Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
Tracy Riddle
Doc Holiday wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen, up close and personal the issue of Life Magazine with
> Oswald on the cover. If so can you deny that it is a fake. I have looked at
> the cover closely and I have few doubts that the head and body do not match.
> This has probably been hashed over for years but these are my 2 cents.
Most of us on this NG agree with you, but the lone-nutters have their
"experts" who claim they can prove the photos are real. Just like the
experts the tobacco industry hired to prove that smoking isn't really
harmful. Or the experts in the Pentagon who say that there is no Gulf
War Syndrome. Or...well, you get the general idea.
Tracy
John McAdams
Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote:
Tracy, you really ought to *read* the HSCA authentication of the backyard
photos.
It's:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
It really isn't fair to simply dismiss any expert who tells you something
your don't want to hear. If you want to do the homework, and show what is
wrong with the experts analysis, feel free.
Until then, the rational thing to do is go with the experts.
.John
Joe Riley
It never ceases to amaze me how what people do or do not see depends on
which side they take rather than what is before their eyes.
The Life magazine cover is indeed a "fake" in the sense that it was
altered by Life for publication. Life admitted that they had done this
(for example, they "enhanced" the telescope, i.e., they painted it in).
Any reasonable and objective observer would conclude that the photo on the
cover was doctored because it WAS. But often we believe what we see
because we see what we believe....
Tracy Riddle
John McAdams wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote:
> : Doc Holiday wrote:
> : >
> : > Has anyone seen, up close and personal the issue of Life Magazine with
> : > Oswald on the cover. If so can you deny that it is a fake. I have looked at
> : > the cover closely and I have few doubts that the head and body do not match.
> : > This has probably been hashed over for years but these are my 2 cents.
>
> : Most of us on this NG agree with you, but the lone-nutters have their
> : "experts" who claim they can prove the photos are real. Just like the
> : experts the tobacco industry hired to prove that smoking isn't really
> : harmful. Or the experts in the Pentagon who say that there is no Gulf
> : War Syndrome. Or...well, you get the general idea.
>
> Tracy, you really ought to *read* the HSCA authentication of the backyard
> photos.
>
> It's:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>
> It really isn't fair to simply dismiss any expert who tells you something
> your don't want to hear. If you want to do the homework, and show what is
> wrong with the experts analysis, feel free.
>
> Until then, the rational thing to do is go with the experts.
>
> .John
I *have* read the HSCA's explanation, as I've told you several times
already. As for homework, I've tried to recreate the shadow discrepancies
in the backyard photos, and it can't be done. So there. The experts are
full of it.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
Eric Chomko wrote:
>
> In alt.conspiracy.jfk John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> : Tracy, you really ought to *read* the HSCA authentication of the backyard
> : photos.
>
> Wait, I thought that the HSCA evidence and findings were bebunked?! Oh,
> that was just the ACOUSTICAL evidence, not this HSCA evidence.
>
> .John, you bring on a whole new meaning to the word "select" when dealing
> with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
>
Good one, Eric! I'll have to remember that one.
Tracy
John McAdams
>It never ceases to amaze me how what people do or do not see depends on
>which side they take rather than what is before their eyes.
Amazes me too.
>
>The Life magazine cover is indeed a "fake" in the sense that it was
>altered by Life for publication. Life admitted that they had done this
>(for example, they "enhanced" the telescope, i.e., they painted it in).
>
>Any reasonable and objective observer would conclude that the photo on the
>cover was doctored because it WAS. But often we believe what we see
>because we see what we believe....
>
The photo wasn't faked in the way the original poster, one "Doc
Holiday" said. He said "I have few doubts that the head and body do
not match." See it in context below.
What about you, Joe? Do you think that somebody faked the backyard
photos?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.assassination.jfk
>Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 5:53 PM
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>
>Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote:
>: Doc Holiday wrote:
>: >
>: > Has anyone seen, up close and personal the issue of Life Magazine with
>: > Oswald on the cover. If so can you deny that it is a fake. I have looked at
>: > the cover closely and I have few doubts that the head and body do not match.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: > This has probably been hashed over for years but these are my 2 cents.
>: Most of us on this NG agree with you, but the lone-nutters have their
>: "experts" who claim they can prove the photos are real. Just like the
>: experts the tobacco industry hired to prove that smoking isn't really
>: harmful. Or the experts in the Pentagon who say that there is no Gulf
>: War Syndrome. Or...well, you get the general idea.
>
>Tracy, you really ought to *read* the HSCA authentication of the backyard
>photos.
>
Howard J. Rogers
Joe Riley wrote in message <34ceb...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
>It never ceases to amaze me how what people do or do not see depends on
>which side they take rather than what is before their eyes.
>
>The Life magazine cover is indeed a "fake" in the sense that it was
>altered by Life for publication. Life admitted that they had done this
>(for example, they "enhanced" the telescope, i.e., they painted it in).
>
>Any reasonable and objective observer would conclude that the photo on the
>cover was doctored because it WAS. But often we believe what we see
>because we see what we believe....
>[Snip]
I liked this last sentence. You might pass it on to those who are currently
arguing that the Zapruder film has been altered.
Regards
HJR
John McAdams
On 28 Jan 1998 13:45:19 -0600, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>In alt.conspiracy.jfk John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>: Tracy, you really ought to *read* the HSCA authentication of the backyard
>: photos.
>
>Wait, I thought that the HSCA evidence and findings were bebunked?! Oh,
>that was just the ACOUSTICAL evidence, not this HSCA evidence.
>
>.John, you bring on a whole new meaning to the word "select" when dealing
>with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
>
You're not saying that if we believe *anything* from the HSCA, we have
to believe everything, are you?
Have you read the report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics?
They tore the "acoustic evidence" to shreads. Can you point to any
debunking of the PEP?
.John
Fred Glazier
If the back yard photos are real then why is his head the same size and
his body isn't when you compare the three? Further what do you think is
the significance of the picture found at the Dallas Police station with
the cut out of the person?
Thanks,
Frederick Glazier
John McAdams
On 30 Jan 1998 17:23:44 -0600, Fred Glazier <Gla...@Network-1.com>
wrote:
>If the back yard photos are real then why is his head the same size and
>his body isn't when you compare the three?
Apparent dimensions can vary depending on (for example), whether the
subject is slouching or standing straight.
The HSCA debunked this 20 years ago. Check out their Figure IV-38,
titled "Effect of postural and facial expression variations on
statural and facial measurements taken from photographs."
It's in Volume 6.
>Further what do you think is
>the significance of the picture found at the Dallas Police station with
>the cut out of the person?
I think the cops decided to see whether Oswald's claim that the photo
was faked was even possible.
.John
Fred Glazier
John,
I think your stretching it a bit. The position of the photographer
relative to the subject would not account for the discrepancies in this
case.
If the photos are genuine and taken by Mariana then we have more than
enough data regarding the subject and the photographer to determine the
possibilities of variance of the shadows. I do not see that this can
account for the vast discrepancies in the photos.
Oswald said the photos were faked and that he could show one how to do it.
Then years later we have the same setting for the photos with a complete
cut out found in the Dallas Police Department with no explanation. Now if
the DPD were trying to find out if Oswalds claim were true they would of
made some sort of notes regarding that otherwise they would of know that
should the photo show up later it might put egg on their collective face.
Which is what has happened. I remember distinctly when the photo was found
that no explanation was offered for it's existence. To then come back
later and state that oh maybe they were testing the hypothesis is an
obvious lie. If they were testing the hypothesis they would of documented
it.
Tony Pitman
John McAdams wrote:
> On 28 Jan 1998 13:45:19 -0600, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
> >In alt.conspiracy.jfk John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> >
> >: Tracy, you really ought to *read* the HSCA authentication of the
> backyard
> >: photos.
> >
> >Wait, I thought that the HSCA evidence and findings were bebunked?!
> Oh,
> >that was just the ACOUSTICAL evidence, not this HSCA evidence.
> >
> >.John, you bring on a whole new meaning to the word "select" when
> dealing
> >with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
> >
>
> You're not saying that if we believe *anything* from the HSCA, we have
>
> to believe everything, are you?
>
> Have you read the report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics?
> They tore the "acoustic evidence" to shreads. Can you point to any
> debunking of the PEP?
>
> .John
John,
That is not true. Even today the accoustic evidence is yet to be torn to
"shreds". People have disputed it sure but it was never completed in the
first place and is one the most important things that should be done IMHO.
BBN did only partial job due to lack of time and money and have made that
very clear all along.
I think that if it was certain that the evidence could be torn to shreds
it would have been done long ago but those holding the purse strings seem
reluctant to go down that road any further.
Tony
John Prigeon
Greetings,
FRONTLINE ('91) discussed the backyard photos. They showed the back of a
photograph given to Oswalds's friend George DeMorenshildt (sp?), which
beared LHO's signature.
Doesn't it seem difficult to believe that if the photos were faked to
incriminate Oswald that he himself would then sign them??? HELLO!!!!
Please offer a CREDIBLE explanation that tells why he would do such a
stupid thing.
Thanks,
John
Barb Junkkarinen
>
>In alt.conspiracy.jfk John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com> wrote:
>: On 28 Jan 1998 13:45:19 -0600, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>[...]
>: >
>: >Wait, I thought that the HSCA evidence and findings were bebunked?! Oh,
>: >that was just the ACOUSTICAL evidence, not this HSCA evidence.
>: >
>: >.John, you bring on a whole new meaning to the word "select" when dealing
>: >with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
>: >
>
>
>: You're not saying that if we believe *anything* from the HSCA, we have
>: to believe everything, are you?
>
>No, of course not.
>
>: Have you read the report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics?
>: They tore the "acoustic evidence" to shreads. Can you point to any
>: debunking of the PEP?
>
>I'm sketical of the accoustics business from the beginning.
>
>But only lone nutters say that ALL of the evidence of the HSCA decision was
>based upon the accoustical evidence. The decision of "probably was a
>conspiracy" did not ENTIRELY hindge on accoustical evidence.
>
>Eric
>
Exactly, Eric. Chairman Louis Stokes spoke on FACE THE NATION, Dec 31,
1978, and commented that even without the acoustics evidence, they already
had other evidence that led to conspiracy. I'm not sure if anyone has the
transcript of his appearance on the show up on their website or not. John?
Barb :-)
Fred Glazier
John,
Shall I presume that the photograph your speaking of is one of the
backyard photos?
If so who gave DeMorenshildt the photo? How did Frontline come by it? Do
we have any one stating that they say Oswald sign it? Did DeMorenshildt
say that LHO gave it to him and he witnessed the signature?
Many a signature has been forged over the years. They was a guy once who
use to hand draw U.S. Currency. He was good enough at it that it took a
while for them to catch him and he passed quite a few.
The point is this to prove something is evidence in a criminal case you
must be able to show a chain of evidence. This is why hearsay is not
allowed in a trial.
Otherwise you might have just anyone (like say yourself) accusing anyone
(like say LHO) of a crime they did not commit.
I await your reply,
Frederick Glazier
jerrymac
John Prigeon wrote in message <6b85bp$33f$1...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>...
>
>Greetings,
>
>FRONTLINE ('91) discussed the backyard photos. They showed the back of a
>photograph given to Oswalds's friend George DeMorenshildt (sp?), which
>beared LHO's signature.
>
>Doesn't it seem difficult to believe that if the photos were faked to
>incriminate Oswald that he himself would then sign them??? HELLO!!!!
>Please offer a CREDIBLE explanation that tells why he would do such a
>stupid thing.
>
>Thanks,
>John
>
John,
If someone was sophisticated enough to create a composite photo pasting
LHO's face on someone else's body, don't you think they could have forged
the signature??? DUH!!!
Witness Marina Oswald's HSCA testimony concerning this photo:
Mr. McDONALD. In the upper right-hand corner of the photograph on the back,
do you recognize the handwriting?
Mrs. PORTER. No, I don't. That is what I was discussing with my lawyer.
We tried to find out if that was written by me. I mean as I told him, that
my handwriting does change a few times a day. I do not write same way, you
know, in the morning and maybe at night, so it is hard for me to claim even
my own handwriting, but you have certain way of writing, habit of writing
certain letters, so I know for sure that I could not, I do not write certain
letter that way. So at first I thought it was maybe my handwriting, but
after I examine it, I know it is not.
Mr. McDONALD. Well, first of all, what does it say?
Mrs. PORTER. "For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha."
Mr. McDONALD. "Hunter of fascist"?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. "Ha, ha, ha."
Now if you will look closely, there is a possibility that if you look
you will see the handwriting, the dark handwriting, it appears that
someone might have wrote over the original handwriting. You can see
underneath.
Mrs. PORTER. I can see something, right here that looks like have been
erased and copied over.
Mr. McDONALD. Or possibly someone wrote over it just to bring out a
light handwriting underneath.
But nevertheless, does any of that look like your handwriting?
Mrs. PORTER. Like mine?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes.
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Mr. McDONALD. Do you recall ever writing such a phrase on that
photograph?
Mrs. PORTER. No, but it would sound like me.
===
Mr. McDONALD. Do you recall ever seeing this photograph with
this writing on the back?
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Mr. McDONALD. It is your testimony you don't think that is your
handwriting.
Mrs. PORTER. At first look I thought it was, but then I start examine
it, I don't think it is my handwriting.
Mr. McDONALD. Now if you will look in the lower left-hand corner, it
says "To my friend George. From Lee Oswald." And there is a date "5," then
"IV/63."
Do you recognize that handwriting?
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Mr. McDONALD. In the upper right-hand corner of the photograph on the back,
do you recognize the handwriting?
Mrs. PORTER. No, I don't. That is what I was discussing with my lawyer.
We tried to find out if that was written by me. I mean as I told him, that
my handwriting does change a few times a day. I do not write same way, you
know, in the morning and maybe at night, so it is hard for me to claim even
my own handwriting, but you have certain way of writing, habit of writing
certain letters, so I know for sure that I could not, I do not write certain
letter that way. So at first I thought it was maybe my handwriting, but
after I examine it, I know it is not.
Mr. McDONALD. Well, first of all, what does it say?
Mrs. PORTER. "For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha."
Mr. McDONALD. "Hunter of fascist"?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. "Ha, ha, ha."
Now if you will look closely, there is a possibility that if you look
you will see the handwriting, the dark handwriting, it appears that
someone might have wrote over the original handwriting. You can see
underneath.
Mrs. PORTER. I can see something, right here that looks like have been
erased and copied over.
