New Study of Backyard Photos

[Jean Davison]

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html

[John McAdams]

On 19 Oct 2015 11:26:56 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html

For people who like the really techie stuff, here is the original
article:

http://ojs.jdfsl.org/index.php/jdfsl/article/view/321/253

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jason Burke]

On 10/19/2015 8:26 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>

Now who ya gonna trust?
Some people up in the freezing cold or Ralph?

Tough one.

[claviger]

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html

Thanks for this article. Technology triumphs over CT falsity once again.
Notice what looks like a bullet coming out the barrel. CTs missed that
"clue" for all these years.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/19/2015 11:41 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2015 11:26:56 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>

Well, we already knew about Farid years ago and understood that he is a
die-hard WC defender like you, who will tell any lie to defend the WC.
Nothing new and exciting.

> For people who like the really techie stuff, here is the original
> article:
>
> http://ojs.jdfsl.org/index.php/jdfsl/article/view/321/253
>

Please don't point to a Web site where people have to register and log
in. And you don't know what all those Javascripts do, like sending info
back to the CIA or NSA.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[John McAdams]

On 19 Oct 2015 22:40:32 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 10/19/2015 11:41 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 19 Oct 2015 11:26:56 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>>
>
>Well, we already knew about Farid years ago and understood that he is a
>die-hard WC defender like you, who will tell any lie to defend the WC.
>Nothing new and exciting.
>

Sure, Tony, everybody who disagrees with Tony Marsh is a liar.

>> For people who like the really techie stuff, here is the original
>> article:
>>
>> http://ojs.jdfsl.org/index.php/jdfsl/article/view/321/253
>>
>
>Please don't point to a Web site where people have to register and log
>in. And you don't know what all those Javascripts do, like sending info
>back to the CIA or NSA.
>

You didn't even bother to look at the site. You can read the article
or download a PDF without logging in.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/19/2015 11:26 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>

Wow, thanks for sharing OLD NEWS. BTW, did you know that he proved that
the Earth is round?

[Ralph Cinque]

This is TOTALLY bogus. The issue is: Is it Oswald's chin? Was it as wide
as that? No, it was not. And what about the man's height? Comparative
analysis has shown that that man was only about 5'6" not Oswald's 5'9".
Also, the bump on the wrist was the result of a fracture incurred by
Roscoe White when he was in the military, and it was no part of Oswald.
These are the issues, not the stuff they're talking about. Plus, you can
see that the greyscale of the face is different from the rest of him; it
looks pasted on; it was pasted on.

[Mark Florio]

Of course, we already knew this (the HSCA was good enough for me), but it
should be interesting to see what some of the CT alterationists say about
this latest look at the photos Marina said she took and has never since
denied. Mark

[claviger]

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html

Jean,

Do you happen to know who Marina first told the story of LHO firing his
rifle at General Walker? First mention of the Walker shooting in Marina's
testimony before the Warren Commission is below. Obviously Rankin is
already aware LHO was the alleged shooter in that incident. When and to
whom did Marina divulge this story? Was it the DPD, FBI, Secret Service
or did her attorney pass on this info to the Warren Commission staff?

________________________________________________________

TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD

The President's Commission met at 10:35 a.m. on February 3, 1964, at 200
Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.
Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper,
Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Allen W.
Dulles, members.
Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; John M. Thorne, attorney
for Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald; William D. Krimer and Leon I. Gopadze,
interpreters.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you first learn that your husband had shot at General
Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. That evening he went out, I thought that he had gone to his
classes or perhaps that he just walked out or went out on his own
business. It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I began
to be worried. Perhaps even later.

Then I went into his room. Somehow, I was drawn into it--you know--I was
pacing around. Then I saw a note there.
________________________________________________________

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm

[mainframetech]

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 11:26:57 AM UTC-4, Jean Davison wrote:
> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html

Excellent! Now using that proof, we can then take into account that
the FBI was unable to find any gun store that sold any ammunition to
Oswald and they couldn't find any place that Oswald did any practicing
with his rifle. We know from the photo that Oswald when he received the
rifle went to the backyard and had his photo taken with both his guns and
some communist literature. All giving the impression that he was a rough
and ready guy, probably to help him get in with a buncfh that he was
trying to infiltrate. Afte rtthat he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and
threw it into the garage and left it there. He had no more use for it.

