PHONY EVIDENCE
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1133228874....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Texextra wrote:
>> > She says she took the Backyard Photos. Do you believe that? <
>>
>> Even LHO didn't deny that there were SOME backyard photos. He just
>> pointed out that the photos were doctored.
======================================================================
> I would expect my response to having doctored pictures showing me
> holding a weapon tying me to a murder would be to freak me out. The
> magnitute of the effort to frame me which could dummy a photo and inject
> it into the evidence in just a few hours after my arrest would shake me
> up, and leave me terribly confused and afraid. When the friendly face of
> my brother showed up, I would likely blurt to him how forces were actively
> out to frame me, and I needed help from people I could trust. Of course,
> if I was guilty, I`d deny I carried a long bag into work that day, deny I
> owned a rifle, and claim the picture of me holding the murder weapon was
> faked, and have a calm and guarded conversation with my brother about
> trivial things when he came to visit me. That why it`s a fairly easy
> matter for me to figure out that Oz was guilty.
>
Terrific Bud;
Then you have Probably figured out HOW they showed Oswald the back yard
photo
5 hours BEFORE it was in Police Possession?
========================================================================
Bud
Fritz`s notes say that they showed Oz the BY photo at 6:35 on the
23rd. Are you saying they didn`t find them until 11:30 on the 23rd?
> ========================================================================
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1134603856.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
===================================================================
>> Terrific Bud;
>>
>> Then you have Probably figured out HOW they showed Oswald the back yard
>> photo
>> 5 hours BEFORE it was in Police Possession?
>
> Fritz`s notes say that they showed Oz the BY photo at 6:35 on the
> 23rd. Are you saying they didn`t find them until 11:30 on the 23rd
In Appendix XI Fritz states he showed Oswald the photo at the 12:30
Interrogation.
Read Detective Rose's Testimony;
The photos were/t Found until 3:30 at the earliest.They didn't leave the
Paine home untill 4:30 or 5:00.
Add 1 half hour to return to headquarters.
Add 1 half hour to make the 8 X 10 copy.
=====================================================================
Jean Davison
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4h3of.150432$0l5.115835@dukeread06...
Tom,
Adding 1 hour to 4:30 or 5:00 works fine, since according to the
reports written by Bookhout and Kelley, which are also in Appendix XI,
Oswald was questioned about the photos at an interrogation that began about
6 or 6:35 pm on 11/23 --
FBI agent Bookhout:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325a.htm
Kelley of the Secret Service:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0326b.htm
Fritz said in his testimony, which as you know comes from the
26 volumes, that he could remember what Oswald said and what questions had
been asked, "but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning
those questions were in ... "
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0109a.htm
Jean
tomnln
Rose is the guy who found the Photo Jean.
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0t4of.32060$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Jean Davison
> Fritz is the Individual who showed the Photo Jean.
>
> Rose is the guy who found the Photo Jean.
>
Please explain what you think happened, then, considering all this
testimony. I'll give you my interpretation -- Fritz made a mistake
about when he first brought up the photos, because as he said,
he wasn't sure when he said what. IOW, Bookhout and Kelley got
the timing right, Fritz didn't.
Now what's *your* version? Bookhout and Kelley lied? Fritz brought
up a photo before it was found, and then was stupid enough to *say so*?
He brought up the photo before the DPD had finished manufacturing a
fake photo -- or what? Rose didn't get the word that he was supposed to
lie? This coverup was organized by Homer Simpson, maybe?
OR ... Fritz made one simple mistake, which he said was possible
anyway?
You say that Fritz mentioned the photos before they were found.
Now please, tell me, what do you think this means? What do you
think happened here?
I doubt you will tell me, though, because conspiracy scenarios so
often don't make any sense. (Prove me wrong!)
Jean
Bud
Jean Davison wrote:
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Pw6of.150854$0l5.141391@dukeread06...
> > Fritz is the Individual who showed the Photo Jean.
> >
> > Rose is the guy who found the Photo Jean.
> >
>
> Please explain what you think happened, then, considering all this
> testimony. I'll give you my interpretation -- Fritz made a mistake
> about when he first brought up the photos, because as he said,
> he wasn't sure when he said what. IOW, Bookhout and Kelley got
> the timing right, Fritz didn't.
>
> Now what's *your* version? Bookhout and Kelley lied? Fritz brought
> up a photo before it was found, and then was stupid enough to *say so*?
> He brought up the photo before the DPD had finished manufacturing a
> fake photo -- or what? Rose didn't get the word that he was supposed to
> lie? This coverup was organized by Homer Simpson, maybe?