Mr. McDONALD. Or possibly someone wrote over it just to bring out a
light handwriting underneath.
But nevertheless, does any of that look like your handwriting?
Mrs. PORTER. Like mine?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes.
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Mr. McDONALD. Do you recall ever writing such a phrase on that
photograph?
Mrs. PORTER. No, but it would sound like me. Mr. McDONALD. Do you
recall ever seeing this photograph with
this writing on the back?
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Mr. McDONALD. It is your testimony you don't think that is your
handwriting.
Mrs. PORTER. At first look I thought it was, but then I start examine
it, I don't think it is my handwriting.
Mr. McDONALD. Now if you will look in the lower left-hand corner, it
says "To my friend George. From Lee Oswald." And there is a date "5," then
"IV/63."
Do you recognize that handwriting?
Mrs. PORTER. No.
___
Marina says that the "Hunter of Fascists" was not written by her. She
testified that she never saw that picture. She could not identify LHO's
handwriting.
And if you don't believe her, the HSCA brought in a handwriting expert to
examine it:
Ms. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, Marina Oswald Porter has previously testified that
the Russian writing translates to read, "hunter of Fascists, ha, ha, ha."
Additionally, at this time I would like to enter into the record an
affidavit by Tadeusz Sadowski of the European Law Division of the Library of
Congress, who is a specialist in the Russian language. Mr. Sadowski also
affirms that he has examined the original on the photograph and that has
also translated the Russian writing as "Hunter of Fascists, ha, ha, ha."
Mr. McNally, were you able to form an expert opinion about this
Russian writing even though you cannot read or translate Russian?
Mr. McNALLY. To a certain extent I was, yes.
Ms. BRADY. Were you able to compare the Russian writing with the
handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. McNALLY. I compared the Russian writing the Cyrillic sections of
the alphabet here and there are also some Latin alphabet forms there with
the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald. I found that the writings which are
comparable, there are certain sections here which in a Latin alphabet would
be translated as an "m". That is in the upper section of this particular
writing at the top, and the letter in the latin alphabet would be "a" and
that appears about seven times. Also, the letter "x", of course, which means
something else in the Cyrillic alphabet.
Those particular letter design forms as compared with their
counterparts in the Cyrillic alphabet as done by Mr. Oswald do not conform.
They are entirely different.
I also examined and compared these particular forms with the writing of
Marina Oswald. I found in that particular case also that the particular
design forms which are here as compared with Marina Oswald's writings are
completely different. They matched neither Marina or Lee Oswald's writings.
Mr. FITHIAN. Is it your opinion that both words are sort of overtraces or
overwritten?
Mr. McNALLY. They are over written over original pencil writing, most
of it gone.
===
Mr. McNALLY. I think if he knew Russian, he would have just rewritten it,
period. I get right back to where I started. I think this was written by
somebody not very well conversant with the Cyrillic alphabet and that is why
they had such problems in writing these letter designs. Somebody like Mr.
DeMohrenschildt I think would have turned out a product which would be much
more Russian, so to speak.
___
Now, if she didn't write it, who did??? HELLO!!! And don't you find it
suspicious that there was faint writing that someone traced over with darker
ink??? Someone who was unfamiliar with the Cyrillic alphabet???
McNally says the Oswald signature is genuine, but that "hunter of fascists"
was not written by Lee, Marina, George or anyone familiar with the Cyrillic
alphabet. Furthermore, it was first written in light pencil and then traced
over in dark ink -- indication of a forgery. Obviously there's something
not right here.
jerrymac
Martin Shackelford
Frederick:
The DeMohrenschildt backyard photo turned up among his property
around the time of the HSCA investigation. I first saw it published in New
Times, a liberal magazine that occasionally published new JFK conspiracy
evidence in the mid-70s.
Martin
John McAdams
On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 16:49:42 +1300, Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
>That is not true. Even today the accoustic evidence is yet to be torn to
>"shreds". People have disputed it sure but it was never completed in the
>first place and is one the most important things that should be done IMHO.
>
>BBN did only partial job due to lack of time and money and have made that
>very clear all along.
>
>I think that if it was certain that the evidence could be torn to shreds
>it would have been done long ago but those holding the purse strings seem
>reluctant to go down that road any further.
>
Tony, people can *see* how it was torn to shreds in the Report of the
Committee on Ballistic Acoustics. It's in SCIENCE, 8 October 1992.
.John
John McAdams
On 3 Feb 1998 19:53:00 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
wrote:
Sure, Barb, Stokes is going to admit that the entire conclusion of the
Committee was based on suspect acoustic analysis. Translation: "we
wasted a lot of the taxpayers' money coming to a bugus conclusion
based on flimsy data."
Politicians are always willing to admit stuff like that, right?
>I'm not sure if anyone has the
>transcript of his appearance on the show up on their website or not. John?
>
Not that I know of.
.John
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34d8d27b....@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu
(John McAdams) writes:
>
>On 3 Feb 1998 19:53:00 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
>wrote:
>
>>In <6at2pk$4...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET>
writes:
>
>
>>
>>>I'm sketical of the accoustics business from the beginning.
>>>
>>>But only lone nutters say that ALL of the evidence of the HSCA decision was
>>>based upon the accoustical evidence. The decision of "probably was a
>>>conspiracy" did not ENTIRELY hindge on accoustical evidence.
>>>
>>>Eric
>>>
>>
>>Exactly, Eric. Chairman Louis Stokes spoke on FACE THE NATION, Dec 31,
>>1978, and commented that even without the acoustics evidence, they already
>>had other evidence that led to conspiracy.
>
>
>Sure, Barb, Stokes is going to admit that the entire conclusion of the
>Committee was based on suspect acoustic analysis. Translation: "we
>wasted a lot of the taxpayers' money coming to a bugus conclusion
>based on flimsy data."
>
>Politicians are always willing to admit stuff like that, right?
Stokes appearance and comments were made before the report was
released.
Are you saying he lied?
>
>
>>I'm not sure if anyone has the
>>transcript of his appearance on the show up on their website or not. John?
>>
>
>Not that I know of.
Barb :-)
Tony Pitman
John McAdams wrote:
> On 30 Jan 1998 17:23:44 -0600, Fred Glazier <Gla...@Network-1.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If the back yard photos are real then why is his head the same size
> and
> >his body isn't when you compare the three?
>
> Apparent dimensions can vary depending on (for example), whether the
> subject is slouching or standing straight.
>
> The HSCA debunked this 20 years ago. Check out their Figure IV-38,
> titled "Effect of postural and facial expression variations on
> statural and facial measurements taken from photographs."
>
> It's in Volume 6.
>
> >Further what do you think is
> >the significance of the picture found at the Dallas Police station
> with
> >the cut out of the person?
>
> I think the cops decided to see whether Oswald's claim that the photo
> was faked was even possible.
>
> .John
Wouldn't they just ask someone who knew about such things?
Tony
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Mon, May 4, 1998 11:12 EDT
>Message-id: <34d8d27b....@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
John, I was just curious as to how you are getting your posts to show a 5/4/98
date?
Steve K.
>
>On 3 Feb 1998 19:53:00 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
>wrote:
>
>>In <6at2pk$4...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> writes:
>
>
>>
>>>I'm sketical of the accoustics business from the beginning.
>>>
>>>But only lone nutters say that ALL of the evidence of the HSCA decision was
>>>based upon the accoustical evidence. The decision of "probably was a
>>>conspiracy" did not ENTIRELY hindge on accoustical evidence.
>>>
>>>Eric
>>>
>>
>>Exactly, Eric. Chairman Louis Stokes spoke on FACE THE NATION, Dec 31,
>>1978, and commented that even without the acoustics evidence, they already
>>had other evidence that led to conspiracy.
>
>
>Sure, Barb, Stokes is going to admit that the entire conclusion of the
>Committee was based on suspect acoustic analysis. Translation: "we
>wasted a lot of the taxpayers' money coming to a bugus conclusion
>based on flimsy data."
>
>Politicians are always willing to admit stuff like that, right?
>
>
>>I'm not sure if anyone has the
>>transcript of his appearance on the show up on their website or not. John?
>>
>
>Not that I know of.
>
>.John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Tue, Feb 3, 1998 14:53 EST
>Message-id: <6b7sis$o...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>
>>: On 28 Jan 1998 13:45:19 -0600, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>>[...]
>>: >
>>: >Wait, I thought that the HSCA evidence and findings were bebunked?! Oh,
>>: >that was just the ACOUSTICAL evidence, not this HSCA evidence.
>>: >
>>: >.John, you bring on a whole new meaning to the word "select" when dealing
>>: >with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
>>: >
>>
>>
>>: You're not saying that if we believe *anything* from the HSCA, we have
>>: to believe everything, are you?
>>
>>No, of course not.
>>
>>: Have you read the report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics?
>>: They tore the "acoustic evidence" to shreads. Can you point to any
>>: debunking of the PEP?
>>
>>
>>But only lone nutters say that ALL of the evidence of the HSCA decision was
>>based upon the accoustical evidence. The decision of "probably was a
>>conspiracy" did not ENTIRELY hindge on accoustical evidence.
>>
>>Eric
>>
>
>Exactly, Eric. Chairman Louis Stokes spoke on FACE THE NATION, Dec 31,
>1978, and commented that even without the acoustics evidence, they already
>transcript of his appearance on the show up on their website or not. John?
I am not as interested in the transcript as in knowing what other evidence
Stokes refers to. I have never seen any of the buffs post anything relating to
the "probably killed as a result of a conspiracy" statement other than the now
discredited acoustical stuff. What evidence is there?
Steve K.
>
>Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Wed, Feb 4, 1998 00:54 EST
>Message-id: <34D80291...@concentric.net>
returned to Dallas from Haiti..... It turned up at a time when Jim Garrison
was rekindling the fire under the case, and there was a need to blast Oswald
one more time.
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Tue, Feb 3, 1998 17:03 EST
>Message-id: <6b90eo$3...@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>
>
Jerry, ........Thank you for posting Marina's testimony about the wtiting on
the back of the De Mohrenschieldt print.
> Mr. McDONALD. Well, first of all, what does it say?
> Mrs. PORTER. "For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha."
> Mr. McDONALD. "Hunter of fascist"?
Notice that Marina reads the inscription as "FOR" Hunter of Fascist...... And
Mc Donald drops the word "FOR"
I find it very interesting that the word "FOR" is usually dropped from the
inscription on the back of the De M print. In fact , I have never seen the
word "FOR" in the reprints of the inscription. It may seem trivial to some
but it cahanges the entire meaning of the photo....... If the inscription is
read .....Hunter of Fascists..... The impression is that the figure in the
picture with the guns is........A HUNTER OF FASCISTS. Whereas when the word
"FOR" is placed infront of the inscription a whole different meaning
emerges..... The Photo is a gift to someone who is a HUNTER OF FASCISTS.
Since nobody can deny that Marina isn't qualified to read Russian, I have to
believe that the way she deciphered the inscription is accurate.
Walt Cakebread
Fred Glazier
Walt,
You Rock!
Frederick
WCAKE wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >From: "jerrymac" <jerr...@mci2000.com>
> >Date: Tue, Feb 3, 1998 17:03 EST
> >Message-id: <6b90eo$3...@news3.newsguy.com>
> >
> >
> >
> Jerry, ........Thank you for posting Marina's testimony about the
> wtiting on
> the back of the De Mohrenschieldt print.
>
> > Mr. McDONALD. Well, first of all, what does it say?
>
> > Mrs. PORTER. "For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha."
>
> > Mr. McDONALD. "Hunter of fascist"?
>
jerrymac
Howard J. Rogers wrote in message <6bdfkg$9sc$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>...
>You are right, Walt, that the difference in meaning tells us something
about
>the history of the photo. If the "For Hunter of Fascists" is correct, the
>photo was obviously meant as a gift.
>
>But that tells us *nothing* about the photo's genuineness or lack thereof.
>
>Have you never had someone take your photo, and then send you a copy, as a
>memento? I'm currently looking at a photo of a *VERY* cute baby, with an
>inscription on the back that reads, "Howard, aged about 4". Given to me,
>with a reminder of the facts, but still very definitely me in the photo!
>
>Actually, your interpretation makes me think it is more likely that the
>photo is genuine. Who would give a fake as a gift? The "Ha Ha Ha" also
>becomes more understandable at this point: the giver is clearly sharing a
>private joke with Oswald about his role. Your emphasis on the word "For"
is
>therefore a good one: it makes it a human story, with private jokes, and
>gift-giving, all thrown in.
>
>--
>Regards
>HJR
>
Howard,
But the photo wasn't given to LHO, it was given to George DeMohrenschildt.
Or are you saying that some unidentified person gave this photo to LHO with
the "For Hunter of Fascists" inscription, and then he in turn gave it to
GDM??? If so, where did the unidentified person get the photo??? The
legend is Marina took the photo, so that precludes that someone else might
have taken it and given it to LHO as a gift. And why was it printed with
the black border???
And why was the inscription written lightly in pencil, and then traced over
in pen??? And by someone unfamiliar with the Cyrillic alphabet. Clearly
not Marina, as she testified (and confirmed by the HSCA's handwriting
expert).
Clearly, the photo was designed to look like LHO gave it to GDM, and that
Marina was mocking her husband's revolutionary posturing. And don't you
think that Someone forging this picture would realize that making it
personal would make it seem more genuine, as you pointed out???
Now does it seem logical the LHO would have signed the photo, and then have
had someone forge "For Hunter of Fascists" on it??? (That seems to be the
HSCA's viewpoint). That makes no sense to me. If "For Hunter of Fascists"
is a forgery, than I would reason that LHO's signature must also be a
forgery, and since it fooled the expert, a very good one.
jerrymac
>
>WCAKE wrote in message <19980205210...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>>>From: "jerrymac" <jerr...@mci2000.com>
>>>Date: Tue, Feb 3, 1998 17:03 EST
>>>Message-id: <6b90eo$3...@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Jerry, ........Thank you for posting Marina's testimony about the wtiting
>on
>>the back of the De Mohrenschieldt print.
>>
>>> Mr. McDONALD. Well, first of all, what does it say?
>>
>>> Mrs. PORTER. "For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha."
>>
>>> Mr. McDONALD. "Hunter of fascist"?
>>
Howard J. Rogers
You are right, Walt, that the difference in meaning tells us something about
the history of the photo. If the "For Hunter of Fascists" is correct, the
photo was obviously meant as a gift.