To use to give an impression and NOT shoot anyone needed only a cheapo
rifle and its shooting ability was not important. When found and tested
the very next day after the murder, they found that the bolt was sticky
and the scope was misaligned. As well it had a double-pull trigger. All
feature that would make rapisd shooting almost impossible as per the army
spokesperson. It was the type of misalignment that was due to mounting
the scope improperly, and not from banging th rifle around. Th egunsmith
that did the mounting failed to drill and tap 3 wcrew holes, and did only
2 of them. The army gunsmith needed to apply two shims to make the mount
move the scope over where it belonged so it could be adjusted.

If the rifle had been use in practice, then the faults would have been
found, and no one would try to use a faulty rifle to shoot at the
president to kill him. So the rifle wasn't practiced with.

These facts show that Oswald had no intention that day of shooting
anyone, and he was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15pm by Carolyn
Arnold eating. At about that time 2 men were seen by witnesses in the 6th
floor window. They surely weren't going to give up their window to anyone
coming up there. So Oswald was innocent of the shooting at JFK.

Chris

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

This should be compared with Carter's new work on this, in all fairness.

[Glenn V.]

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz.....

[mainframetech]

Yep, you're a CT alright! You see conspiracies everywhere...:)

The 'bullet' is just a mark on the fence behind the rifle.

Chris

[Alex Foyle]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:43:16 AM UTC+2, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2015 22:40:32 -0400, Anthony Marsh

> >Well, we already knew about Farid years ago and understood that he is a
> >die-hard WC defender like you, who will tell any lie to defend the WC.
> >Nothing new and exciting.
> >
> Sure, Tony, everybody who disagrees with Tony Marsh is a liar.

Of course, he's stuck in a time warp, ca. 1977 and he can't get out. Still
believing in the accoustical "evidence" and proclaiming some all
encompassing Nazi cover up. Amazing what people can make themselves
believe.

> You didn't even bother to look at the site. You can read the article
> or download a PDF without logging in.

Clicking on links, reading and comprehending are not Tony's foremost
strengths these days.

[Jean Davison]

The note was found in a Russian book on Dec. 2 and Marina was
questioned by the Secret Service the following day, says this SS report:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10481&relPageId=24&search=note_AND
ruth


Jean

[Ralph Cinque]

A famed chiropractor has demolished that new study. Spread the word.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/dr.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Why would the alterationists be impressed by a known WC apologist?
Why weren't you impressed by Robert Groden changing his mind when he
worked on the HSCA?


BTW, do you have any WC alterationists? As far as I know ALL
alterationists are by definition conspiracy believers.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/19/2015 10:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2015 22:40:32 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/19/2015 11:41 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 19 Oct 2015 11:26:56 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>>>
>>
>> Well, we already knew about Farid years ago and understood that he is a
>> die-hard WC defender like you, who will tell any lie to defend the WC.
>> Nothing new and exciting.
>>
>
> Sure, Tony, everybody who disagrees with Tony Marsh is a liar.
>

Not everybody. Mainly WC defenders.
Some of the conspiracy believers are just kooks.

>
>>> For people who like the really techie stuff, here is the original
>>> article:
>>>
>>> http://ojs.jdfsl.org/index.php/jdfsl/article/view/321/253
>>>
>>
>> Please don't point to a Web site where people have to register and log
>> in. And you don't know what all those Javascripts do, like sending info
>> back to the CIA or NSA.
>>
>
> You didn't even bother to look at the site. You can read the article
> or download a PDF without logging in.
>

Not only logged on, but one of my bridge partners told me about it in an
e-mail. Don't be a Hillary. Surf safely. Even the head of the CIA had his
e-mail hacked. How come we don't have a Special Committee about THAT?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/19/2015 10:40 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>
> Thanks for this article. Technology triumphs over CT falsity once again.

So you never heard of the HSCA? Even Groden helped debunk that theory
back in 1978.

> Notice what looks like a bullet coming out the barrel. CTs missed that
> "clue" for all these years.
>

You're not trying hard enough. You're supposed to claim that it's the
wrong caliber! ;])

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Freezing cold? We didn't get to freezing yet.
How come you didn't believe the HSCA in 1978 when they said the photos
are genuine? How come you didn't believe me in 1998 when I proved that
the Zapruder film is authentic? Some kooks still dispute that.

> Tough one.
>
>

[mainframetech]

Here's some more interesting testimony from Marina:

"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the Secret
Service ask you many questions?

Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the police station there was a routine regular
questioning, as always happens. And then after I was with the agents of
the Secret Service and the FBI, they asked me many questions, of
course--many questions. Sometimes the FBI agents asked me questions which
had no bearing or relationship, and if I didn't want to answer they told
me that if I wanted to live in this country, I would have to help in this
matter, even though they were often irrelevant. That is the FBI."

