Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Wikipedia travesty: Marina Oswald Porter article
51 views
Skip to first unread message
Sandy McCroskey
May 30, 2013, 5:54:54 PM5/30/13
to
I haven't surveyed all the JFK material on Wikipedia, or even the
entirety of this article, but I just happened to notice this egregiously
misinformed passage: "Later that month, as Marina told the Warren
Commission, she took a single photograph of Lee dressed in black and
holding his weapons along with an issue of The Militant newspaper which
named ex-General Edwin Walker as a "fascist." This photo was later
manipulated using sophisticated photographic equipment to form several
poses that became known as the controversial "backyard photos" of
Lee,[4] posing with his weapons and communist newspapers."
Footnote 4 cites Robert Groden. In fact, four of the grand total of
eight footnotes here cite him. (And one of the others is "Interview with
Oprah Winfrey"!)
What a joke!
Note that the writer takes Marina's *memory* of having taken only one
photo as rock-solid evidence, although it has been irrefutably
established that the backyard photos were not in any way faked.
/sm
entirety of this article, but I just happened to notice this egregiously
misinformed passage: "Later that month, as Marina told the Warren
Commission, she took a single photograph of Lee dressed in black and
holding his weapons along with an issue of The Militant newspaper which
named ex-General Edwin Walker as a "fascist." This photo was later
manipulated using sophisticated photographic equipment to form several
poses that became known as the controversial "backyard photos" of
Lee,[4] posing with his weapons and communist newspapers."
Footnote 4 cites Robert Groden. In fact, four of the grand total of
eight footnotes here cite him. (And one of the others is "Interview with
Oprah Winfrey"!)
What a joke!
Note that the writer takes Marina's *memory* of having taken only one
photo as rock-solid evidence, although it has been irrefutably
established that the backyard photos were not in any way faked.
/sm
Ralph Cinque
May 30, 2013, 11:04:38 PM5/30/13
to
I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
are as phony as a three dollar bill.
are as phony as a three dollar bill.
Sandy McCroskey
May 30, 2013, 11:15:28 PM5/30/13
to
On 5/30/13 11:04 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>
I certainly have heard of Jack White. He was a complete moron.
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>
Jack White was a delusional idiot who thought the moon landings were
fake. He didn't know any more about photo analysis than *you* do, and
you know *less than nothing* about it.
/sandy
Canuck
May 30, 2013, 11:16:49 PM5/30/13
to
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:04:38 PM UTC-7, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
As I recall, there was at least one study, possibly British, that
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
concluded that the photos were fake. Oswald himself insisted that only
the head was his, and that it had been attached to someone else's body (in
fact, his torso is leaning sideways at an odd angle, like he is ready to
fall over). Summers in NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME, even suggested that possibly
Oswald himself had created the photos in the lab when he was working for a
company that had close gov't connections (including developing photos over
Cuba). Btw, how did someone with an undesirable discharge (who was
attempting to get it reversed) manage to get a job with Jaggar-Chiles in
the first place? Oswald had actually broken the law when he left the U.S.
as he still had two years of reserve duty to complete.
So how did he manage to get his 1959 passport renewed too? So many
questions and so few answers. - Peter R. Whitmey
Canuck
May 30, 2013, 11:17:25 PM5/30/13
to
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:04:38 PM UTC-7, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
>
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
Btw, you can change the article if you like, subject to approval by the
>
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
Wikipedia staff. - prw
Jason Burke
May 31, 2013, 10:39:53 AM5/31/13
to
On 5/30/2013 8:04 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>
Photogrammetry? What's that?
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>
claviger
May 31, 2013, 10:43:37 AM5/31/13
to
Yes, adding to this article alternative opinions. You can also
challenge the neutrality of the article to Wikipedia. They take that
seriously.
John Fiorentino
May 31, 2013, 6:35:19 PM5/31/13
to
The moral of the story is................Use Wikipedia with care, or
better yet............don't use it at all!
John F.
"Sandy McCroskey" <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:51a7878c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
better yet............don't use it at all!
John F.
"Sandy McCroskey" <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:51a7878c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Bud
May 31, 2013, 8:23:45 PM5/31/13
to
Anthony Marsh
May 31, 2013, 11:18:56 PM5/31/13
to
Anthony Marsh
May 31, 2013, 11:19:49 PM5/31/13
to
On 5/30/2013 11:16 PM, Canuck wrote:
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:04:38 PM UTC-7, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
>> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>
> As I recall, there was at least one study, possibly British, that
> concluded that the photos were fake. Oswald himself insisted that only
That study was discredited and he admitted that he was wrong. You only
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:04:38 PM UTC-7, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
>> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>
> As I recall, there was at least one study, possibly British, that
> concluded that the photos were fake. Oswald himself insisted that only
know the vague outline of a controversy, never the facts.
> the head was his, and that it had been attached to someone else's body (in
> fact, his torso is leaning sideways at an odd angle, like he is ready to
> fall over). Summers in NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME, even suggested that possibly
fun of his hair?
> Oswald himself had created the photos in the lab when he was working for a
> company that had close gov't connections (including developing photos over
> Cuba). Btw, how did someone with an undesirable discharge (who was
> attempting to get it reversed) manage to get a job with Jaggar-Chiles in
> the first place? Oswald had actually broken the law when he left the U.S.
> as he still had two years of reserve duty to complete.