But that tells us *nothing* about the photo's genuineness or lack thereof.
Have you never had someone take your photo, and then send you a copy, as a
memento? I'm currently looking at a photo of a *VERY* cute baby, with an
inscription on the back that reads, "Howard, aged about 4". Given to me,
with a reminder of the facts, but still very definitely me in the photo!
Actually, your interpretation makes me think it is more likely that the
photo is genuine. Who would give a fake as a gift? The "Ha Ha Ha" also
becomes more understandable at this point: the giver is clearly sharing a
private joke with Oswald about his role. Your emphasis on the word "For" is
therefore a good one: it makes it a human story, with private jokes, and
gift-giving, all thrown in.
--
Regards
HJR
WCAKE wrote in message <19980205210...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>>From: "jerrymac" <jerr...@mci2000.com>
>>Date: Tue, Feb 3, 1998 17:03 EST
>>Message-id: <6b90eo$3...@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>
>>
>Jerry, ........Thank you for posting Marina's testimony about the wtiting
on
>the back of the De Mohrenschieldt print.
>
>> Mr. McDONALD. Well, first of all, what does it say?
>
>> Mrs. PORTER. "For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha."
>
>> Mr. McDONALD. "Hunter of fascist"?
>
Howard J. Rogers
Jerry, could GDM have been, however remotely, considered a hunter of
fascists?
Regards
HJR
>
>Howard J. Rogers wrote in message <6bdfkg$9sc$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>...
>>You are right, Walt, that the difference in meaning tells us something
>about
>>the history of the photo. If the "For Hunter of Fascists" is correct, the
>>photo was obviously meant as a gift.
>>
>>But that tells us *nothing* about the photo's genuineness or lack thereof.
>>
>>Have you never had someone take your photo, and then send you a copy, as a
>>memento? I'm currently looking at a photo of a *VERY* cute baby, with an
>>inscription on the back that reads, "Howard, aged about 4". Given to me,
>>with a reminder of the facts, but still very definitely me in the photo!
>>
>>Actually, your interpretation makes me think it is more likely that the
>>photo is genuine. Who would give a fake as a gift? The "Ha Ha Ha" also
>>becomes more understandable at this point: the giver is clearly sharing a
>>private joke with Oswald about his role. Your emphasis on the word "For"
>is
>>therefore a good one: it makes it a human story, with private jokes, and
>>gift-giving, all thrown in.
>>
>>--
>>Regards
>>HJR
>>
>
>
>Howard,
>
>But the photo wasn't given to LHO, it was given to George DeMohrenschildt.
>Or are you saying that some unidentified person gave this photo to LHO with
>the "For Hunter of Fascists" inscription, and then he in turn gave it to
>GDM??? If so, where did the unidentified person get the photo??? The
>legend is Marina took the photo, so that precludes that someone else might
>have taken it and given it to LHO as a gift. And why was it printed with
>the black border???
>
>And why was the inscription written lightly in pencil, and then traced over
>in pen??? And by someone unfamiliar with the Cyrillic alphabet. Clearly
>not Marina, as she testified (and confirmed by the HSCA's handwriting
>expert).
>
>Clearly, the photo was designed to look like LHO gave it to GDM, and that
>Marina was mocking her husband's revolutionary posturing. And don't you
>think that Someone forging this picture would realize that making it
>personal would make it seem more genuine, as you pointed out???
>
>Now does it seem logical the LHO would have signed the photo, and then have
>had someone forge "For Hunter of Fascists" on it??? (That seems to be the
>HSCA's viewpoint). That makes no sense to me. If "For Hunter of Fascists"
>is a forgery, than I would reason that LHO's signature must also be a
>forgery, and since it fooled the expert, a very good one.
>
>jerrymac
>
>
>>
>>WCAKE wrote in message <19980205210...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>>>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>>>>From: "jerrymac" <jerr...@mci2000.com>
>>>>Date: Tue, Feb 3, 1998 17:03 EST
>>>>Message-id: <6b90eo$3...@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Jerry, ........Thank you for posting Marina's testimony about the
wtiting
>>on
>>>the back of the De Mohrenschieldt print.
>>>
>>>> Mr. McDONALD. Well, first of all, what does it say?
>>>
>>>> Mrs. PORTER. "For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha."
>>>
>>>> Mr. McDONALD. "Hunter of fascist"?
>>>
jerrymac
Howard J. Rogers wrote in message <6bdppe$bk1$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>...
>Jerry, could GDM have been, however remotely, considered a hunter of
>fascists?
>
>Regards
>HJR
>
Howard,
No, but why would that matter if the "HOF" writing was a forgery intended to
implicate LHO in the Walker shooting??? And if it wasn't a forgery, who
wrote it???
jerrymac
WCAKE
>Message-id: <6beg96$e...@news1.newsguy.com>
Jerry,....... De M had a shadowy background and we know that
he had a conversation at a party ( just a month before the Walker incident )
in which he was spouting anti Nazi statements.......Marina said the she and Lee
rode home from the Party with De M and the remark was made that if someone had
killed Hitler when he was just getting started the world would have been spared
WW II. De M was a Jew ......It's not unreasonable to think that he was " A
Hunter Of Fascists "
I believe the De M. Print is authentic and the insription was placed there by
Oswald in pencil.....Perhaps De M traced over it to enhance it's legibility.
We know that De M. claimed copyright on the pic.... The inscription seems to
show that it was HIS PHOTO as a gift from LHO.
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Thu, Feb 5, 1998 18:57 EST
>Message-id: <34DA51D1...@Network-1.com>
>
>Walt,
>You Rock!
>Frederick
>
>
Frederick....... I hope that's a compliment..... I've heard of a person being
as dumb as a "box o rocks" and I've heard people being described as hard
headed as a rock........ But I hope you meant it as Jesus did when he told
Peter " You are the rock on which I will build my Church"
Jesus meant that Peter was unshakable..... I'm just stubborn.
Regards ..... Walt
Fred Glazier
Walt,
It was a compliment of the highest order! Musician's phrase.
Re: Christ's statement to Peter. I've always taken it as not Peter but
what Peter says that is the rock upon which He will build his church. -
I'm an argumentative SOB aint I?
Heehee
I enjoy your posts Walt.
Keep the faith and thanks,
Frederick
Pearl Gladstone
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
Walt, can you tell me what Marina says about the picture. Just a
curious, not a substantitive query...
Martin Shackelford
Pearl:
At the ASK Conference, Marina told us she took the photo while
standing with her back to the stairs.
Martin
jerrymac
Pearl Gladstone wrote in message <34DC05...@erols.com>...
Hello Pearl,
Pardon me for butting in, but I did post a line or two of her HSCA
testimony. Basically, she said she never saw that copy of the photo, and
(obviously if she never saw it) she did not write the "Hunter of Fascists"
inscription. The handwriting expert concurred.
As Walt pointed out, when they asked Marina to translate the inscription,
she said it meant "FOR Hunter of Fascists."
jerrymac
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Fri, Feb 6, 1998 15:38 EST
>Message-id: <34DB74D1...@Network-1.com>
>
>Walt,
>It was a compliment of the highest order! Musician's phrase.
>
>Re: Christ's statement to Peter. I've always taken it as not Peter but
>what Peter says that is the rock upon which He will build his church. -
>I'm an argumentative SOB aint I?
>Heehee
>I enjoy your posts Walt.
>Keep the faith and thanks,
>Frederick
>
>
>
>> >Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>> >Date: Thu, Feb 5, 1998 18:57 EST
>> >Message-id: <34DA51D1...@Network-1.com>
>> >
>> >Walt,
>> >You Rock!
>> >Frederick
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Frederick....... I hope that's a compliment..... I've heard of a
>> person being
>> as dumb as a "box o rocks" and I've heard people being described as
>> hard
>> headed as a rock........ But I hope you meant it as Jesus did when
>> he told
>> Peter " You are the rock on which I will build my Church"
>>
>> Jesus meant that Peter was unshakable..... I'm just stubborn.
>>
>> Regards ..... Walt
>
>
who enjoy my posts....... Many don't enjoy them at all...... Parrot, and the
perfesser, and little Organ, are three who wish I'd go away. Since I'm a
stubborn SOB, little do they know that they are the very ones, who solidify my
resolve to keep on postin.
Keep given em hell..... Regards, ....Walt
jackv
Tony Pitman wrote in message <34D92B3E...@southern.co.nz>...
The WC asked Marina Oswald if the pictures were real. She said yes, that
she took them herself. Marina told the WC that she took two pictures of
LHO with rifle and pistol. For what it's worth....
Martin Shackelford
Jack:
The problem is that there were at least three, and possibly four,
photos, and that Marina said she was standing with her back to the steps
when she took one or two photos.
Martin
jack white
All the known photos are fabrications, so what Marina says is immaterial.
Jack
donald_willis
In article <34DF96...@flash.net>, jack says...
And isn't Marina the one who said that Lee owned both the Commission Exhibit
jackets which were discarded here & there on the trail to the Texas Theatre?
The 2 jackets which B.W. Frazier said (based on photos shown him at the WC
hearings) he never saw LHO wear? (He testified, rather, that LHO wore a
different, third jacket to work that day. A jacket that was never, apparently,
& conveniently, seen again....)
dw
donald_willis
In article <34e29383...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu
says...
>
>On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 03:02:07 -0500, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Jack:
>>
>> The problem is that there were at least three, and possibly four,
>>photos, and that Marina said she was standing with her back to the steps
>>when she took one or two photos.
>>
>
>testimony. She told the Warren Commission that she took the very
>photos in evidence, and she told the HSCA the same thing in the late
>1970s.
>
>.John
What a choice! MO's "recent buff-influenced testimony" or her earlier Secret
Service-influenced testimony!
dw
John McAdams
Jerry Organ
Shackelford:
>>> The problem is that there were at least three, and possibly four,
>>> photos, and that Marina said she was standing with her back to
>>> the steps when she took one or two photos.
McAdams:
>> Martin, I think you are talking about her very recent buff-influenced
>> testimony. She told the Warren Commission that she took the very
>> photos in evidence, and she told the HSCA the same thing in the
>> late 1970s.
Willis:
> What a choice! MO's "recent buff-influenced testimony" or her earlier
> Secret Service-influenced testimony!
Marina sold one of the photos to "LIFE" in 1964 for $5000, she told Priscilla Johnson and
Harrison Livingstone -- for instance -- that she took the photos, and a 90s TV production she
participated in shows her taking the photos as we see them today.
The "back to the steps" revelation occurred while she was much taken with super-buffs like
Larry Howard and David Lifton.
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier
I thought she said she took a photo. Wasn't that in her WC testimony? Or
had the Fed's convinced her it was two by then. John would you have a
copy of her WC testimony?
Frederick
John McAdams wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 03:02:07 -0500, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Jack:
> >
> > The problem is that there were at least three, and possibly
> four,
> >photos, and that Marina said she was standing with her back to the
> steps
> >when she took one or two photos.
> >
>
> Martin, I think you are talking about her very recent buff-influenced
> testimony. She told the Warren Commission that she took the very
> photos in evidence, and she told the HSCA the same thing in the late
> 1970s.
>
> .John
jerrymac
Fred Glazier wrote in message <34E32297...@Network-1.com>...
>I thought she said she took a photo. Wasn't that in her WC testimony? Or
>had the Fed's convinced her it was two by then. John would you have a
>copy of her WC testimony?
>Frederick
>
Fred,
I got it for you.
Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the
telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it
immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all.
I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but
for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was
questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought
there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but
they turned out to be two different poses.
Well actually, it turned out to be three (maybe 4!!!).
Fred Glazier
Jerry,
YOU ROCK!
Hum I wonder if the one she took was the ghost of LHO. Naw that couldn't
be she didn't know how to retouch a negative did she? Hum I know russians
count different than us yankees - yea that's it when we say four they
think one unless of course it a bluemoon under a warren commission in
which case it means two. HOWEVER if it so happens that the constellations
should fall under the influence of TIME/LIFE 2 is 3 is 4 as more as. Hey
Tony We're printin 'em fast as we can how many more did ya say ya needed.
Hey Phil good job there naw I like this pose better. Be right with ya Mr
Spector.
Thanks,
Frederick
Robert C. Miller
Jerry Organ wrote:
>
> Shackelford:
> >>> The problem is that there were at least three, and possibly four,
> >>> photos, and that Marina said she was standing with her back to
> >>> the steps when she took one or two photos.
>
> >> Martin, I think you are talking about her very recent buff-influenced
> >> testimony. She told the Warren Commission that she took the very
> >> photos in evidence, and she told the HSCA the same thing in the
> >> late 1970s.
>
> > What a choice! MO's "recent buff-influenced testimony" or her earlier
> > Secret Service-influenced testimony!
>
> Marina sold one of the photos to "LIFE" in 1964 for $5000, she told Priscilla Johnson and
> Harrison Livingstone -- for instance -- that she took the photos, and a 90s TV production she
> participated in shows her taking the photos as we see them today.
>
> The "back to the steps" revelation occurred while she was much taken with super-buffs like
> Larry Howard and David Lifton.
>
> Jerry Organ
[Of course, Priscilla Johnson worked for the North American
News Alliance, that fine journalistic group that put Lucy
Goldberg, of Monicagate fame, into the McGovern camp as a
spy. But while we are talking about backyard photos, does
anyone have any documentation about them being "authenticated"
by the Rochester Institute of Technology? RIT was exposed
as the CIA school for forgerers in the Fall 1991 issue of
Covert Action Information Bulletin, and has recently turned
up as the institution of higher education that "authenticated"
the infamous OJ Simpson Bruno Magli photo. If anyone's got a
citation on this, please c.c. it to my e-mail, so I don't
miss it. Thanks, bob.]
jack white
Lisa Pease has this documentation.
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Thu, Feb 12, 1998 02:06 EST
>Message-id: <34E29F...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
>Shackelford:
>>>> The problem is that there were at least three, and possibly four,
>>>> photos, and that Marina said she was standing with her back to
>>>> the steps when she took one or two photos.
>
>McAdams:
>>> Martin, I think you are talking about her very recent buff-influenced
>>> testimony. She told the Warren Commission that she took the very
>>> photos in evidence, and she told the HSCA the same thing in the
>>> late 1970s.
>
>Willis:
>> What a choice! MO's "recent buff-influenced testimony" or her earlier
>> Secret Service-influenced testimony!