WC hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410

So Marina was told by the FBI to cooperate or be sent home. We can't
trust anything she said. It could be just the FBI talking, making their
stories look good with her statements.

Chris

[Jason Burke]

Wow, Tony. You have a rich fantasy life, don't'cha?
Or, what is it that you people call it? The Vulcan mind meld or something?

>> Tough one.
>>
>>
>
>

[Jean Davison]

Show me where anyone used the word "cooperate." CTs like to use
that word so they can pretend that Marina was forced to say whatever she
was told to say. "Cooperate" equals "lie," right?

But that's not what happened. FBI agents Brown and Hosty tried to
interview Marina on November 27 and she refused to talk to them. How'd
you like to be in Brown & Hosty's shoes that day? Oswald is dead. Who are
they going to question about Oswald now, if not Marina? Probably out of
frustration one of the agents asked Marina if she wanted to continue
living in this country, surely an implied threat but one that wasn't going
anywhere.

Check the next page, vol. I, 80 where Rankin reassured her:

Mr. RANKIN. You understand that you do not have to tell this Commission
in order to stay in this country, don't you, now?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. You are not under any compulsion to tell the Commission
here in order to be able to stay in the country.
Mrs. OSWALD. I understand that.

No one asked her to "cooperate." The FBI agents wanted her to stop
refusing to talk to them.

Jean

[Mitch Todd]

Marina isn't saying what Chris thinks she is. In fact, it may be the
opposite. Look at this except from his quote of her :

"the Secret Service and the FBI, they asked me many questions,
of course--many questions. Sometimes the FBI agents asked me
questions which had no bearing or relationship, and if I

didn't want to answer......"

"Questions with no bearing or relationship" is the important phrase.
I'll bet that 'relationship' is really short for 'relationship to the
assassination.' This means that she *was* answering their questions
without coercion, and only when she felt that they were getting
off-base did she clam up and draw their ire.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/20/2015 8:14 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> A famed chiropractor has demolished that new study. Spread the word.
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/dr.html
>

Can you explain the subtle difference between a chiropractor and a
chiropractic?

I used to get my DOT physical done by a local chiropractor and then a few
years ago the state sent out a letter telling us that we can not get it
done by a chiropractor because they're not real doctors.

[mainframetech]

Odd that at one point Marina said she had no knowledge of the note.
Then later said it was from Osweald. she also stated during testimony as
follows:

"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the
Secret Service ask you many questions?

Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the police station there was a routine regular
questioning, as always happens. And then after I was with the agents of
the Secret Service and the FBI, they asked me many questions, of
course--many questions. Sometimes the FBI agents asked me questions which
had no bearing or relationship, and if I didn't want to answer they told
me that if I wanted to live in this country, I would have to help in this
matter, even though they were often irrelevant. That is the FBI."

WC hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410

So that puts a certain amount of suspicion on the FBI and on Marina's
words.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/20/2015 6:14 PM, Alex Foyle wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:43:16 AM UTC+2, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 19 Oct 2015 22:40:32 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
>>> Well, we already knew about Farid years ago and understood that he is a
>>> die-hard WC defender like you, who will tell any lie to defend the WC.
>>> Nothing new and exciting.
>>>
>> Sure, Tony, everybody who disagrees with Tony Marsh is a liar.
>
> Of course, he's stuck in a time warp, ca. 1977 and he can't get out. Still

1978, not 1977. They didn't do the acoustical studies until 1978.

> believing in the accoustical "evidence" and proclaiming some all
> encompassing Nazi cover up. Amazing what people can make themselves
> believe.
>

Not all Nazis. Mainly the ones here.

>> You didn't even bother to look at the site. You can read the article
>> or download a PDF without logging in.
>
> Clicking on links, reading and comprehending are not Tony's foremost
> strengths these days.
>
>

Ask Hillary about clicking on links. Or the head of the CIA.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/20/2015 3:15 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:40:16 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>>
>> Thanks for this article. Technology triumphs over CT falsity once again.
>> Notice what looks like a bullet coming out the barrel. CTs missed that
>> "clue" for all these years.
>
>
>
> Yep, you're a CT alright! You see conspiracies everywhere...:)
>

Nah, you misunderstand him. He thinks it was an accident.
He believes Mortal Error.

> The 'bullet' is just a mark on the fence behind the rifle.
>

It's called Sarcasm. He doesn't believe it, but he wants the kooks to
believe it.