>
> OR ... Fritz made one simple mistake, which he said was possible
> anyway?
>
> You say that Fritz mentioned the photos before they were found.
> Now please, tell me, what do you think this means? What do you
> think happened here?
>
> I doubt you will tell me, though, because conspiracy scenarios so
> often don't make any sense. (Prove me wrong!)
Tomnln calls for explainations for these things, and even when
rational possiblilities are available, still will find himself unable
to move off his squalking points.
In any case, heres Fritz`s handwritten notes which give the time the
photos were shown to Oz as 6:35 of the 23rd.
http://www.jfk-info.com.?notes5.htm
Bud
curtj...@webtv.net
took pictures of Lee while she was underneath the stairs. I don't
think this lines up well with the photographs.
Here are a few statements that she has made over the years rescinding
what she originally said.
*How federal authorities forced her WC testimony by threatening
deportation and ordered her not to read or listen to anything
pertaining to the assassination.
*That today she believes a conspiracy resulted in Kennedy's death.
*Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent who "worked for the American
government" and was "caught between two powers--the government and
organized crime."
*Oswald was "killed to keep his mouth shut."
*That someone impersonated Oswald to incriminate him and "that's no
joke."
*Lee Harvey Oswald "adored" President Kennedy.
CJ
tomnln
>
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Pw6of.150854$0l5.141391@dukeread06...
>> Fritz is the Individual who showed the Photo Jean.
>>
>> Rose is the guy who found the Photo Jean.
>>
> Please explain what you think happened, then, considering all this
> testimony. I'll give you my interpretation -- Fritz made a mistake
> about when he first brought up the photos, because as he said,
> he wasn't sure when he said what. IOW, Bookhout and Kelley got
> the timing right, Fritz didn't.
Manufacturing of evidence is NOT a mistake.....It's a Felony.
===============================================================
> Now what's *your* version? Bookhout and Kelley lied? Fritz brought
> up a photo before it was found, and then was stupid enough to *say so*?
> He brought up the photo before the DPD had finished manufacturing a
> fake photo -- or what? Rose didn't get the word that he was supposed to
> lie? This coverup was organized by Homer Simpson, maybe?
My understanding is that Homer Simpson is Fiction.
WCR Supporters use him because they are accustomed to Fiction.
> OR ... Fritz made one simple mistake, which he said was possible
> anyway?
===================================================================
> You say that Fritz mentioned the photos before they were found.
> Now please, tell me, what do you think this means? What do you
> think happened here?
It SHOULD mean "Suspicion".
Just like 133c. A pose by Dallas Dective Brown which Never existed until
1975 when a picture of Oswald in that 3rd pose was found in a retired
policeman's perasonal posession along with the same pose in "Ghost Image"
and all the paraphanelia needed to "Superimpose" individuals INTO a Picture.
=========================================================================
> I doubt you will tell me, though, because conspiracy scenarios so
> often don't make any sense. (Prove me wrong!)
> Jean
I don't propose "Theories". THAT's what got the WC in Trouble.
I Point out Conflicts in evidence/testimony ONLY.
THAT establishes "Reasonable Doubt".
========================================================================
Jean Davison
Good work, Bud. Thanks.
Jean
tomnln
doubt".
Apparently "Accessories After the Fact" people are NOT Reasonable.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1134629939.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Conflicting Reports on the Same incident Usually indicate "Reasonable
> doubt".
No, it doesn`t. It usually means someone is mistaken.
> Apparently "Accessories After the Fact" people are NOT Reasonable.
Kooks aren`t rational enough to judge reasonability. You have your
rote talking points, and that`s all you need to know, Tom. Or perhaps
that is all you are capable of knowing.
Bud
You`re more than welcome, Jean. Normally I don`t bother, especially
with the likes of Tomnln. You can see what effect it had on him.
Wouldn`t matter how much testimony or evidence was cited, Tom has found
what he thinks is a descrepancy, and he is going to cling to it for all
it`s worth.
-Bud
tomnln
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Conflicting Reports on the Same incident Usually indicate "Reasonable
>> doubt".
> No, it doesn`t. It usually means someone is mistaken.
NOT when evidence is Destroyed in over a dozen instances in the same case
Bud...Those are Felonies.
=======================================================================
>> Apparently "Accessories After the Fact" people are NOT Reasonable.
>
> Kooks aren`t rational enough to judge reasonability. You have your
> rote talking points, and that`s all you need to know, Tom. Or perhaps
> that is all you are capable of knowing.