>
>Marina sold one of the photos to "LIFE" in 1964 for $5000, she told Priscilla
>Johnson and
>Harrison Livingstone -- for instance -- that she took the photos, and a 90s
>TV production she
>participated in shows her taking the photos as we see them today.
>
>The "back to the steps" revelation occurred while she was much taken with
>super-buffs like
>Larry Howard and David Lifton.
>
>Jerry Organ
>
Have you ever talked to Marina? She said she only remembered taking
ONE ( a single ) photo of Lee with his rifle.
When the W.C. Attorney showed her two photos she still thought there was only
ONE picture. He had to point out that they were different before she would
believe it, and then she was puzzled because she remembered taking only ONE.
She could not argue with the evidence in front of her, so she reluctantly
agreed that she MIGHT have snapped TWO. It strains the bounds of credibility
to believe that she took THREE or FOUR when she only remembered taking ONE.
Today there are at least THREE photos, and we know that 133C was in the hands
of the authorities at the same time they had CE 133A and CE 133B....... So
the authorities withheld 133C from the duly authorized congressional
investigating commission, who were investigating the murder of the President
Of the United states........ The authorities committed a felony by
withholding evidence in a capital murder case.
Why would the police commit a felony by withholding evidence ?
I'll bet you can answer this, can't you Organ ?
Walt Cakebread
John McAdams
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:01:45 -0500, "The News Guy (Mike)"
<t...@thenews.net> wrote:
>
>
>John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>I remember the photos when they were published in Life. Sure, this is not
>research or expert evidence but they sure 'looked' fake to me. I was an
>amature photographer at the time working at the University of Toronto
>Varsity newspaper. I know that does not mean much. However, I
>remember at the time either POPULAR or MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY
>published a spread on the photographs pointing out the fakery.
>
I used to read these magazines too, and while they were expert on some
things, they were not expert on forensic matters.
>Never saw any followup on that so I will assume they were 'talked to'.
>
>Any of the researchers in this NG may be able to find the issues. It sure
>was obvious that the mags were not run by a bunch of conspiracy nuts, just
>experts interested in photography.
>
>
Why don't you look at the following?:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
Tell us what you think.
.John
Jerry Organ
WCAKE wrote:
> Today there are at least THREE photos, and we know that 133C
> was in the hands of the authorities
1) Why would "forgers" create three versions when one would do?
> The authorities committed a felony by withholding evidence in a
> capital murder case. Why would the police commit a felony by
> withholding evidence ?
2) Officials already had two photos -- how does having the third impact further on Oswald's
undeniable guilt?
3) Why would Oswald sign the back of one of the prints?
4) I wonder if -- on the day of the photo-shoot -- whether Oswald told Marina something like:
"We'll bracket these pictures, so I'll be sure to get one I can use." And that somehow Marina
misinterpreted or misremembered Oswald's comments, assuming the exercise that day was to
get one "useable" picture by taking three or more.
Photographers (and Oswald considered himself fairly knowledgable, offering his skills to leftist
associations) "bracket" photos all the time. Did Oswald's camera have an exposure-setting
adjustment?
--------------
Jerry Organ
[Groden's Grains] [Smoking Gun] [Kennedy's Lincoln]
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Backyard Photos
>From: Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 06:43 EST
>Message-id: <34E6D4...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
>WCAKE wrote:
>
>> Today there are at least THREE photos, and we know that 133C was in the
hands of the authorities
>
>1) Why would "forgers" create three versions when one would do?
>
for 15 years, 133C.... They had a cropped copy of CE 133A but it was useless
as evidence in court ( They planned to introduce it as evidence against LHO )
but theylearned that it would be inadmissable without the negative....So they
created Two photos of their own, and they had the negatives.
>> The authorities committed a felony by withholding evidence in a capital
murder case. Why would the police commit a felony by
>> withholding evidence ?
>
>2) Officials already had two photos -- how does having the third impact
further on Oswald's undeniable guilt?
Nope....... You're missing the point imbecile........It doesn't matterif they
had a DOZEN photos and only withheld ONE ....The fact is THEY WITHHELD
EVIDENCE..... A felony......
>
>3) Why would Oswald sign the back of one of the prints?
Because George De M asked him to.......
>
>4) I wonder if -- on the day of the photo-shoot -- whether Oswald told Marina
something like: "We'll bracket these pictures, so I'll be sure to get one I
can use." And that somehow Marina
>misinterpreted or misremembered Oswald's comments, assuming the exercise that
day was to get one "useable" picture by taking three or more.
You'd better read Marina's testimony imbecile......She said she only remembered
taking ONE picture..... The W.C. Attorney pointed out that the two photos (CE
133A & B ) were different and she was surprised .......So she accepted that she
must have snapped TWO. You really don't know much about this case do you ??
" I WONDER IF "........you're confined, or free to roam the streets............
>Photographers (and Oswald considered himself fairly knowledgable, offering his
skills to leftist associations) "bracket" photos all the time. Did Oswald's
camera have an
>exposure-setting adjustment?
>
What a dumb question from a "researcher" who claims to know stuff about the
Coup d'etat. Even a rank neophyte knows the camera is one of pictures
displayed in the Warren report.
NO the camera used to take the SINGLE Backyard photo (CE 133A ) did not have an
exposure adjustment...... It was a simple box camera. ( Imperial reflex )
>--------------
>Jerry Organ
>
>[Groden's Grains] [Smoking Gun] [Kennedy's Lincoln]
>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
>
>
Walt Cakebread
Jerry Organ
Walt Cakebread wrote:
> Hey Imbecile..... You're missing the point imbecile.... You'd better read Marina's testimony imbecile......
Bye, Cakebread ... you're proven yourself one nasty obnoxious a--hole who's not worth
replying to.
WCAKE
Subject: Re: Backyard Photos
From: wc...@aol.com (WCAKE)
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 13:10 EST
Message-id: <19980215181...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>Walt Cakebread wrote:
>
>> Hey Imbecile..... You're missing the point imbecile.... You'd better read
Marina's testimony imbecile......
>
>Bye, Cakebread ... you're proven yourself one nasty obnoxious a--hole who's
not worth replying to.
>
>Jerry Organ
>
>
Hey Organ....... You can't lie to someone who has the facts.
You consider it insulting when that person isn't gullible enough to swallow
your lies, which would insult any thinking person's intelligence.
The fact that you don't even know very basic stuff, like the type of camera
Marina used to take the BY photo, demonstates that your nothing but a bag of
wind.
>2) Officials already had two photos -- how does having the third impact
further on Oswald's undeniable guilt?
...... You're missing the point imbecile......It doesn't matter if they had a
DOZEN photos and only withheld ONE ....The fact is THEY WITHHELD EVIDENCE.....
A felony......
The fact that you would attempt to pass transparent lies, shows you to be very
stupid.
If you insist on lying....... Perhaps you should take some lesson from Slick
Willie......
Walt Cakebread
Jerry Organ
WCAKE wrote:
>> They created TWO....... CE 133B and 133C....
No evidence of that. All three photos were declared authentic.
>> They had a cropped copy of CE 133A but it was useless as evidence
>> in court ( They planned to introduce it as evidence against LHO )
>> but theylearned that it would be inadmissable without the negative
>> So they created Two photos of their own, and they had the negatives.
No evidence of that. Prints can be considered "evidence" as well as negatives. At the OJ
Simpson Civil Trial, didn't Groden base his "shoes" analysis on a print in the absence of a
neg?
>> The authorities committed a felony by withholding evidence in a
>> capital murder case.
After Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby, there would be no murder trial. Concealing the third
pose is immaterial in light of the mountain of physical evidence against Oswald. The backyard
photos were hardly primary evidence.
>> She said she only remembered taking ONE picture.....
If Oswald told Marina the purpose of the photo-taking was to get "one" useable photo, then
showed her only the one he thought was best, she might remember the exercise as resulting
in one picture.
>> What a dumb question from a "researcher" who claims to know stuff about
>> the Coup d'etat. Even a rank neophyte knows the camera is one of pictures
>> displayed in the Warren report. NO the camera used to take the SINGLE
>> Backyard photo (CE 133A ) did not have an exposure adjustment......
>> It was a simple box camera. ( Imperial reflex )
I didn't claim there was an exposure setting on the camera -- I asked. I'm not accepting what
someone like you thinks they can perceive in a picture of the camera. If others have examined
the Imperial Reflex, or have a similar one at home, they would know for sure whether it had an
exposure setting.
It was a cheap plastic camera -- and probably didn't have such an advanced feature. I didn't
know for sure, so I asked. Better than speculating.
Now even if there was no changes in exposure setting between exposures, Oswald did
change his posture, etc. So I can see Oswald telling Marina more than one exposure was
necessary in order to get the "one good one." Almost every photo buff shoots more than one
exposure in order to get the "one good one."
> Hey Organ....... You can't lie to someone who has the facts.
> You consider it insulting when that person isn't gullible enough to
> swallow your lies, which would insult any thinking person's intelligence.
Cakebread is an a--hole. There's no doubt. He doesn't have an ounce of civility.
> The fact that you don't even know very basic stuff, like the type of
> camera Marina used to take the BY photo, demonstates that your
> nothing but a bag of wind.
What makes you think I didn't know what type of camera was used, or examined photos of it? I
didn't know whether it has an exposure setting, so I asked. What's your problem. BTY, I'm still
asking, since I don't trust what your interpretation of the camera photo.
> The fact that you would attempt to pass transparent lies, shows you
> to be very stupid. If you insist on lying....... Perhaps you should take some
> lesson from Slick Willie......
Bye Cakebread. You're too unpleasant to converse with and too ignorant to educate.
--------------
Fred Glazier
Jerry,
There seems to be evidence of fakery to me. I don't believe photo buffs
typically take multiple exposures to get a good one. I do know
professionals who do.
Frederick
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier wrote:
> There seems to be evidence of fakery to me. I don't believe photo
> buffs typically take multiple exposures to get a good one. I do know
> professionals who do.
Do you think Oswald would limit an neophyte photographer like Marina to just one exposure?
Of course not. Oswald is gonna increase his chances of getting a good picture by shooting a
few extra ones. Makes sense to me -- and it also makes sense that he's gonna tell Marina
something like "I need a one picture -- here, let's start shooting." A few days later, Marina sees
the results: the "one good picture" (CE 133-A). As far as she knows, CE 133-A is the product of
the photo-shoot -- perhaps she doesn't know that negatives and prints of the other poses
would still exist. Possible.
Fred Glazier
Jerry,
But this is all speculation. Marina first said she only took one. I'm
not sure If I believe her or not either then or now regarding lots of
what she has said. I will grant you idea as possible. I am not at this
time convinced. I am convinced of the images being altered.
I am uncertain as to whether they were altered on the negatives or the
photo's them selves.
I think the ghost picture rather damning. I do think Walt's hypothesis
the most believable I've heard yet regarding this aspect of the case.
The more I learn about LHO the more I'm convinced that how he is
presented in the WC is not accurate.
Frederick
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier wrote:
> But this is all speculation.
Don't tell me you -- a conspiracy buff -- is adverse to a little speculation. That's like a Canadian
snowboarder not breathing heavy in a roomful of potheads.
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Bye Bye
>From: Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Date: Tue, Feb 17, 1998 08:53 EST
>Message-id: <34E996...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
>WCAKE wrote:
>
>>> They created TWO....... CE 133B and 133C....
>
>No evidence of that. All three photos were declared authentic.
ORGAN.........I suggested that you take some lessons in lying from a
professional ( pathological ) liar. .............Clinton, and yet you post a
blatant transparent lie......
Post the documentation that the Warren Commission's photo experts declared that
CE 133A, CE 133B, and 133C, were ALL authentic....... If you can't post that
verification, then perhaps you can explain why you can't..... Hint check to
see when 133C first became public.
>>> They had a cropped copy of CE 133A but it was useless as evidence
>>> in court ( They planned to introduce it as evidence against LHO )
>>> but theylearned that it would be inadmissable without the negative
>>> So they created Two photos of their own, and they had the negatives.
>
>No evidence of that. Prints can be considered "evidence" as well as negatives.
At the OJ Simpson Civil Trial, didn't Groden base his "shoes" analysis on a
print in the absence of a
>neg?
>
Hey Imbecile .......Are you aware that the coup d'etat in Dallas preceded the
OJ Simpsom miscarriage of Justice by 32 years?
How many laws have been rewritten in 1/3 of a century??
>>> The authorities committed a felony by withholding evidence in a capital
murder case.
>
>After Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby, there would be no murder trial.
You Dumb SOB, Regardless of whether Oswald had his day in court or not, there
was still an offically authorized FEDERAL INVESTIGATION.......And 133C was NOT
PRESENTED to that commission.......133C was withheld....... That's a felony!!
>Concealing the third pose is immaterial in light of the mountain of physical
evidence against Oswald.
Read the above Dumb Ass.
The backyard photos were hardly primary evidence.
Only a total moron ...... would make this stupid statement....
CE 133A was THE PRIMARY PIECE of evidence used in convicting Oswald in the eyes
of the American public.......
They plastered it across the country on the cover of the most widely
distributed magazine in the world.
>
>>> She said she only remembered taking ONE picture.....
>
>If Oswald told Marina the purpose of the photo-taking was to get "one" useable
photo, then showed her only the one he thought was best, she might remember the
exercise as resulting in one picture.
NO COMMENT........This doesn't even make sense
>>> What a dumb question from a "researcher" who claims to know stuff about
the Coup d'etat. Even a rank neophyte knows the camera is one of pictures
displayed in the Warren report.
NO the camera used to take the SINGLE Backyard photo (CE 133A ) did not have
an exposure adjustment...... It was a simple box camera. ( Imperial reflex )
>
>I didn't claim there was an exposure setting on the camera -- I asked.
Well If you did know this very basic FACT how many more basic FACTS Don't you
know ???? Aren't you one of those who belittles the buffs for offering
theories ???
I'm not accepting what someone like you thinks they can perceive in a picture
of the camera.
Hey Organ...... I may berate you, and I may insult you, and I may make you eat
your lies, and I may be brutal.............But I won't lie to you.
If others have examined the Imperial Reflex, or have a similar one at home,
they would know for sure whether it had an exposure setting.
>
>It was a cheap plastic camera -- and probably didn't have such an advanced
feature. I didn't know for sure, so I asked. Better than speculating.
>
BETTER THAN SPECULATING ?? What do you call this .......