> Chris
>

[Jean Davison]

As she explained to the HSCA, she denied knowledge of several
things in the beginning because she was afraid.

QUOTE:

Mr. PREYER - Another area of some apparently contradictory statements is
in the area of ammunition. You told us today that Lee practiced with a
rifle and that you saw ammunition lying around and you told that to the
Warren Commission, also. Why did you tell the FBI on December 17, 1963,
again shortly after the assassination, that you had never seen
ammunition around the house?

Mrs. PORTER - For one simple reason, I was frightened of my well-being
in this country.

Mr. PREYER - Would you like to make any general statement at this time
about the earlier inconsistencies in your testimony? You have told us
that they were, as I understand it, were due at first to your desire to
protect Lee, perhaps to your fear of the FBI, perhaps to your fear of
being a foreigner in a strange country. Is that basically correct? Is
there any further general explanation you would like to give of why
there are these inconsistencies in your earlier testimony?

Mrs. PORTER - There was quite mixed emotions. I was very grateful to
Mrs. Ruth Paine who gave us shelter when I needed it. I was very
embarrassed about the fact that if she finds out that I knew about all
this, the trips to Mexico and the rifle and things like that, it was
very embarrassing for me to admit to myself that she has been used, you
know, in a way. It would be against her religion and her beliefs and it
was insulting for me to do such a thing to a friend. That was one part
of it. The fear for not being able, I mean for being prosecuted by law
for knowing about those things, that was there, too.

Mr. PREYER - It has been alleged by some critics that the reason your
story changed was not so much because of the reasons you have given or
because of your own beliefs, but rather because the FBI and the Secret
Service put pressure on you to incriminate Lee immediately after the
assassination. While the FBI and the Secret Service did question you,
was there ever any pressure from them for you to give evidence that
would incriminate Lee, evidence that you believed to be false?

Mrs. PORTER - No; that is not correct. I maybe like Secret Service and
dislike FBI, but both of those people were working for one cause, to
find the truth. The Secret Service did question in a more gentle way and
I responded to that much better. The FBI sometimes were a little bit too
brutal and my response was not as cooperative. Maybe in some little way
I want to punish them for it, not to give them information or correct
information but it was not for the reasons I have been accused of doing
it. It was human mistakes, human error, in my own character.

I do apologize for it, but it is not because they tried to twist my arm
and told me what should I tell and what not to tell. That is not true.

UNQUOTE

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81&relPageId=282&search=porter_AND
"human error" AND character

OR:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscamar2.htm

Jean

[mainframetech]

It comes to the same thing. You can interptet her words in many ways,
but she was NOT cooperating, and they wanted her to, so they told her to
'help' them or be deported. Put yourself in the position of a woman in a
strange country with 2 children threatened with deportation for not
'helping' them. She would try to do whatever they needed to stay and not
let it come to the point of deportation, once the threat was made.

Chris

[mainframetech]

"Probably out of frustration"? Where did it say that? Marina was from
Russia, where we've been told the government ruled supreme and did what it
wanted to anyone that didn't 'cooperate' with them. Marina was taught
that for most of her life. Here she is in a strange country with people
that might think as his wife that she was a co-conspirator with their
chief suspect, and she should give up all she knows? It may implicate
her, and any threats from this strange new country could be very serious
indeed. Any talk of deportation would be taken by her as being very
possible, and she would do what she had to in avoiding that result for her
children and herself. There are two ways to look at how she must have
felt in the situation. She was wrought up enough to speak out to these
agents that might control her life and complain about the threat to her.
A woman alone with 2 children in a strange country.

> Check the next page, vol. I, 80 where Rankin reassured her:
>
> Mr. RANKIN. You understand that you do not have to tell this Commission
> in order to stay in this country, don't you, now?
> Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
> Mr. RANKIN. You are not under any compulsion to tell the Commission
> here in order to be able to stay in the country.
> Mrs. OSWALD. I understand that.
>
> No one asked her to "cooperate." The FBI agents wanted her to stop
> refusing to talk to them.
>

And you believe that just telling this woman with 2 children in a
strange country who has been threatened with deportation will believe
every word these people say to her trying to smooth her over? She got the
message clearly. Help us or be deported. After that, she would assent to
anything they said to her. The calming words mean little after the threat
is made.



> Jean

[Bud]

What is suspicious about the FBI trying to determine the facts
surrounding the murder of an American President? I would think it would be
suspicious if they didn`t.