Just for the Record Bud, Do I nderstand you are calling me a "kook"?
I thought you learned your lesson about calling me names.
But, being a giver, I'm MORE than willing to give you ANOTHER Lesson.
Just say the word.
========================================================================
Jean Davison
>
> "Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:f47of.29462$BZ5....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:Pw6of.150854$0l5.141391@dukeread06...
>>> Fritz is the Individual who showed the Photo Jean.
>>>
>>> Rose is the guy who found the Photo Jean.
>>>
> ===============================================================
>> Please explain what you think happened, then, considering all this
>> testimony. I'll give you my interpretation -- Fritz made a mistake
>> about when he first brought up the photos, because as he said,
>> he wasn't sure when he said what. IOW, Bookhout and Kelley got
>> the timing right, Fritz didn't.
>
> Manufacturing of evidence is NOT a mistake.....It's a Felony.
You haven't shown that anyone manufactured anything. You've
cited a conflict that you're speculating about.
> ===============================================================
>> Now what's *your* version? Bookhout and Kelley lied? Fritz brought
>> up a photo before it was found, and then was stupid enough to *say so*?
>> He brought up the photo before the DPD had finished manufacturing a
>> fake photo -- or what? Rose didn't get the word that he was supposed to
>> lie? This coverup was organized by Homer Simpson, maybe?
>
> My understanding is that Homer Simpson is Fiction.
> WCR Supporters use him because they are accustomed to Fiction.
I read lots of fiction on this newsgroup, that's for sure.
>
>> OR ... Fritz made one simple mistake, which he said was possible
>> anyway?
> ===================================================================
>> You say that Fritz mentioned the photos before they were found.
>> Now please, tell me, what do you think this means? What do you
>> think happened here?
>
> It SHOULD mean "Suspicion".
>
Suspicion will always tell you exactly what you want to hear,
and lead you down one dead end after another.
> Just like 133c. A pose by Dallas Dective Brown which Never existed until
> 1975 when a picture of Oswald in that 3rd pose was found in a retired
> policeman's perasonal posession along with the same pose in "Ghost Image"
> and all the paraphanelia needed to "Superimpose" individuals INTO a
> Picture.
Entirely different issue that's been discussed many times.
> =========================================================================
>> I doubt you will tell me, though, because conspiracy scenarios so
>> often don't make any sense. (Prove me wrong!)
>
>> Jean
> I don't propose "Theories". THAT's what got the WC in Trouble.
> I Point out Conflicts in evidence/testimony ONLY.
I was right! No scenario, as usual. If this "discrepancy" were
a REAL CLUE, you'd have no trouble saying what it meant.
>
> THAT establishes "Reasonable Doubt".
I suggest you read up on "reasonable doubt."
Jean
Jean Davison
> Conflicting Reports on the Same incident Usually indicate "Reasonable
> doubt".
>
Are you familiar with the concept of "human error"?
> Apparently "Accessories After the Fact" people are NOT Reasonable.
>
Are you calling me an "accessory after the fact"?
Jean
tomnln
you.
LIKE....kooks/commies/anti-American.etc etc.
When you refused to correct/condemn THAT, you Opened the door for
"Retaliation" against your side.
So, I refer to everyone who refuses to see Reasonable Doubt as "Accessories
After the Fact".
Especially those who claim to be well Read on the subject.
Merry Christmas
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jqrof.40346$Zv5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Jean Davison
> Please check the name calling by people on your side which never bothered
> you.
> LIKE....kooks/commies/anti-American.etc etc.
>
> When you refused to correct/condemn THAT, you Opened the door for
> "Retaliation" against your side.
Oh, is this what is called "turning the other cheek"? "Do unto
others
as you would have others do unto you"? Any of that ring a bell?
>
> So, I refer to everyone who refuses to see Reasonable Doubt as
> "Accessories After the Fact".
>
You didn't give me a trial before you declared me guilty, Your Honor.
You
didn't even read me my rights.
> Especially those who claim to be well Read on the subject.
>
> Merry Christmas
Spoken in the true "holiday spirit."
AJH
But having said so many different things, she was not a credible witness.
Despite this fact, the HSCA said that their conclusion that Oswald was JFK's
assassin ultimately hinged on believing the incriminating parts of Marina's
testimony. Without her testimony, or if they could have positively caught
her in a lie, they would have determined there was insufficient evidence to
make a conclusion about Oswald's guilt or innocence.
Marina was so isolated in Dallas, that disinformation she gave may just be
the result of what those closest to her at that time wanted her to believe,
rather than her being intentionally misleading us.