" If Oswald told Marina the purpose of the photo-taking was to get "one"
useable photo, then showed her only the one he thought was best, she might
remember the exercise as resulting in one picture." ............Jerry Organ
>Now even if there was no changes in exposure setting between exposures, Oswald
did change his posture, etc. So I can see Oswald telling Marina more than one
exposure was
>necessary in order to get the "one good one." Almost every photo buff shoots
more than one exposure in order to get the "one good one."
>
>> Hey Organ....... You can't lie to someone who has the facts.
>> You consider it insulting when that person isn't gullible enough to swallow
your lies, which would insult any thinking person's intelligence.
>
>Cakebread is an a--hole. There's no doubt. He doesn't have an ounce of
>civility.
>
>> The fact that you don't even know very basic stuff, like the type of
>> camera Marina used to take the BY photo, demonstates that your
>> nothing but a bag of wind.
>
>What makes you think I didn't know what type of camera was used, or examined
>photos of it? I
>didn't know whether it has an exposure setting, so I asked. What's your
>problem. BTY, I'm still
>asking, since I don't trust what your interpretation of the camera photo.
>
>> The fact that you would attempt to pass transparent lies, shows you
>> to be very stupid. If you insist on lying....... Perhaps you should take
>some
>> lesson from Slick Willie......
>
>Bye Cakebread. You're too unpleasant to converse with and too ignorant to
educate.
Translation .......You don't have the brains, or the balls, to continue
challenging me.
Walt Cakebread
Fred Glazier
Jerry,
LMAO. No I'm not adverse to speculation.
Hey I'd like your opinion on the Milteer stuff. Here we have a guy on
tape talking about a organized attempt on JFK's life. I've seen pics
that very much look like him in Dealey. I've read that he made phone
calls from Dallas that weekend. Now we know that there was a plan to
assassinate JFK in Miami and it was thwarted. What makes the same thing
so difficult to believe in Dallas? Indeed if these people were unable to
achieve their goal would they not try again.
I mean they're serious enough to do the hit I don't think they'd just
give up.
Thanks,
Frederick
Jerry Organ wrote:
> Fred Glazier wrote:
>
> > But this is all speculation.
>
> Don't tell me you -- a conspiracy buff -- is adverse to a little
> speculation. That's like a Canadian
> snowboarder not breathing heavy in a roomful of potheads.
>
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier wrote:
> Hey I'd like your opinion on the Milteer stuff. Here we have a
> guy on tape talking about a organized attempt on JFK's life.
Pure coincidence, because JFK was coming to visit Florida soon. If part of an actual "plot," why
weren't the tapes destroyed by the authorities?
> I've seen pics that very much look like him in Dealey.
Altgens' Houston Street photo was examined by the HSCA in 1978. They concluded:
"Milteer resembles the Kennedy motorcade spectator in age and general facial configuration.
The spectator appears to have worn eyeglasses similiar in general style to those fravored by
Milteer. The spectator, however, does not resemble Milteer in upper lip thickness; he is also
partially bald, whereas Milteer apparently had a full head of hair in the photograph that was
taken several years after the assassination. Most significantly, Milteer's reported stature of 64
inches places him about 6 inches under the spectator's estimated stature."
Groden did not challenge this analysis in 1978 or since.
> I've read that he made phone calls from Dallas that weekend.
-- Or so it was presented in some conspiracy books. What's your proof?
> Now we know that there was a plan to assassinate JFK in Miami
> and it was thwarted.
No, Fred: Some blowhard loser got lucky with his prediction. Now would the "conspirators"
trust such a braggart with their plans? Hardly.
> What makes the same thing so difficult to believe in Dallas?
Because the only assassin to turn up in 35 years was the genuine one: Lee Harvey Oswald
acting alone.
> Indeed if these people were unable to achieve their goal would
> they not try again. I mean they're serious enough to do the hit
> I don't think they'd just give up.
Yeah. They must be real serious thugs, considering they failed to "silence" Milteer for blowing
their Miami plans and later bragging about the "hit" in Dallas.
And didn't JFK himself make a similar "prediction" in his Fort Worth suite on the morning of
November 22?
Frederick: Read (or, gasp, do) some legitimate research.
This dime-novel approach of yours ain't cuttin' it, pal.
Jerry Organ
Walt Cakebread wrote:
>> If you can't post that verification, then perhaps you can explain
>> why you can't.
You dolt. All three photographs were authenticated by the HSCA Photographic Evidence
Panel in 1978. Your ignorance of this indicates you either did not read their report or is unable
to comprehend the science their conclusions were built on.
>> No evidence of that. Prints can be considered "evidence" as well
>> as negatives. At the OJ Simpson Civil Trial, didn't Groden base
>> his "shoes" analysis on a print in the absence of a neg?
> How many laws have been rewritten in 1/3 of a century??
A negative is always preferable to a print, since it is the original. If only prints are available,
experts can be called in to authenticate them. In the case of the OJ Simpson Civil Trial, the
"expert" they hired (Groden) was himself not authentic.
>> After Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby, there would be no
>> murder trial.
> there was still an offically authorized FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
> ... And 133C was NOT PRESENTED to that commission ...
> 133C was withheld ... That's a felony!!
You moron. Make the basic effort sometime to read the Warren Commission's mandate and
rules of operation. The Commission was a fact-finding body, not a prosecutor's office. That's
why the Commission was able to advance a definitive motive for Oswald -- they were limited to
just the facts only, not the speculation over motivation so commonly heard in the criminal trial
system.
Again: Concealing the third pose was immaterial in light of the mountain of physical evidence
against Oswald. In fact, many of the Commission's former staffers will tell you that the refusal
by Bobby Kennedy to disclose the CIA/Mafia assassination plots (under Operation Mongoose)
was a far more serious disservice to the Commission.
> CE 133A was THE PRIMARY PIECE of evidence used in
> convicting Oswald in the eyes of the American public ...
> They plastered it across the country on the cover of the most
> widely distributed magazine in the world.
Just who do you think "they" are?
When Marina sold the picture to the media, the Commission was so surprised they
interviewed her business manager about it. The Commission wasn't a propaganda instument
-- they had nothing to do with the Backyard Photo being published. Take your suspicions to
Marina.
>> If Oswald told Marina the purpose of the photo-taking was
>> to get "one" useable photo, then showed her only the one he
>> thought was best, she might remember the exercise as
>> resulting in one picture.
> NO COMMENT........This doesn't even make sense
Hardly surprising. Your limited mindset only permits consideration of conspiracy scenarios. At
least my speculating doesn't involve accusing innocent persons of assassinating a President.
>> I didn't claim there was an exposure setting on the camera --
>> I asked.
> Well If you did know this very basic FACT how many more basic
> FACTS Don't you know ???? Aren't you one of those who
> belittles the buffs for offering theories ???
Right -- I disapprove of theories that smear innocents and ignore the facts. Speculating about
how Marina could have taken the Backyard Photos is benign by comparison with the cheap
innuendo you constantly peddle.
> Hey Organ ... I may berate you, and I may insult you, and I
> may make you eat your lies, and I may be brutal ...
> But I won't lie to you.
Gee, is this your paranoia talking or just your persecution-complex? I didn't say you lied -- I
said:
I'm not accepting what someone like you thinks
they can perceive in a picture of the camera.
And again, I ask:
If others have examined the Imperial Reflex,
or have a similar one at home, does it have
an exposure setting?
Doesn't bother my scenario a bit if the camera has one or not.
--------------------------
>> Bye Cakebread. You're too unpleasant to converse with
>> and too ignorant to educate.
> Translation ... You don't have the brains, or the balls,
> to continue challenging me.
So, paranoid, you consider all responses to your postings "challenges." Not exactly an attitude
that's open to learning or tolerant of other opinions.
It's not your "facts" that offends me, Cakebread: It's your lack of basic manners and common
civility!!!!!! I originally answered your posting in good faith ... after your "small Organ" greeting
and third "imbecile", I've had enough of your ilk.
And so have a lot of others here.
Bye, Cakebread.
----------------------------
Martin Shackelford
Jerry:
You say that Groden didn't challenge the HSCA evaluation that the
Houston Street photo didn't show Milteer, but The Killing of a
President shows the photo and identifies the man as Milteer.
Martin
Jerry Organ
Martin Shackelford wrote:
Sorry, Martin. My copy of TKOAP is loaned out to friends reading "Groden's Grains." Groden
still hasn't address the HSCA's height analysis -- Groden is still assuming the man is Milteer.
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier
Jerry,
I for one do not believe in coincidence. Have you ever read
Synchronicity and on synchronicity?
The tape weren't destroyed because the Miami police were not in on it
and it's from their records. Sommersett knew Milteer well. It was a
sting that got more than they bargained for from what I gather. Milteer
told Sommersett that it happened just like I told you. He - Milteer
later died from 3rd degree burns to his lower extremities. Milteer told
Sommersett that it was in the works and that they'd pick someone up - a
sacrificial lamb if you will - soon afterwards. His prediction reads
pretty much the same as most conspiracy theories.
I don't know if Mr. Groden has challenged the HSCA analysis or not.
For that matter references to the WC or the HSCA as proof of no
conspiracy don't carry a whole lot of weight with me Jerry. If there was
a conspiracy involving people from the government then one must be
suspicious of a governmental explanation of what happened.
Milteer called Sommersett on the morning of the assassination.
There is nice layout of the FBI memoranda on Milteer on pages 154 and
155 of TKOAP. Also on page 154 is the FBI telex to all SACS warning of a
possible assassination of JFK by a militant revolutionary group.
Crossfire has a nice bit in it about Milteer too.
Now I would agree in your chacterization of Milteer as a blowhard loser.
I am of like mind when it comes to ultra right wing fanatical like him
and the kkk and nazis.
I think you might want to check some more on him Jerry. He did allot of
traveling and was in touch with other people who adhered to his
political views. He is on tape as having knowledge of an assassination
plot before the assassination and his prediction does come true.
From what I've gathered the conspirators left quite a few loose ends. I
believe they've done a so-so job of covering them up but certainly not
complete.
Remember these people that did this were people. People make mistakes.
Milteer getting caught on tape was certainly one. It wasn't their only
one.
No one has yet proved that LHO was the assassin of JFK. 35 year old
murder case unsolved. Did ya wanna take a crack at it? Silencing people
that know too much can very easily back fire on the silencers. I'm sure
they have been rather careful in covering tracks there but it is one
aspect of the case that has received allot of attention. It is within
the realm of possibility that they did indeed silence Milteer. Maybe
they didn't. Maybe they weren't all that concerned. They offered up a
patsy who was accepted and moved on to bigger and better things. In
their view case closed.
I had heard that JFK had told people if they get then they get him.
Pretty cavalier don't you think.
Jerry, really I do read. gasp do some research. Jerry I did not join the
discussion here to promote my entry into the research field. The more I
talk to you the more I'm convinced that some more research does need to
be done. I am considering it and do appreciate your support and
suggestion.
Dime-novel? God were it that I was so lucky. The stuff I've bought is a
bit more costly than that.
Jerry. What is your real interest in all this. I mean your convinced
that LHO did it alone. You support that theory. I take it you have some
disagreements with details. Yet you choose for the name of your book a
derisive statement toward another author. What give's there Jerry?
Jim Marrs did not write a book called the Warren Commission Lied.
Grodens book is not entitled How the HSCA and WC covered up the truth.
Hell they didn't even separate out a group for attack with their titles
let alone and individual. Strikes me as odd.
Frederick
Jerry Organ wrote:
WCAKE
>Message-id: <34EB2C...@ns.sympatico.ca>
your lies.
It's your lack of basic manners and common
>civility!!!!!!
Civility ?? You stupid moron... We're talking about the most uncivil act
known .......murder..... and you think I'm going to be civil while you attempt
to cover up the crime ??
I originally answered your posting in good faith ...
Good Faith?? You've demonstrated that that is an alien concept to you.
after your "small Organ" ( no Organ, the term was" little organ" which
translates to little prick ) greeting and third "imbecile", I've had enough
of your ilk.
>
>And so have a lot of others here.
>Bye, Cakebread.
>
Well I hate to see you cut and run like a yellow dog, because I truely enjoy
shoving the facts up you nose. I understand that you can't counter facts with
lies, so you have no choice. However, an honorable man of integrity would
acknowledge the facts and attempt an honest counter arguement.
Walt Cakebread
>----------------------------
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier wrote:
> The tape weren't destroyed because the Miami police were not
> in on it and it's from their records.
Oh I see: the "cabel" were planning a "conspiracy" in a city where the police department
couldn't be counted on to aid and abet.
> Milteer later died from 3rd degree burns to his lower extremities.
Milteer died in 1974. Now, this "cabel" supposedly silences a simple "patsy" two days after the
assassination, but lets a wild-card like Milteer walk the face of the earth with their secrets for
11 years?
> I don't know if Mr. Groden has challenged the HSCA analysis
> or not. For that matter references to the WC or the HSCA as
> proof of no conspiracy don't carry a whole lot of weight with
> me Jerry.
Of I see. You're saying the independent consultants hired by the HSCA were really
government agents. That's an easy excuse to avoid having to address their objective science.
Of course, it's understandable that such honest analysis based solely on the facts would
appear "suspicious" to anyone who relies solely on conspiracy books.
> If there was a conspiracy involving people from the government
> then one must be suspicious of a governmental explanation of
> what happened.
Yeah, sure. So the whole government would cover-up the actions of a few renegades?
> From what I've gathered the conspirators left quite a few loose
> ends. I believe they've done a so-so job of covering them up but
> certainly not complete.
So they leave alone a guy like Milteer who's betrayed to the authorities their Miami and Dallas
plans? Uh huh -- sure.
> Remember these people that did this were people. People make
> mistakes.
And the folks who mixed up the photo of "Oswald" in Mexico City were human; and so was the
Warren Commission. Try to grant the agencies and WC a little of the understanding you so
willingly extend to some "cabel." Only then can you realize that a lot of the conspiracy
"indicators" were just the product of simple human error.
> No one has yet proved that LHO was the assassin of JFK.
Obviously, not to you. But you refuse to accept any analysis from the WC and HSCA,
remember?
> 35 year old murder case unsolved. Did ya wanna take a crack at it?
Since the evening of Oswald's arrest, the evidence has consistently affirmed his sole guilt. It's
paranoids with an anti-federal agenda (like Weisberg, Lane and Meagher) who began to
muddy the waters with their leftist distortions and faulty analysis.
> The more I talk to you the more I'm convinced that some more
> research does need to be done.