[BT George]

Exactly Jean. And as I have pointed out to many CT's, even today after
coming to believe in Lee's innocence, Marina has not taken back a *single*
thing of substance she told the SS, FBI, WC, and HSCA that proved
incriminating to him. In short, the only thing that has changed is her
interpretation of those events, not her version of them.

Frankly, we'd all be better off if there were more witnesses to the
original events who we could say the same about!

BT George

[Brianm]

John McAdams wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2015 11:26:56 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>

> For people who like the really techie stuff, here is the original
> article:
>
> http://ojs.jdfsl.org/index.php/jdfsl/article/view/321/253
>

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

How do you explain the chin? You can't. I get pretty tired of seeing
the WC apologists spout "the photo is real" without explaining the
chin. The chin in the photo is NOTHING like Oswald's chin. Even a
child can see that.

[David Von Pein]

CHRIS/"FRAME" SAID:

A woman alone with 2 children in a strange country.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, you'd think she'd be desperate to go back to Russia (where she was
born and where she had family and friends, and where she could surely find
a place to stay immediately).

CHRIS SAID:

And you believe that just telling this woman with 2 children in a strange
country who has been threatened with deportation will believe every word
these people say to her trying to smooth her over? She got the message
clearly. Help us or be deported. After that, she would assent to
anything they said to her. The calming words mean little after the threat
is made.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why on Earth would returning to her homeland be so terrible? Even if she
had been forced to go back to Russia---so what? It was home to her for
about 22 years. Why should she fear going home so desperately? Especially
since she spoke virtually no English and had very few close friends in the
United States.

I know that Marina *herself* has always said she *did* wish to remain in
the USA, but I've never quite understood the argument made by CTers, in
which "Deportation" equals "Pure misery" (or "A fate worse than death")
for Marina Oswald. That's just silly, IMO.

[Ralph Cinque]

It wasn't just that- the threat of deportation- that motivated Marina to
"cooperate." It was the gifts, and I am referring to gifts of love,
sympathy, acceptance from the American people, plus: COLD HARD CASH.

Right away, money started flowing to Marina. Ordinary Americans started
slipping bills into envelopes and mailing them to her. And there were some
big transfers too. For instance, when Lee's Russian "diary" was
discovered, it was decided that Marina "owned" it, so before TIME/LIFE
published it, they sent Marina $20,000. She didn't even have to fight for
it; she never even asked for it. Talk about money falling out of the
sky.

This was a woman who, until the assassination, had to struggle for
everything, where even basic necessities of life were a struggle to get.
But now, money was raining down from the sky along with "there, there now"
sympathy, and all she had to do to get it was "cooperate" and make herself
out to be Oswald's "other victim."

How much do you think Americans would have sent her if she had rejected
the official story and defied authorities?

"Look: my husband was innocent. He hurt nobody. He certainly didn't kill
anybody. He is gone now, but I, his wife, deny these charges against him."
0

What if she had said that? How much do you think Americans would have sent
her? How much do you think the media would have paid her for interviews
and statements?

Marina went from very poor to quite rich overnight. Money had never been
so abundant and so easy to get. She was paid to "cooperate" and she wanted
to keep the spigots open as long as possible. You see, that's what a rich
country can do for the wives of its framed, murdered patsies, including
her husband, the most wronged man in history, Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Bud]

If you look at the three dimensional model you`ll see that the shadows
fall just like they do on Oswald`s chin in the photo.

> Even a
> child can see that.

What is this fallacy called, "appeal to kindergarten"?

[Anthony Marsh]

I notice your degree is not in English.

"Sometimes the FBI agents asked me questions
which had no bearing or relationship, and if I didn't want to answer
they told me that if I wanted to live in this country, I would have to
help in this matter, even though they were often irrelevant.

^^^^

Help means cooperate. She was talking to them. She just wasn't giving
them the answers they wanted to hear.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's what I see here everyday. Nazis and kooks.

>>> Tough one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[mainframetech]

I see that in the testimony above that Marina is called Mrs. Porter,
meaning it was in 1965 or later. There is reference to many 'mistakes' in
previous testimony. At the end of the clip of testimony, is a disclaimer
that the authorities were blameless in "Twisting her arm". Why would she
put that in there, unless there was an issue about it? After all, she
pointed out that the FBI had 'twisted her arm' in earlier testimony. It
would seem that they were still intimidating her and had her clear them of
doing it. She admits to giving wrong answers previous to the current
time, meaning that any answers around the time of the murders cannot be
trusted. We also get an explanation of why she knew little at first.
Yet later the 'truth' came out.