>
> So how did he manage to get his 1959 passport renewed too? So many
> questions and so few answers. - Peter R. Whitmey
>
mainframetech
May 31, 2013, 11:21:01 PM5/31/13
to
On May 31, 6:35 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:
that sounds like it is legitimate will have their article there for years.
Wikipedia is now also being used to put up advertising for new products.
In one case where an article that was incorrect was put up, and the person
who knew the situation personally tried to fix it and put it right, the
Wikipedia personnel kept putting it back in original form, and then
blocked his access so he would stop changing the article to the correct
form! The idea of Wikipedia was good, but the nature of the human race
wasn't considered.
Chris
wrote:
> The moral of the story is................Use Wikipedia with care, or
> better yet............don't use it at all!
>
> John F.
>
> "Sandy McCroskey" <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> better yet............don't use it at all!
>
> John F.
>
>
> news:51a7878c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >I haven't surveyed all the JFK material on Wikipedia, or even the entirety
> >of this article, but I just happened to notice this egregiously misinformed
> >passage: "Later that month, as Marina told the Warren Commission, she took
> >a single photograph of Lee dressed in black and holding his weapons along
> >with an issue of The Militant newspaper which named ex-General Edwin Walker
> >as a "fascist." This photo was later manipulated using sophisticated
> >photographic equipment to form several poses that became known as the
> >controversial "backyard photos" of Lee,[4] posing with his weapons and
> >communist newspapers."
>
> > Footnote 4 cites Robert Groden. In fact, four of the grand total of eight
> > footnotes here cite him. (And one of the others is "Interview with Oprah
> > Winfrey"!)
> > What a joke!
> > Note that the writer takes Marina's *memory* of having taken only one
> > photo as rock-solid evidence, although it has been irrefutably established
> > that the backyard photos were not in any way faked.
>
> > /sm
Wikipedia must be used with care. Whoever gets to it with an article
> news:51a7878c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >I haven't surveyed all the JFK material on Wikipedia, or even the entirety
> >of this article, but I just happened to notice this egregiously misinformed
> >passage: "Later that month, as Marina told the Warren Commission, she took
> >a single photograph of Lee dressed in black and holding his weapons along
> >with an issue of The Militant newspaper which named ex-General Edwin Walker
> >as a "fascist." This photo was later manipulated using sophisticated
> >photographic equipment to form several poses that became known as the
> >controversial "backyard photos" of Lee,[4] posing with his weapons and
> >communist newspapers."
>
> > Footnote 4 cites Robert Groden. In fact, four of the grand total of eight
> > footnotes here cite him. (And one of the others is "Interview with Oprah
> > Winfrey"!)
> > What a joke!
> > Note that the writer takes Marina's *memory* of having taken only one
> > photo as rock-solid evidence, although it has been irrefutably established
> > that the backyard photos were not in any way faked.
>
> > /sm
that sounds like it is legitimate will have their article there for years.
Wikipedia is now also being used to put up advertising for new products.
In one case where an article that was incorrect was put up, and the person
who knew the situation personally tried to fix it and put it right, the
Wikipedia personnel kept putting it back in original form, and then
blocked his access so he would stop changing the article to the correct
form! The idea of Wikipedia was good, but the nature of the human race
wasn't considered.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
May 31, 2013, 11:28:00 PM5/31/13
to
On 5/30/2013 11:04 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>
I guess you never head of the HSCA. Their photographic EXPERTS proved
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>
that the backyard photos are genuine. You got nothing but imagination.
mainframetech
Jun 1, 2013, 11:40:01 AM6/1/13
to
They lied about all the autopsy witnesses agreeing that there was no
large hole in the BOH!
They came to the opinion that the murder was probably a conspiracy,
but they completely failed to ask to have the investigation of the
murder reopened to find the conspirator(s).
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Jun 1, 2013, 9:16:31 PM6/1/13
to
On 6/1/2013 11:40 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On May 31, 11:28 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/30/2013 11:04 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>
>>> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
>>> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>>
>> I guess you never head of the HSCA. Their photographic EXPERTS proved
>> that the backyard photos are genuine. You got nothing but imagination.
>
> Sadly, the HSCA proved many things, many of which were baloney.
> They lied about all the autopsy witnesses agreeing that there was no
> large hole in the BOH!
>
Please quote that.
> On May 31, 11:28 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/30/2013 11:04 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>
>>> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
>>> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
>>
>> I guess you never head of the HSCA. Their photographic EXPERTS proved
>> that the backyard photos are genuine. You got nothing but imagination.
>
> Sadly, the HSCA proved many things, many of which were baloney.
> They lied about all the autopsy witnesses agreeing that there was no
> large hole in the BOH!
>
> They came to the opinion that the murder was probably a conspiracy,
> but they completely failed to ask to have the investigation of the
> murder reopened to find the conspirator(s).
>
> Chris
>
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 1, 2013, 11:49:26 PM6/1/13
to
On Friday, 31 May 2013 13:04:38 UTC+10, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
>
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
The HSCA turned up a copy that was PERSONALLY signed by Oswald, Ralph.
> I guess you never heard of Jack White then, did you. Those Backyard photos
>
> are as phony as a three dollar bill.
What's FAKE is your nonsense that Oswald is Doorman.
Doorman is Billy Nolan Lovelady. Roy Truly, Bill Shelley, Buell Wesley
Frazier, Danny Arce and Billy Nolan Lovelady ALL agree on this point.
It's GAME OVER for your OIC nonsense.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
0 new messages