The HSCA's research I cited you choose to condemn on its face because it was done for a
"government" body. If you don't what to learn from the consultants' work, then what's left is to
do your own analysis. Better get started.
> What is your real interest in all this.
To get out the facts critics have suppressed from the public and address directly some of their
contentions overlooked in other books.
> Yet you choose for the name of your book a derisive statement
> toward another author. What give's there Jerry?
Excuse me: "Groden's Grains" is derisive? How so? Geeez.
> Jim Marrs did not write a book called the Warren Commission Lied.
No, but the subtitle reads "The Plot that Killed Kennedy" and the cover photos implies LBJ and
Hoover were involved.
> Grodens book is not entitled How the HSCA and WC covered
> up the truth.
Read the book's blurb and look at the chapter titles in TKOAP. If the cover was benign, it was a
credit to Viking Penguin, not Groden. You do know Groden contributed to a book called "High
Treason"?
-----------------------------------
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Milteer
>From: Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Date: Fri, Feb 20, 1998 02:35 EST
>Message-id: <34ED32...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
>
>Milteer died in 1974. Now, this "cabel" supposedly silences a simple "patsy"
two days after the assassination, but lets a wild-card like Milteer walk the
face of the earth with their secrets for 11 years?
Is this supposed to be an intelligent response ??
Of course they silence the Oswald just as fast as they could, he was nothing
but a patsy who had first hand knowledge about who was behind the plot......He
said he could prove the fakery in the photo they showed him (133C?) and he told
them he had seen the rifle that was the alleged murder weapon in the TSBD on
Wed. Nov. 20 1963. They knew he could clear himself and point the finger at
the conspiritors...... They had to kill him to shut him up.
Milteer on the other hand had no first hand knowledge.....he had heard rumors
of the plot to kill JFK, but he was no real threat.
Hoover's henchmen were only "interested" in those who were an immediate threat,
because they had first had knowledge.....nearly all of them died an early
unnatural death.
Walt Cakebread
Steve Keating
WCAKE wrote:
> Well I hate to see you cut and run like a yellow dog, because I truely enjoy
> shoving the facts up you nose. I understand that you can't counter facts with
> lies, so you have no choice. However, an honorable man of integrity would
> acknowledge the facts and attempt an honest counter arguement.
What more can be said about this one, eh? Its a keeper for sure <g>.
Steve K.
>
>
> Walt Cakebread
>
>
> >
Jerry Organ
>> Organ:
>> Milteer died in 1974. Now, this "cabel" supposedly silences a simple
>> "patsy" two days after the assassination, but lets a wild-card like Milteer
>> walk the face of the earth with their secrets for 11 years?
> Is this supposed to be an intelligent response ??
If it's not "intelligent" to you, don't bother responding. We're all tired of your cheap shots.
> Of course they silence the Oswald just as fast as they could, he was
> nothing but a patsy who had first hand knowledge about who was behind
> the plot......
Yet doesn't betray any of them to the authorities, even though he's charged with two counts of
first-degree murder. Seems he first wanted an attorney who "could believe in my innocent as
much as he can" and "who thinks as I do."
> He said he could prove the fakery in the photo they showed him (133C?) ...
Critics haven't proven the photos "fakes" in over 34 years.
> Milteer on the other hand had no first hand knowledge.....he had heard
> rumors of the plot to kill JFK, but he was no real threat.
Milteer is taken a lot more seriously by Groden and Riddle.
> Hoover's henchmen were only "interested" in those who were an immediate
> threat, because they had first had knowledge.....nearly all of them died an
> early unnatural death.
Like Hosty, Hoover, Gemberling, etc.
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier
Wow this is weird I don't see my post to which you are responding
listed.
Jerry,
I think you're overly organizing things. I imagine there were multiple
locations seen as potential. Many plans were not enacted until late in
the operation. In football you may well draft your first 20 plays but
you will also allow yourself the latitude to change those plans
depending on the course of play.
Likewise if you choose the assassination game. You prepare your teams to
be ready should the opportunity present itself but reserve the decision
to go or not to until closer to the event. Last minute considerations
have to be made and one must account for the possibility of your
operation being discovered as in Miami.
Scratch. Next target date.
Those involved in covering up did let some wild card loose for several
years.
Why? I don't know. I would venture to guess that as with most things it
just take time to tie up loose ends. Especially if you do not know they
are loose. Is he a threat? No not at this time. Is he a threat? Well
maybe but we think we can manage it. I think he's a threat. It's taken
care of.
I did not say the independent consultants were assets of the conspiracy.
I don't know. I do know people make mistakes. I also know I've met
professionals who don't know diddle. "I am me and I am expert and thou
shalt take my word."
I think it highly unwise that any person just take the word of someone
based on their credentials.
You seem to wish to discredit my thoughts as being solely based on
conspiracy books and infer that they are not based on any scientific
evidence but that of course the governments claims are. Don't be absurd!
A careful evaluation of the facts will lead any one to the conclusion
that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy.
Perhaps I'm just not as trusting as you Jerry, but it's not like I don't
have cause. JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, S and L, etc...
I do not believe that the whole government is involved in the cover up.
Don't be absurd. They don't need to be. Yes I am suspicious of any
agency or organization reporting on it's own alleged misdeeds. Duh! You
did this - uh no I didn't. See I investigate myself.
I am perfectly willing to allow for latitude in understand errors. I'm
actually beginning to suspect that Oswald was indeed in Mexico. Did you
see the portion of TMWKK last night?
Jerry, I do not believe that entire agencies were involved. I believe
people were involved. These people did work in many different areas. Yes
some of them work for the government. No not all employees of the
Government are wicked evil minions. Most are good people. All of them
are people. People killed JFK, and people covered it up.
I did not say that I refuse to accept any analysis from the WC or the
HSCA. I am suspicious. I know the SBT is a crock of sh*t. Good God Jerry
I have a brain. Besides too many bullets recovered to of come from three
shots. Oh well yes of course the one that was found on the south side of
Elm don't seem to exist any more. No of course that's not strange or
suspicious. A Police Officer finds a piece of evidence and gets whacked
for his efforts. Nobel people you're defending here pal!
> Since the evening of Oswald's arrest, the evidence has consistently affirmed his sole guilt. It's
> paranoids with an anti-federal agenda (like Weisberg, Lane and Meagher) who began to
> muddy the waters with their leftist distortions and faulty analysis.
>
Oh now we get to the crux of the matter don't we Jerry. The evidence has
not consistently affirmed LHO's guilt. And since I don't agree with you
and the party line I am paranoid and have an anti-federal agenda? Muddy
the waters with leftist distortions and faulty analysis?
YOU MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT AND IMPLY THAT I'M PARANOID!
The truth is your a radical conservative who just can't stand that the
world does not share your reality distortion field and you conclude then
that you must go about beating people over the head with you beliefs
until they succumb to your superior intellect. Is that it Jerry? Are you
really a Nazi?
You've had the audacity in the past to tell me to get a life! I truly
believe that a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK.
Given such a belief it is hardly incomprehensible that I would involve
myself in discussions as to what happened and who did it. You on the
other hand believe the official explanation and accept it's conclusions.
What on earth could be your reasons for posting here? To convince the
world of the truth? Jerry Don't you believe we already have the truth?
Do you feel yourself so much better qualified than the experts and
officials you so love to support the conclusions of to announce this
brilliant discovery to the world? Really Jerry? Are you stating
categorically that you are eminently more qualified to make a judgment
in this matter and if so since it was not you who made the original
judgment are you not saying that their judgment is deficient in some
way?
By the way High Treason - great book you ought to read it. Grodens
Grains. Good Grief Jerry do you not see how transparent your motives
are?
Frederick
Jerry Organ wrote:
> Fred Glazier wrote:
>
> > The tape weren't destroyed because the Miami police were not
> > in on it and it's from their records.
>
> Oh I see: the "cabel" were planning a "conspiracy" in a city where the
> police department
> couldn't be counted on to aid and abet.
>
> > Milteer later died from 3rd degree burns to his lower extremities.
>
> Milteer died in 1974. Now, this "cabel" supposedly silences a simple
> "patsy" two days after the
> assassination, but lets a wild-card like Milteer walk the face of the
> earth with their secrets for
> 11 years?
>
> > I don't know if Mr. Groden has challenged the HSCA analysis
> > or not. For that matter references to the WC or the HSCA as
> > proof of no conspiracy don't carry a whole lot of weight with
> > me Jerry.
>
> Of I see. You're saying the independent consultants hired by the HSCA
> were really
> government agents. That's an easy excuse to avoid having to address
> their objective science.
> Of course, it's understandable that such honest analysis based solely
> on the facts would
> appear "suspicious" to anyone who relies solely on conspiracy books.
>
> > If there was a conspiracy involving people from the government
> > then one must be suspicious of a governmental explanation of
> > what happened.
>
> Yeah, sure. So the whole government would cover-up the actions of a
> few renegades?
>
> > From what I've gathered the conspirators left quite a few loose
> > ends. I believe they've done a so-so job of covering them up but
> > certainly not complete.
>
> So they leave alone a guy like Milteer who's betrayed to the
> authorities their Miami and Dallas
> plans? Uh huh -- sure.
>
> > Remember these people that did this were people. People make
> > mistakes.
>
> And the folks who mixed up the photo of "Oswald" in Mexico City were
> human; and so was the
> Warren Commission. Try to grant the agencies and WC a little of the
> understanding you so
> willingly extend to some "cabel." Only then can you realize that a lot
> of the conspiracy
> "indicators" were just the product of simple human error.
>
> > No one has yet proved that LHO was the assassin of JFK.
>
> Obviously, not to you. But you refuse to accept any analysis from the
> WC and HSCA,
> remember?
>
> > 35 year old murder case unsolved. Did ya wanna take a crack at it?
>
> Since the evening of Oswald's arrest, the evidence has consistently
> affirmed his sole guilt. It's
> paranoids with an anti-federal agenda (like Weisberg, Lane and
> Meagher) who began to
> muddy the waters with their leftist distortions and faulty analysis.
>
> > The more I talk to you the more I'm convinced that some more
> > research does need to be done.
>
> The HSCA's research I cited you choose to condemn on its face because
> it was done for a
> "government" body. If you don't what to learn from the consultants'
> work, then what's left is to
> do your own analysis. Better get started.
>
> > What is your real interest in all this.
>
> To get out the facts critics have suppressed from the public and
> address directly some of their
> contentions overlooked in other books.
>
> > Yet you choose for the name of your book a derisive statement
> > toward another author. What give's there Jerry?
>
> Excuse me: "Groden's Grains" is derisive? How so? Geeez.
>
> > Jim Marrs did not write a book called the Warren Commission Lied.
>
> No, but the subtitle reads "The Plot that Killed Kennedy" and the
> cover photos implies LBJ and
> Hoover were involved.
>
> > Grodens book is not entitled How the HSCA and WC covered
> > up the truth.
>
> Read the book's blurb and look at the chapter titles in TKOAP. If the
> cover was benign, it was a
> credit to Viking Penguin, not Groden. You do know Groden contributed
> to a book called "High
> Treason"?
>
> -----------------------------------
>
Fred Glazier
>
test
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier wrote:
> I think you're overly organizing things. I imagine there were multiple
> locations seen as potential.
Typical buff. Doesn't matter how far-fetched his pet theory gets, he'll gladly pile on more and
more improbables to make it seem to work.
> You prepare your teams to be ready should the opportunity present
> itself but reserve the decision to go or not to until closer to the event.
> Last minute considerations have to be made and one must account
> for the possibility of your operation being discovered as in Miami.
Fred, put it into a dime-novel.
> Those involved in covering up did let some wild card loose for several
> years. Why? I don't know.
Because Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald acting alone.
> You seem to wish to discredit my thoughts as being solely based on
> conspiracy books and infer that they are not based on any scientific
> evidence but that of course the governments claims are.
No. You claimed everything the government has presented was assumed to be faulty or
tainted. I replied: "You're saying the independent consultants hired by the HSCA were really
government agents. That's an easy excuse to avoid having to address their objective science."
> A careful evaluation of the facts will lead any one to the conclusion
> that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy.
Sure, if you automatically refuse to read the scientific analysis conducted by the HSCA -- and
only trust in how conspiracy authors "interpret" those studies.
> Perhaps I'm just not as trusting as you Jerry, ...
Far too trusting of the conspiracy authors, Fred. Far too cynical of the HSCA analysis by
independent consultants.
> ... but it's not like I don't have cause. JFK, MLK, RFK, ...
No conspiracy found in all these cases, remember? And the lone-assassins are still alive. Why
weren't they silenced?
> ... Watergate, Iran-Contra, S and L, etc...
All found out. Impossible to cover-up even a petty break-in at the Watergate, let alone a
Presidential assassination conspiracy.
> See I investigate myself.
No, you place too much faith in the conspiracy books, Fred.
> I know the SBT is a crock of sh*t.
Read the HSCA trajectory analysis. Not the SBT as portrayed by critics ignorant of science.
> Besides too many bullets recovered to of come from three shots.
Grain weight? Thompson dismissed that myth in 1967.
> A Police Officer finds a piece of evidence and gets whacked for
> his efforts.
Tell me more about this.
>> Since the evening of Oswald's arrest, the evidence has consistently
>> affirmed his sole guilt. It's paranoids with an anti-federal agenda
>> (like Weisberg, Lane and Meagher) who began to muddy the waters
>> with their leftist distortions and faulty analysis.
> And since I don't agree with you and the party line I am paranoid and
> have an anti-federal agenda? Muddy the waters with leftist distortions
> and faulty analysis? YOU MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT
> AND IMPLY THAT I'M PARANOID!
Perhaps you are a paranoid if you think my statement was an exclusive reference to you,
when I specified whom I was directing it at.
> The truth is your a radical conservative who just can't stand that the
> world does not share your reality distortion field and you conclude
> then that you must go about beating people over the head with you
> beliefs until they succumb to your superior intellect.
You can't handle the facts I present, so I'm "beating people over the head with beliefs." Geez.
> Is that it Jerry? Are you really a Nazi?
Well, this charge betrays your McCarthyism. Or are you really paranoid?
> You've had the audacity in the past to tell me to get a life! I truly
> believe that a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK.
Believe all you want. I would demand compelling proof before I accuse innocents of
participating in the brutal murder of the Chief Executive and subsequent cover-up. Your
standard of proof isn't equal to mine.