Marina's earlier testomony was that she had NOT sen any ammunition
around the house, which fits with the FBI being unable to find a place
where Oswald bought anty ammunition. Now suddenly all these things are
cleared up with the questioner bringing up waht she should say and
prompting her as to their complete innocence of intimidation, which we
know occurred in prior meetings with the authorities.

It doesn't ring true. It sounds like a setup where she was made to say
all the evidentiary things needed, that she did NOT say earlier at the
time of the murders, and then relieve the authorities also of any
wrongdoing, all in one big package.

Reading the above testimony and questions doesn't sell it for me. Let
an objective person read it and see what they think. Neither Jean nor I
qualify.

Chris

[mainframetech]

In her position, after having told many conflicting stories along the
way, I wouldn't want to go back and rehash all my lies either. I would
let it rest and hope that no questions came up that brought it all out
again. The lies would stand, since everyone would seem to be happy with
that. But the reality of evidence to the contrary has to be considered.
Now that she is a citizen and can't be intimidatd as easily, she can say
clearly that she believes that Oswald was innocent, which she has done.

She originally said that she noticed no amunition around the house, and
then in 1965 she suddenly remembered that there was ammunition around the
house, never mind that the FBI could not find a place anywhere that sold
any ammunition to Oswald. The earlier statement seems to fit better with
the FBI information. Meaning that now Marina had been intimidated once
again, and probably with deportation, which is my guess.

Statements from Marina as to all her wrong answers being her own fault
and completely absolving the FBI and others was a bit much, and had a
perepared feeling to it.

And now we have the testimony that showed that her statements came in
different versions.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

Ralph Cinque

What about the children??????


Did anybody think about the children???????


!!!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/23/2015 10:19 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> It wasn't just that- the threat of deportation- that motivated Marina to
> "cooperate." It was the gifts, and I am referring to gifts of love,
> sympathy, acceptance from the American people, plus: COLD HARD CASH.
>
> Right away, money started flowing to Marina. Ordinary Americans started
> slipping bills into envelopes and mailing them to her. And there were some
> big transfers too. For instance, when Lee's Russian "diary" was
> discovered, it was decided that Marina "owned" it, so before TIME/LIFE
> published it, they sent Marina $20,000. She didn't even have to fight for
> it; she never even asked for it. Talk about money falling out of the
> sky.
>

I think a lot of Americans had sympathy for the children.

> This was a woman who, until the assassination, had to struggle for
> everything, where even basic necessities of life were a struggle to get.
> But now, money was raining down from the sky along with "there, there now"
> sympathy, and all she had to do to get it was "cooperate" and make herself
> out to be Oswald's "other victim."
>
> How much do you think Americans would have sent her if she had rejected
> the official story and defied authorities?
>

The average American would have had no idea how much Marina was
cooperating then. And again, the money was for the support of the
children not Marina.

> "Look: my husband was innocent. He hurt nobody. He certainly didn't kill
> anybody. He is gone now, but I, his wife, deny these charges against him."
> 0
>
> What if she had said that? How much do you think Americans would have sent
> her? How much do you think the media would have paid her for interviews
> and statements?

When? When did she have a chance to give a press conference?

>
> Marina went from very poor to quite rich overnight. Money had never been
> so abundant and so easy to get. She was paid to "cooperate" and she wanted

So what? The authorities do that with witnesses all the time.
Nothing unusual about that.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/23/2015 10:18 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> CHRIS/"FRAME" SAID:
>
> A woman alone with 2 children in a strange country.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yeah, you'd think she'd be desperate to go back to Russia (where she was
> born and where she had family and friends, and where she could surely find
> a place to stay immediately).
>

Have you ever been to Russia? No one wants to go back to Russia and
certain execution. Everyone wants to get out of Russia.

>
> CHRIS SAID:
>
> And you believe that just telling this woman with 2 children in a strange
> country who has been threatened with deportation will believe every word
> these people say to her trying to smooth her over? She got the message
> clearly. Help us or be deported. After that, she would assent to
> anything they said to her. The calming words mean little after the threat
> is made.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Why on Earth would returning to her homeland be so terrible? Even if she

You've never been to Russia.

> had been forced to go back to Russia---so what? It was home to her for
> about 22 years. Why should she fear going home so desperately? Especially

KGB.

> since she spoke virtually no English and had very few close friends in the
> United States.
>

That's why she lived with Ruth who did speak Russian.
There was also a White Russian community in Dallas.

