didn't want to authorize an investigation then he should have
taken his request directly to Congress.....
He didn't do that.... Why?
There was documentation under his control, in his department that his FBI
agents had fired inindiary devices at the Branch Davidians sanctuary.... He
said he didn't know about it..... I think he's a liar, but if it's just
incompetance he's still guilty of criminal incompetance....and he should lead
about two dozen of his FBI agents into prison.
Walt
Jane Shelton
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990916165816...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
> >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
> >Date: Thu, 16 September 1999 04:32 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <01bf0083$02f09420$cfe6490c@pavilion>
>
> > As I recall, Freeh didn't want the job, got his arm twisted and took
it.
>
> kinda like ol Earl Warren, Huh??
>
> > I believe Freeh is an honorable man and he is already the designated
> >'patsy' for Waco.
>
> I would argue that point Jane.....But even if he is made an Oswald they
won't
> do a damned thing to him..... I mean he won't see the inside of the
crossbar
> Hotel....
>
> I saw a phot of tombstone from the old west..... that pretty well sums up
how I
> think the Waco massacre is going to wind up ...
>
> The inscription read .....
> Here lies Pete Smith...
> Hanged in error ...
> Oh well.....
>
> I've got a feeling that this will be the epitaph for the graves of the
children
> of the Branch Davidians.......
>
>
> Walt
Walt,
You may be absolutely correct, but keep this mind. *If* the civil trial
for the BD's goes forward, and it has been postponed until a date to be
set by Judge Smith, and if the government attorneys are not able to get it
dismissed, and they will try, the evidence that comes forward at any
Congressional Hearings better damn well match the evidence that comes
forward at trial. The government may not be able to hide the ball this time
at hearings. The government wanted a YEAR postponement until the fall of
2000. The Judge said absolutely not, that they'd had *custody* of the
evidence for 6 and a half years. Follow both events with all due
diligence.
For the what's it worth department, the door to the compound has been
found by one of the BD's attorneys. It turned up in a salvage yard. He
didn't
say where the door is now or who has it, but he did say the bullet markings
go
from outside in, not inside out. Of course, being a plaintiff attorney,
he would
say that on the radio. The point being, the FBI had custody of that door
and it
turned up in a salvage yard. Now the custody chain has been broken and
the
door can't come in at trial.
BTW, following the old adage if you want something done, do it yourself, I
ordered bumper stickers myself this afternoon, 125 of them. White vinyl
with black lettering: Remember Waco. I should have them a week from Mon.
or Tues and I'll send you one. Either you believe in something or you
don't. I believe Waco is the worst thing that's happened to us since
Wounded Knee. I decided to put my money where my mouth is. That puppy'll
be on your bumper until you total it out!!! :-)
Regards,
Jane
>
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990916165816...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
> >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
> >Date: Thu, 16 September 1999 04:32 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <01bf0083$02f09420$cfe6490c@pavilion>
>
Jane Shelton
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990916171252...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
> >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
> >Date: Thu, 16 September 1999 04:32 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <01bf0083$02f09420$cfe6490c@pavilion>
> >
> >
>
Walt, Freeh can't force Reno to do anything. Chain of command, that sort
of thing.
She's his boss. She's in bed with the Clintons, and they're in bed with
her.. Now there's a negative thought!! I'll bet the old girl can't pull
the chrome off a trailer hitch like Monica could!!
He wrote a report on the campaign finance mess and sent it to Congress;
however, I
believe the report was addressed to Reno. He recommended a special counsel
to
investigate. He so testified, but couldn't testify to the report's content.
She slapped
"classified" on it, so it wouldn't be published, and Congress couldn't
release it because
was classified. I believe it still remains classified or at least portions
of it. He's impotent.
I think we'd better let this thread die or we'll be strung up for wasting
bandwidth! You
get back to JFK and I'll go bake cookies!