> Given such a belief it is hardly incomprehensible that I would
> involve myself in discussions as to what happened and who did it.
Now this is more like "beating people over the head with you beliefs until they succumb to
your superior intellect."
> You on the other hand believe the official explanation and accept
> it's conclusions.
I believe the evidence -- not unfounded speculation, gut feelings and your "beliefs."
> What on earth could be your reasons for posting here?
This is good. Glazier avoids debating the facts by speculating over my "motives." Typical buff
move -- but it ain't gonna change the facts in the case that convict Oswald of the murders of
Kennedy and Tippit on November 22, 1963.
> To convince the world of the truth? Jerry Don't you believe we already
> have the truth? Do you feel yourself so much better qualified than the
> experts and officials you so love to support the conclusions of to
> announce this brilliant discovery to the world? Really Jerry?
Just trying to give serious reseachers here and lurkers an appreciation of the lone-assassin
evidence long denied the public by critic-authors. Your emotional replies would be laughable
if they weren't so obnoxious.
> Are you stating categorically that you are eminently more qualified
> to make a judgment in this matter and if so since it was not you who
> made the original judgment are you not saying that their judgment
> is deficient in some way?
A lot of advances have been made in the case since the WC and HSCA: release of files,
access to autopsy photos, advances in trajectory analysis, the SBT pinpointed on the
Zapruder film, the "Magic Bullet" re-created, my own theory on the head-snap, etc., etc. If you
want to be like Groden, and think the "lone-assassin" case ended with the HSCA's "probable
conspiracy" conclusion, go ahead -- bury your head.
> By the way High Treason - great book you ought to read it.
I did. That's how I know it's the worst bestseller ever written on the case. At least I read a book
before denouncing it to the world.
> Grodens Grains.
"Groden's Grains" is a derisive title? How so? I'm labelled a "Nazi" and "imbecile" by
Cakebread and you -- and I'm the derisive one?
jerrymac
Jerry Organ wrote in message <34EDB5...@ns.sympatico.ca>...
>Fred Glazier wrote:
>
SNIP IRREVELANT BS
>
>> You prepare your teams to be ready should the opportunity present
>> itself but reserve the decision to go or not to until closer to the
event.
>> Last minute considerations have to be made and one must account
>> for the possibility of your operation being discovered as in Miami.
>
>Fred, put it into a dime-novel.
LIKE "GRODEN'S GRAINS???"
jerrymac
WCAKE
>Message-id: <34ED7A...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>> Is this supposed to be an intelligent response ??
>
>If it's not "intelligent" to you, don't bother responding. We're all tired of
your cheap shots.
Hey little organ....... Are you pregnant ?? Or do you have multiple
personalities ?? Who's "WE " in we're all tired ......?
Are you so gutless that you can't say "I AM TIRED" and stand on your own two
feet........ Do you need to attempt to add the weight of an invisible,
nonexistant, group to your post.
Very few people support you Organ........ You lie too much.
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Milteer
>From: Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Date: Fri, Feb 20, 1998 07:43 EST
>Message-id: <34ED7A...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
>
>> Of course they silence the Oswald just as fast as they could, he was
>> nothing but a patsy who had first hand knowledge about who was behind
>> the plot......
>
>Yet doesn't betray any of them to the authorities, even though he's charged
>with two counts of
>first-degree murder. Seems he first wanted an attorney who "could believe in
>my innocent as
>much as he can" and "who thinks as I do."
>
>
Hey little organ......... Oswald was talking to the very people who had
murdered the President ..........He knew that a Dallas cop had been sent to the
training camp on lake Ponchatrain to sharpen his marksmenship for the planned
assassination.
Would you expect him to say......" Hey I know there was a cop from the Dallas
Police Force training at Lake Ponchatrain "
Get real little organ ........
Walt Cakebread
Tracy Riddle
John McAdams wrote:
>
<snipping for space>
> It seems the conspiracy books leave some things out,
> don't they?
>
> Why do you suppose they don't tell readers about:
>
> 1. The 15 look-alikes that Kennedy has travelling with
> him? If you're going to shoot Kennedy, you wouldn't
> want to hit one a' them look-alikes, would you?
> 2. The fact that Milteer named the man who was
> supposedly going to kill Kennedy -- one Jack Brown --
> and nobody has linked him to the assassination?
> Interestingly, after the assassination, Brown was
> forgotten, and Milteer seemed to accept that Oswald
> pulled the trigger.
>
> 3. The fact that the language about taking a
> disassembled gun up into a tall building was in the
> context of shooting Kennedy on the veranda of the White
> House, in warm weather?
>
> It seems that presenting Milteer as "The Miami Prophet"
> (Marrs' term for him) rather than "The Miami Crackpot"
> requires withholding information from your readers.
>
> .John
And John doesn't withhold information about Milteer, does he? Try
explaining how Milteer knew enough to be in Dallas the morning of the
assassination, and called the informant, Willie Somersett, at 10:30am to
tell him JFK wouldn't be coming back to Miami again. Just another
fantastic coincidence, I suppose.
Milteer wasn't involved in the plot; he only heard about it through the
right-wing grapevine and embellished it with his own theories and wild
details. But he knew about the essentials (including the picking up of a
patsy to throw the public off, and - as he told Somersett on 11/23 - the
attempts to blame it on the communists and the Jews).
It's too bad McAdams can't tell us the whole story, but that's standard
stuff for the lone-nutters.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
John McAdams wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 01:32:13 -0500, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >John:
> >
> > You dismiss Milteer far too readily:
> >1) He predicted the assassination less than a month before it happened.
>
> Yea, in Miami.
>
> Look, Martin, a lot of people "predict" assassinations in exactly the
> same way.
>
> The House Select Committee on Assassinations examined Secret Service
> files, and found that from March through December 1963 the agency
> received information on over 400 possible threats to the President.
> (See the HSCA Report, p. 230.)
>
> >2) He specified a high-powered rifle from a building (maybe he didn't
> >know the full plan, only part).
>
> Or maybe he was just blowing hot air.
>
> >3) He specified the Fair Play for Cuba Committee as the group
> >infiltrated by the Right.
>
> *After* the assassination, and after "Fair Play for Cuba" was all over
> them media, he said this.
>
> But Martin, just how does not "infiltrate" the New Orleans chapter of
> the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? It only had one member!
>
> >4) The fact that he speaks of a disassembled weapon in one context
> >doesn't mean that it wouldn't also be used in another context.
>
> So you think the original plan was to shoot Kennedy on the veranda of
> the White House? That was what Milteer said.
>
> >5) Jack Brown may have been the original choice--especially if Oswald
> >couldn't be successfully manipulated.
> >
>
> But Milteer wasn't talking about Brown as a manipulated patsy. He was
> talking about him as an assassin.
>
> And how about the 15 look-alikes, Martin? Neither Marrs nor Summers
> told their readers about that. Could it be because it makes Milteer
> look like a blowhard redneck, rather than any sort of "in the know"
> conspirator?
>
> .John
Why don't you respond to *my* post, .John? Why don't you explain to us
how Milteer knew enough to be in Dallas and call Willie Somersett the
morning of the assassination? Are you afraid that any further
"explanations" on your part will make you look increasingly ridiculous?
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
>
> *********
>
> I have to agree with John on this.There is no evidence that Milteer was in
> the loop. Of course, thats not to say that his story isn't part of the
> events.
>
> All it means to me is that some whisper of what was a foot got out.Milteer
> obviously heard something he should not have, but since he was a
> blowhard....well... I guess thats why the file was suppressed for a while.
>
> Milteer was not the only one who heard dark rumour.Some had circulated in
> Washungton as well. Kennedy was advised several time not to make the trip.
> He stated that he had to go, because he was "President of all the States".
> According to Manchester, Kennedy believed with Churchill that courage was
> the one quality that guaranteed all the rest.So he went.
>
> Not every one was surprised when he did not return.People had heard.
>
> Thats all I draw from the Milteer story.
>
> Ritchie
Richie, read my post on this subject. Milteer knew enough about the plot
to be in Dallas the morning of the assassination, and he called
informant Willie Somersett to tell him that JFK would never be coming
back to Miami again.
Tracy
John McAdams
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 07:35:50 +0000, Jerry Organ
<joj...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Fred Glazier wrote:
>
Joseph Milteer, a political activist in far-right,
racist circles from Quitman, Georgia, is often
mentioned as someone who had "foreknowledge" of the
assassination. Indeed, Jim Marrs calls him "The Miami
Prophet."
Was he that? Or was he just a racist blowhard?
>From Jim Marrs CROSSFIRE, p. 265.
------------------------------------------------
On November 9, 1963, a Miami police informant
named William Somersett met with Joseph A. Milteer, a
wealthy right-wing extremist who promptly began to
outline the assassination of President Kennedy.
Milteer was a leader of the arch-conservative
National States Rights Party as well as a member of
other groups such as the Congress of Freedom and the
White Citizen's Council of Atlanta. Somersett had
infiltrated the States Rights Party and secretly
recorded Milteer's conversation.
The tape, later turned over to Miami police,
recorded Milteer as saying, "(During Kennedy's
impending visit to Miami) You can be your bottom dollar
he is going to have a lot to say about the Cubans,
there are so many of them here...The more bodyguards he
has, the easier it is to get him...From an office
building with a high-powered rifle...He's knows he's a
marked man."
----------------------------------------------------
Even in the account Marrs provides, it's interesting
that Milteer says nothing about "triangularion of
crossfire," or a "kill zone" or multiple shooters. If
Milteer had any "foreknowledge" he had foreknowledge of
a single shooter!
Tony Summers' book CONSPIRACY deals with Milteer in two
places. In the text he recounts the following edited
version of Milteer's conversation with Somersett (p.
404):
-----------------------------------------------------
INFORMANT: I think Kennedy is coming here on the 18th,
or something like that to make some kind of speech . .
.
EXTREMIST: You can bet your bottom dollar he is going
to have a lot to say about the Cubans. There are so
many of them here.
INFORMANT: Yeah. Well, he will have a thousand
bodyguards, don't worry about that.
EXTREMIST: The more bodyguards he has the easier it is
to get him.
INFORMANT: Well, how in the hell do you figure would be
the best way to get him?
EXTREMIST: From an office building with a high-powered
rifle. . . He knows he's a marked man . . . .
INFORMANT: They are really going to try to kill him?
EXTREMIST: Oh yeah, it is in the working . . . .
INFORMANT: Boy, if that Kennedy gets shot, we have to
to know where we are at. Because you know that will be
a real shake if they do that.
EXTREMIST: They wouldn't leave any stone unturned
there, no way. They will pick somebody up within hours
afterwards, if anything like that would happen. Just
to throw the public off.
----------------------------------------------------
Then, in a long footnote (p. 624), Summers adds the
following:
----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Milteer, the right-wing extremist who said
two weeks before the assassination that the President's
murder was "in the working," told a police informant
afterward that "Everything ran true to form. I guess
you thought I was kidding you when I said he would be
killed from a window with a high-powered rifle." Asked
whether he was guessing when he made the original
remark, Milteer replied, "I don't do any guessing."
According to the informant, Milteer said there was no
need "to worry about Lee Harvey Oswald getting caught
because he doesn't know anything." The right wing,
said Milteer, was "in the clear," adding that "the
patriots have outsmarted the Communist group in order
that the Communists would carry out the plan without
the right wing becoming involved." When the FBI
questioned Milteer a few days after the assassination,
he denied making all these remarks. He died in 1974
and William Somersett, the informant is also dead. The
Assassinations Committee was unable to establish any
connection between Milteer and other elements of the
case. HSCA Report p.234n3 and 232-;CD.137.120;
CD1347.121; this page withheld till 1976; (denial)
CD20.24; author's interview with former Miami police
intelligence captain, Charles Sapp, 1978; HSCA III.447.
--------------------------------------------------
Again, note that Milteer takes "credit" for knowing
that Kennedy was going to be "killed from a window with
a high-powered rifle." This is the Warren Commission's
version of what happened. More to the point, it was
the version that law enforcement officials and the
media were publicizing when Milteer talked to
Somersett.
Rather than having "inside knowledge" that the media
were pushing an inaccurate account, Milteer *accepts*
what law enforcement officials and the media were
saying!
He does seem to accept that Oswald is a "patsy" that
has been manipulated. But he says a "communist group"
was manipulated by "the patriots" (presumably,
Milteer's racist buddies) to do the killing.
Does *anybody* believe it happened this way?
But while a careful reading of Summers and Marrs will
make one doubt that Milteer actually had any "inside
knowledge" of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, it's the
stuff that these authors suppress that is the most
damming.
A more complete account of what Milteer told Somersett
is found in an article in the September 1976 issue of
MIAMI MAGAZINE by Dan Christensen. Titled "JFK, King:
The Dade County Links" it provides details omitted from
conspiracy books.
<Quote on>-------------------------------------------
Somersett: ...I think Kennedy is coming here on the
18th...to make some kind of speech...I imagine it will
be on TV.
Milteer: You can bet your bottom dollar he is going to
have a lot to say about the Cubans. There are so many
of them here.
Somersett: Yeah, well, he will have a thousand
bodyguards. Don't worry about that.
Milteer: The more bodyguards he has the more easier it
is to get him.
Somersett: Well, how in the hell do you figure would be
the best way to get him?
Milteer: From an office building with a high-powered
rifle. How many people does he have going around who
look just like him? Do you now about that?
Somersett: No, I never heard he had anybody.
Milteer: He has about fifteen. Whenever he goes
anyplace, he knows he is a marked man.
Somersett: You think he knows he is a marked man?
Milteer: Sure he does.
Somersett: They are really going to try to kill him?
Milteer: Oh yeah, it is in the working. Brown himself,
[Jack] Brown is just as likely to get him as anybody in
the world. He hasn't said so, but he tried to get
Martin Luther King.
After a few more minutes of conversation,
Somersett again spoke of assassination.
Somersett: Hitting this Kennedy is going to be a hard
proposition, I tell you. I believe you may have
figured out a way to get him, the office building and
all that. I don't know how the Secret Service agents
cover all them office buildings everywhere he is going.
Do you know whether they do that or not?
Milteer: Well, if they have any suspicion they do that,
of course. But without suspicion, chances are that
they wouldn't. You take there in Washington. This is
the wrong time of the year, but in pleasant weather, he
comes out of the veranda and somebody could be in a
hotel room across the way and pick him off just like
that.
Somersett: Is that right?
Milteer: Sure, disassemble a gun. You don't have to
take a gun up there, you can take it up in pieces. All
those guns come knock down. You can take them apart.