> I know that Marina *herself* has always said she *did* wish to remain in
> the USA, but I've never quite understood the argument made by CTers, in
> which "Deportation" equals "Pure misery" (or "A fate worse than death")
> for Marina Oswald. That's just silly, IMO.
>

You say that only because you've never lived in Russia.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ever hear of Robert Groden. He examined the orginal photos (you did not)
and he says they are genuine. But I guess you think you are a better
researcher than the HSCA photographic experts because you can guess.
You are not restricted by evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh really? And you know this because you talked to her in person. Can
you upload that interview for us. Everything is not in the WC, you know.
And YOU alone get to decide what is "of substance"? So you would have
thrown away the limousine and the Walker bullet because you don't
consider them "of substance."

[Mark Florio]

First, Oswald himself never said that wasn't his chin when shown one of
the photos. HE said HIS head had been pasted atop someone else's body.

Second, Marina said she took the photos and has never said anything about
that not being his chin.

Mark

[mainframetech]

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 10:18:29 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> CHRIS/"FRAME" SAID:
>
> A woman alone with 2 children in a strange country.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yeah, you'd think she'd be desperate to go back to Russia (where she was
> born and where she had family and friends, and where she could surely find
> a place to stay immediately).
>

Apparently you don't believe any of the documentaries shown about
Russia and how things are there. We live in a heaven by comparison.
Marina would NOT want to go back there after having come this far. If you
think things are so good in Russia, even today, go and make a home there.
We'll see you back in 3 months, less time than Oswald.

>
> CHRIS SAID:
>
> And you believe that just telling this woman with 2 children in a strange
> country who has been threatened with deportation will believe every word
> these people say to her trying to smooth her over? She got the message
> clearly. Help us or be deported. After that, she would assent to
> anything they said to her. The calming words mean little after the threat
> is made.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Why on Earth would returning to her homeland be so terrible? Even if she
> had been forced to go back to Russia---so what? It was home to her for
> about 22 years. Why should she fear going home so desperately? Especially
> since she spoke virtually no English and had very few close friends in the
> United States.
>

So today you're suddenly selling Russia as a tourist haven. Give it
up. No one is going to believe it. Putin's Russia still persecutes
people at the drop of a hat. After having lived there for 22 years, she
KNEW bettter than to go back if she could avoid it.

> I know that Marina *herself* has always said she *did* wish to remain in
> the USA, but I've never quite understood the argument made by CTers, in
> which "Deportation" equals "Pure misery" (or "A fate worse than death")
> for Marina Oswald. That's just silly, IMO.

Strange you would say that. Perhaps you need to live there for a
while. A person that lived there for 22 years knows better than you that
it would be wise to stay here. She finally got her citizenship here as
well. And now that she has full rights as a citizen, she has also made it
clear that she believes that Oswald was innocent. That's the woman that
was talking about all sorts of evidence against him. So maybe a lot of
that was baloney they wanted her to say to cover their efforts.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Thanks. We've only seen that a few thousand times, but the new kids may
have never yet seen it.
For extra credit, what do you think the /russ/ stands for or the /mar2?
Do you know what the J stands for? Did you ever meet him?

[tom...@cox.net]

Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/20/2015 8:41 PM, mainframetech wrote:

===========================================================================
=== HER BROTHER-IN-LAW ROBERT OSWALD ALSO HEARD THE THREAT TO
"DEPORT " HER ! ! !
SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/deport_marina.htm
===========================================================================
===

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It wasn't just that- the threat of deportation- that motivated Marina to
> "cooperate." It was the gifts, and I am referring to gifts of love,
> sympathy, acceptance from the American people, plus: COLD HARD CASH.
>
> Right away, money started flowing to Marina. Ordinary Americans started
> slipping bills into envelopes and mailing them to her. And there were
> some big transfers too. For instance, when Lee's Russian "diary" was
> discovered, it was decided that Marina "owned" it, so before TIME/LIFE
> published it, they sent Marina $20,000. She didn't even have to fight for
> it; she never even asked for it. Talk about money falling out of the
> sky.