Regards,
Jane
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <01bf009a$1625c1c0$65e8490c@pavilion>
> For the what's it worth department, the door to the compound has been
> found by one of the BD's attorneys. It turned up in a salvage yard. He
>didn't
>say where the door is now or who has it, but he did say the bullet markings
>go
> from outside in, not inside out. Of course, being a plaintiff attorney,
>he would
>say that on the radio. The point being, the FBI had custody of that door
>and it
> turned up in a salvage yard. Now the custody chain has been broken and
>the
> door can't come in at trial.
>
I donno Jane......I'm no Lawyer but....It seems to me .... If there is some
way to establish that it is the door from the BD sanctuary I believe it would
be admissible.
I believe Koresh and his group had just built the main building a year or so
prior to the bonfire. I understand it was a metal door and if that's true it
shouldn't be too hard to establish that it came from the BD sanctuary. There
should be a serial number that was recorded at the time of the sale and that
would establish who it was sold to......
>BTW, following the old adage if you want something done, do it yourself, I
>ordered bumper stickers myself this afternoon, 125 of them. White vinyl
>with black lettering: Remember Waco. I should have them a week from Mon.
>or Tues and I'll send you one. Either you believe in something or you
>don't. I believe Waco is the worst thing that's happened to us since
>Wounded Knee. I decided to put my money where my mouth is. That puppy'll
>be on your bumper until you total it out!!! :-)
>
>Regards,
>
>Jane
>
>
>
>>
>
>
> I believe Waco is the worst thing that's happened to us since Wounded Knee.
I agree with your sentiments that Waco is an outrage and a gross violation of
the idea of an American just as Wounded Knee was but .....in the realm of
outrageous acts by our government..... the murder of President Kennedy stands
alone.....
No other act has had a bigger impact on us.
The universal distrust of government that runs rampant in America today has
it's roots in the murder of JFK.
Walt
DAnde9348
>From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Thu, 16 September 1999 07:18 PM EDT
>Message-id: <01bf009a$1625c1c0$65e8490c@pavilion>
>
>
> I ordered bumper stickers myself this afternoon, 125 of them. White vinyl
>with black lettering: Remember Waco.
HEY LURKERS...... Heres the chance to shed some timidness and speak out
without fear..... Send Jane a couple of bucks for your REMEMBER WACO
bumper sticker and put it on your bumper....
Remember if you don't speak out against tyranny it will only grow stronger,
And someday when they decide they don't like the way you dye your hair and come
to haul you into court you'll wish you had spoke out before they became all
powerful.
Walt
DAnde9348
Message-id: <01bf009d$73a630c0$65e8490c@pavilion>
> She's in bed with the Clintons, and they're in bed with her..
Utterly Ridiculous!!...... Bill may be a sex fiend who thought a mummy "looked
pretty good " and he wouldn't mind, takin her for a spin in his ranchero, but I
doubt that even he would get in bed with Jumpin Janet.
Besides that..... I'm sure Janet would rather be in Hillary's bed.
Walt
K.B.
wrote:
>
>
>DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19990916171252...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
>> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Question for Sam McClung
>> >From: "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net>
Damn Jane, you shouldn't say things like that when I am drinking
coffeee.....I just spewed a half a cup out my nose....hehe.
=keith=
>
>He wrote a report on the campaign finance mess and sent it to Congress;
>however, I
>believe the report was addressed to Reno. He recommended a special counsel
>to
>investigate. He so testified, but couldn't testify to the report's content.
>She slapped
>"classified" on it, so it wouldn't be published, and Congress couldn't
>release it because
>was classified. I believe it still remains classified or at least portions
>of it. He's impotent.
>
>I think we'd better let this thread die or we'll be strung up for wasting
>bandwidth! You
>get back to JFK and I'll go bake cookies!
>
>Regards,
>
>Jane
>
>
>
>>
>> There was documentation under his control, in his department that his
>FBI
>> agents had fired inindiary devices at the Branch Davidians sanctuary....
>He
>> said he didn't know about it..... I think he's a liar, but if it's just
>> incompetance he's still guilty of criminal incompetance....and he should
>lead
>> about two dozen of his FBI agents into prison.
>>
>> Walt
>>
=keith=
We don't need laws, we need justice.