Before the end of the tape, the conversation
returns to Kennedy.
Milteer: Well, we are going to have to get nasty...
Somersett: Yeah, get nasty.
Milteer: We have got to be ready, we have got to be
sitting on go, too.
Somersett: Yeah, that is right.
Milteer: There ain't any count-down to it, we have just
go to be sitting on go. Countdown, they can move in on
you, and on go they can't. Countdown is all right for
a slow prepared operation. But in an emergency
operation, you have got to be sitting on go.
Somersett: Boy if that Kennedy gets shot, we have got
to know where we are at. Because you know that will be
a real shake...
Milteer: They wouldn't leave any stone unturned there.
No way. They will pick somebody within hours
afterwards, if anything like that would happen, just to
throw the public off.
Somersett: Oh, somebody is going to have to go to
jail, if he gets killed.
Milteer: Just like Bruno Hauptmann in the Lindbergh
case, you know.
----------------------------------------------------
Martin Shackelford
John:
You dismiss Milteer far too readily:
1) He predicted the assassination less than a month before it happened.
2) He specified a high-powered rifle from a building (maybe he didn't
know the full plan, only part).
3) He specified the Fair Play for Cuba Committee as the group
infiltrated by the Right.
4) The fact that he speaks of a disassembled weapon in one context
doesn't mean that it wouldn't also be used in another context.
5) Jack Brown may have been the original choice--especially if Oswald
couldn't be successfully manipulated.
Martin
John McAdams
>John:
>
> You dismiss Milteer far too readily:
>1) He predicted the assassination less than a month before it happened.
Yea, in Miami.
Look, Martin, a lot of people "predict" assassinations in exactly the
same way.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations examined Secret Service
files, and found that from March through December 1963 the agency
received information on over 400 possible threats to the President.
(See the HSCA Report, p. 230.)
>2) He specified a high-powered rifle from a building (maybe he didn't
>know the full plan, only part).
Or maybe he was just blowing hot air.
>3) He specified the Fair Play for Cuba Committee as the group
>infiltrated by the Right.
*After* the assassination, and after "Fair Play for Cuba" was all over
them media, he said this.
But Martin, just how does not "infiltrate" the New Orleans chapter of
the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? It only had one member!
>4) The fact that he speaks of a disassembled weapon in one context
>doesn't mean that it wouldn't also be used in another context.
So you think the original plan was to shoot Kennedy on the veranda of
the White House? That was what Milteer said.
>5) Jack Brown may have been the original choice--especially if Oswald
>couldn't be successfully manipulated.
>
jack white
John McAdams wrote:
>
DELETING ALL EXCEPT THE RELEVANT.
> a blowhard
>
> .John
jack white
John McAdams wrote:
>
SNIPPING ALL EXCEPT THE RELEVANT.
> a blowhard
>
> .John
ritchie linton
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Milteer
>From: jack white <jw...@flash.net>
>Date: Sat, Feb 28, 1998 18:31 EST
>Message-id: <34F89E...@flash.net>
>
>John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>>
>DELETING ALL EXCEPT THE RELEVANT.
>
>
>
>> a blowhard
>
>>
>> .John
>
>
EXCELLENT POST, Jack
Probably the shortest most concise post..... ever
Walt
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Milteer
>From: sir...@sprint.ca (Jim Davies)
>Date: Sat, Feb 28, 1998 16:59 EST
>Message-id: <34f97f93...@news.sprint.ca>
>There most likely was a shooter in the window but that does not mean
>that Oswald was the shooter.
>
>
Hello Jim..... You can prove to yourself that there wasn't a shooter in the SE
corner sixth floor window, at the time the first shot was fired.......... It
takes a lot of measuring and examining photos taken at that time but it is
possible to prove that nobody could have fired from there and hit JFK at the
time of the first shot.
Regards..... Walt
John McAdams
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 00:50:38 -0800, ritchie linton
<rli...@idirect.com> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> But Milteer wasn't talking about Brown as a manipulated patsy. He was
>> talking about him as an assassin.
>>
>> And how about the 15 look-alikes, Martin? Neither Marrs nor Summers
>> told their readers about that. Could it be because it makes Milteer
>> look like a blowhard redneck, rather than any sort of "in the know"
>> conspirator?
>>
>I have to agree with John on this.There is no evidence that Milteer was in
>the loop. Of course, thats not to say that his story isn't part of the
>events.
>
>All it means to me is that some whisper of what was a foot got out.Milteer
>obviously heard something he should not have, but since he was a
>blowhard....well... I guess thats why the file was suppressed for a while.
>
>Milteer was not the only one who heard dark rumour.Some had circulated in
>Washungton as well. Kennedy was advised several time not to make the trip.
>He stated that he had to go, because he was "President of all the States".
>According to Manchester, Kennedy believed with Churchill that courage was
>the one quality that guaranteed all the rest.So he went.
>
Ritchie, was had "circulated in Washington" was the vague notion that
Kennedy might run into some ugly incident like Stevenson did, not any
actual information about a murder plot.
>Not every one was surprised when he did not return.People had heard.
>
>Thats all I draw from the Milteer story.
>
You are actually saying that a real murder plot was afoot, and word
had reached Milteer? Just who do you think killed Kennedy? And do
you think whoever it was routinely leaked information to the KKK, or
the White Citizens' Councils, or other racist organizations?
.John
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Milteer
>From: 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
>Date: Sun, Mar 1, 1998 14:42 EST
>Message-id: <34f9b977...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
>
>
>You are actually saying that a real murder plot was afoot, and word
>had reached Milteer? Just who do you think killed Kennedy? And do
>you think whoever it was routinely leaked information to the KKK, or
>the White Citizens' Councils, or other racist organizations?
>
>.John
>
Oh for cryin out loud ....perfesser..... Get Real!! It's common knowledge
that there were many plots, and rumors of plots to kill President Kennedy in
the Summer of 63..... Remember the posters that were circulated about " If
an act of God were to happen and put a Texan in the Whitehouse...... That was
just one of the more public exhibits.....There were several others .....and one
succeeded........ Do you think J.Edgar Hoover didn't know about those
plots....... He probably favored the Ferrie / banister plot of framing a
Turncoat Marine and a Commie.......
Walt Cakebread
Fathom
In article <19980301214...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
(WCAKE) wrote:
> Do you think J.Edgar Hoover didn't know about those
> plots....... He probably favored the Ferrie / banister plot of framing a
> Turncoat Marine and a Commie.......
You mean, he didn't know LHO was an agent?? Or he thought it could be kept
secret?
--
Due to my erratic news server, please send a copy of your response *by e-mail* to fat...@sonic.net
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
These opinions are not my own--I am channeling them from the Higher
Realms. Disagree at your peril. :-)
Lisa Pease
Tracy Riddle (tri...@tfb.com) wrote:
: John McAdams wrote:
: > And how about the 15 look-alikes, Martin? Neither Marrs nor Summers
: > told their readers about that. Could it be because it makes Milteer
: > look like a blowhard redneck, rather than any sort of "in the know"
: > conspirator?
: >
: > .John
It's well known that World leaders DO use look-alikes. I don't know if 15
is too many or too few! Unless .John is a member of the Secret Service,
he couldn't possibly know whether that was correct or incorrect.
: Why don't you respond to *my* post, .John? Why don't you explain to us
: how Milteer knew enough to be in Dallas and call Willie Somersett the
: morning of the assassination? Are you afraid that any further
: "explanations" on your part will make you look increasingly ridiculous?
He's LONG since lost any fear of looking ridiculous. He loves to be
ridiculous. That's his job!
: Tracy
--
Lisa Pease
"It is as if the final price for winning the Cold War is our confinement
to a permanent childhood where reassuring fantasies and endless
diversions protect us from the hard truth of our own recent history."
--Robert Parry, THE CONSORTIUM, 2/17/97
Check out my Real History Archives @ http://www.webcom.com/lpease
Visit the site of Probe Magazine at http://www.webcom.com/ctka
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Milteer
>From: no-...@sonic.net (Fathom)
>Date: Sun, Mar 1, 1998 21:14 EST
>Message-id: <no-spam-0103...@d44.pm8.sonic.net>
>
>In article <19980301214...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
>(WCAKE) wrote:
>> Do you think J.Edgar Hoover didn't know about those
>> plots....... He probably favored the Ferrie / banister plot of framing a
>> Turncoat Marine and a Commie.......
>
>You mean, he didn't know LHO was an agent?? Or he thought it could be kept
>secret?
>--
I don't understand your question Fathom, Are you asking if Hoover didn't know
Oswald was working for a US intelligence agency...... the answer is Yes....
Hoover was unaware that Oswald was employed by ONI ---or The State Department,
Hoover thought Oswald really was a turncoat Marine, and he suspected both Lee
and Marina of being Russian spies.
Hoover may have recruited Oswald as an FBI Paid Confidential informant (PCI )
leading Oswald to believe he was actually working for The FBI also......
Little did Oswald know that he was being manipulated.......
Walt Cakebread
Fathom
In article <19980302153...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
(WCAKE) wrote:
> >> Do you think J.Edgar Hoover didn't know about those
> >> plots....... He probably favored the Ferrie / banister plot of framing a
> >> Turncoat Marine and a Commie.......
> >
> >You mean, he didn't know LHO was an agent?? Or he thought it could be kept
> >secret?
> >--
>
> I don't understand your question Fathom, Are you asking if Hoover didn't know
> Oswald was working for a US intelligence agency...... the answer is Yes....
> Hoover was unaware that Oswald was employed by ONI ---or The State Department,
> Hoover thought Oswald really was a turncoat Marine, and he suspected both Lee
> and Marina of being Russian spies.
>
> Hoover may have recruited Oswald as an FBI Paid Confidential informant (PCI )
> leading Oswald to believe he was actually working for The FBI also......
> Little did Oswald know that he was being manipulated.......
But then he got upset because LHO's role as a PCI made the Bureau look bad...
Okay, I see how it's *possible*--Hoover thought LHO's role with the FBI
could be kept secret, and didn't know about his involvement with other
agencies.... hmmmmm...
okay Walt, thanks, this is food for thought.
WCAKE
>Message-id: <no-spam-0203...@d104.pm3.sonic.net>
Hello Fathom,
I believe there was a rumor that Lee had been a recruited as a FBI
PCI in Sept 1962........ One of the FBI's favorite tricks in keeping track of
someone they have under surveillance, is to "recruit" the suspect as an
informant. It throws the suspect off guard and the agent has a reasonable
excuse to be checking on the suspect..........
I believe they had Jack Ruby on the payroll as a PCI......He was running guns
and they knew it.......
Walt Cakebread
Walt Cakebread
MTGriffith
In article <34f82e2f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu
(John McAdams) writes:
>Subject:Re: Milteer
>From: 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
>Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:43:21 GMT
>
>On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 01:32:13 -0500, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>John:
>>
>> You dismiss Milteer far too readily:
>>1) He predicted the assassination less than a month before it happened.
>
>Yea, in Miami.
>
>Look, Martin, a lot of people "predict" assassinations in exactly the
>same way.
Not with the kind of detail Milteer provided.
>The House Select Committee on Assassinations examined Secret Service
>files, and found that from March through December 1963 the agency
>received information on over 400 possible threats to the President.
>(See the HSCA Report, p. 230.)
And not one of them had nearly the detail that Milteer gave.
>>2) He specified a high-powered rifle from a building (maybe he didn't
>>know the full plan, only part).
>
>Or maybe he was just blowing hot air.
>
So in other words, it was just a lucky guess, right?
And when he said the authorities would pick up someone right after the shooting
to throw everyone off, that was just a lucky guess, too, right?
And what about the things he told police informant Sommersett after the
shooting? All just lucky guesses and coincidence?
>>3) He specified the Fair Play for Cuba Committee as the group
>>infiltrated by the Right.
>
>*After* the assassination, and after "Fair Play for Cuba" was all over
>them media, he said this.
But how would he have known it was infiltrated by the Right? Just another
lucky guess?
>But Martin, just how does not "infiltrate" the New Orleans chapter of
>the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? It only had one member!
Come now, John.
>>4) The fact that he speaks of a disassembled weapon in one context
>>doesn't mean that it wouldn't also be used in another context.
>
>So you think the original plan was to shoot Kennedy on the veranda of
>the White House? That was what Milteer said.
Milteer did not say that was the original plan. He mentioned this as one way
the hit could be done. You know better than this, or should. The tape
transcript is readily available. Again, Milteer did not say the original plan
was to shoot Kennedy on the White House veranda.
>>5) Jack Brown may have been the original choice--especially if Oswald
>>couldn't be successfully manipulated.
>>
>But Milteer wasn't talking about Brown as a manipulated patsy. He was
>talking about him as an assassin.
Come on, John, surely you see the point here. Milteer could have talked about
Brown as a possible assassin because that might have been his belief based on
the fragmentary information he possessed at the time.
>And how about the 15 look-alikes, Martin? Neither Marrs nor Summers
>told their readers about that. Could it be because it makes Milteer
>look like a blowhard redneck, rather than any sort of "in the know"
>conspirator?
>
>.John
There were apparently several Oswald impersonators. I suppose you're going to
chalk up Milteer's comment on this to coincidence as well.
Sometimes it seems hopeless to discuss the case with you folks. No matter
clear and compelling the evidence, you simply won't follow it where it leads if
it leads, no matter how undeniably, to conspiracy.
I wouldn't say the Milteer evidence is case-breaking, but it certainly seems to
constitute proof that certain highly placed right-wing elements knew a hit on
Kennedy was in the works, that a patsy would be picked up soon after the
shooting, and that the shooting scenario would involve shots fired from a tall
building.
It's worth remembering that back when the HSCA acoustical evidence had just
been released and seemed so airtight, some WC supporters, rather than "admit"
there was a conspiracy, suggested there were TWO lone nuts in Dealey Plaza,
acting totally independently of each other, and that they both happened to fire
at Kennedy during the same eight-second time span!
Just look how you have reacted to the evidence in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE,
especially to Dr. Mantik's chapters on the medical evidence and on the Zapruder
film.
Or, look how you have reacted to the disclosures from released files relating
to Oswald in Mexico City, disclosures which establish beyond any credible doubt
that someone was impersonating Oswald at the Soviet and Cuban embassies.
Mike Griffith
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2
Vern Pascal
Throw the baby out with the bathwater-typical lone nut
obfuscation-------------------Jeff