===========================================================================
==== GERRY RUDOLPH FORD
"STOLE" THAT DIARY AND, SOLD IT TO LIFE MAGAZINE FOR $16,000.00 ! ! ! !
SEE>>http://www.whokilledjfk.net/gerry_ford_the_rat.htm
=========================================================================

> This was a woman who, until the assassination, had to struggle for
> everything, where even basic necessities of life were a struggle to get.
> But now, money was raining down from the sky along with "there, there
> now" sympathy, and all she had to do to get it was "cooperate" and make
> herself out to be Oswald's "other victim."
>
> How much do you think Americans would have sent her if she had rejected
> the official story and defied authorities?
>
> "Look: my husband was innocent. He hurt nobody. He certainly didn't kill
> anybody. He is gone now, but I, his wife, deny these charges against
> him." 0
>
> What if she had said that? How much do you think Americans would have
> sent her? How much do you think the media would have paid her for
> interviews and statements?
>
> Marina went from very poor to quite rich overnight. Money had never been
> so abundant and so easy to get. She was paid to "cooperate" and she
> wanted to keep the spigots open as long as possible. You see, that's what
> a rich country can do for the wives of its framed, murdered patsies,
> including her husband, the most wronged man in history, Lee Harvey
> Oswald.

[Jean Davison]

Yes, Tom, Robert said that, and he gave the same explanaion I did:
Marina was refusing to talk to them.

Referring to the FBI agent, he said, "....it was quite evident there
was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI
at that time. And she was refusing to. And they were insisting, sir."
(I, 410)

Jean

[Bud]

They pressured her to provide the information she had about her husband. It was important that she provide this information.

> It
> would seem that they were still intimidating her and had her clear them of
> doing it.

See the hobbyist scramble to make this information fit into some form he is comfortable with. What a silly hobby.

> She admits to giving wrong answers previous to the current
> time, meaning that any answers around the time of the murders cannot be
> trusted. We also get an explanation of why she knew little at first.
> Yet later the 'truth' came out.
>
> Marina's earlier testomony was that she had NOT sen any ammunition
> around the house, which fits with the FBI being unable to find a place
> where Oswald bought anty ammunition. Now suddenly all these things are
> cleared up with the questioner bringing up waht she should say and
> prompting her as to their complete innocence of intimidation, which we
> know occurred in prior meetings with the authorities.
>
> It doesn't ring true. It sounds like a setup where she was made to say
> all the evidentiary things needed, that she did NOT say earlier at the
> time of the murders, and then relieve the authorities also of any
> wrongdoing, all in one big package.
>
> Reading the above testimony and questions doesn't sell it for me. Let
> an objective person read it and see what they think. Neither Jean nor I
> qualify.

You`re half right.

> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

He's talking about what later researchers point out.

[Anthony Marsh]

Whenever there is a tragedy, decent people do.

>
> !!!
>
>

[tom...@cox.net]

Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/20/2015 8:41 PM, mainframetech wrote:

===== her testimony states the word "cooperate" (volume I page 79)
it is corroborated by Robert Oswald (volume I page 410)
===========================================================================
====

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
===== marina said what she was told to say under threat of deportation ! !
!
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It wasn't just that- the threat of deportation- that motivated Marina to
> "cooperate." It was the gifts, and I am referring to gifts of love,
> sympathy, acceptance from the American people, plus: COLD HARD CASH.
>
> Right away, money started flowing to Marina. Ordinary Americans started
> slipping bills into envelopes and mailing them to her. And there were
> some big transfers too. For instance, when Lee's Russian "diary" was
> discovered, it was decided that Marina "owned" it, so before TIME/LIFE
> published it, they sent Marina $20,000. She didn't even have to fight for
> it; she never even asked for it. Talk about money falling out of the
> sky.

===========================================================================
==== GERRY FORD "STOLE" OSWALD'S DIARY AND, SOLD IT TO LIFE MAGAZINE FOR
$16,000 ! ! ! SEE>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/GERALD%20RUDOLPH%20FORD.htm
===========================================================================

> This was a woman who, until the assassination, had to struggle for
> everything, where even basic necessities of life were a struggle to get.
> But now, money was raining down from the sky along with "there, there
> now" sympathy, and all she had to do to get it was "cooperate" and make
> herself out to be Oswald's "other victim."
>
> How much do you think Americans would have sent her if she had rejected
> the official story and defied authorities?
>
> "Look: my husband was innocent. He hurt nobody. He certainly didn't kill
> anybody. He is gone now, but I, his wife, deny these charges against
> him." 0
>
> What if she had said that? How much do you think Americans would have
> sent her? How much do you think the media would have paid her for
> interviews and statements?
>
> Marina went from very poor to quite rich overnight. Money had never been
> so abundant and so easy to get. She was paid to "cooperate" and she
> wanted to keep the spigots open as long as possible. You see, that's what
> a rich country can do for the wives of its framed, murdered patsies,
> including her husband, the most wronged man in history, Lee Harvey
> Oswald.