<curtj...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1134664364....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
circumstances under which her previous statements were made. She finally
felt comfortable speaking out candidly in 1988, though she is really not
very comfortable being a public figure.
Some comments on what you mention here:
1) Despite what I used to think, the backyard photos are authentic.
Three things changed my mind:
a) Marina told Walt Brown (JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) in 1995 that
she took all of the backyard photos of Lee, and identified the extant
photos as the ones she took.
b) Staffers from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the early 1960s
admitted to another former member, researcher Hal Verb, that they
recalled receiving one of the backyard photos from Lee in the mail.
Fearing a provocation, they quickly disposed of it.
c) Another photo from the same session, one of Marina taken by Lee,
turned up among the belongings of a friend to whom Marina wrote before
the assassination, enclosing it. Researcher Peter Wronski, who has
focused on Lee's time in the Soviet Union, was able to obtain a copy.
2) Yes, she was clearly coerced after the assassination. She was
separated from Ruth Paine, isolated by the Secret Service (under agent
Mike Howard) at a motel, and provided with a business manager (James
Martin) who was also working with the government.
3) She first came forth with her belief that there was a conspiracy in
1988. To some degree, she may have been influenced by David Lifton, who
had been in contact with the family for a time, but she also based it on
anomalies in her own experience with Lee. By the way, when she watched
the Nigel Turner ("The Men Who Killed Kennedy," Part 8) program on
Judyth Baker, her response was laconic: "So, he was having an affair."
The researcher who watched it with her said she didn't seem surprised.
4) Judyth Baker has also reported in detail on Lee's dual connections
with the CIA (on loan from another agency) and organized crime (through
his family ties--which led to an early acquaintance with Jack Ruby on
Ruby's trips to New Orleans).
5) It would be reasonable to assume that Oswald was killed to keep his
mouth shut.
6) Clearly, there was some impersonation of Oswald, both as an add-on to
his Mexico City trip, and in various incidents in Dallas.
7) Every statement in the record regarding Lee's feelings about
President Kennedy indicate that Lee admired JFK.
Martin
tomnln
Especially when it comes from the side that "Destroyed Evidence" on Multiple
occassions.
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jqrof.40346$Zv5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
tomnln
>
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:wTrof.153045$0l5.9168@dukeread06...
>> Please check the name calling by people on your side which never bothered
>> you.
>> LIKE....kooks/commies/anti-American.etc etc.
>>
> I'm responsible for what I post, not for what anyone else posts.
>
>> When you refused to correct/condemn THAT, you Opened the door for
>> "Retaliation" against your side.
>
> Oh, is this what is called "turning the other cheek"? "Do unto
> others
> as you would have others do unto you"? Any of that ring a bell?
>
>>
>> So, I refer to everyone who refuses to see Reasonable Doubt as
>> "Accessories After the Fact".
>>
> You didn't give me a trial before you declared me guilty, Your
> Honor. You
> didn't even read me my rights.
THAT didn't seem to Bother you when it happened to Oswald.
I never figured you to harbor a Double Standard.
I gave you more credit than that. (Seriously)
===================================================================
>> Especially those who claim to be well Read on the subject.
>>
>> Merry Christmas
===================================================================
> Spoken in the true "holiday spirit."
> Jean
As it was Meant to Be.
===================================================================
twvaug...@yahoo.com
You're not referencing this photo
http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/letters2.htm from Peter Wronskis's
site as being the one from the same session as the backyard
photographs, are you?
Todd
curtj...@webtv.net
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Her statements are valuable, in part for giving us an idea of the
> circumstances under which her previous statements were made. She finally
> felt comfortable speaking out candidly in 1988, though she is really not
> very comfortable being a public figure.
> Some comments on what you mention here:
> 1) Despite what I used to think, the backyard photos are authentic.
> Three things changed my mind:
> a) Marina told Walt Brown (JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) in 1995 that
> she took all of the backyard photos of Lee, and identified the extant
> photos as the ones she took.
> b) Staffers from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the early 1960s
> admitted to another former member, researcher Hal Verb, that they
> recalled receiving one of the backyard photos from Lee in the mail.
> Fearing a provocation, they quickly disposed of it.
> c) Another photo from the same session, one of Marina taken by Lee,
> turned up among the belongings of a friend to whom Marina wrote before
> the assassination, enclosing it. Researcher Peter Wronski, who has
> focused on Lee's time in the Soviet Union, was able to obtain a copy.
>
that she authentically took the photos, and they were doctored to where
she couldn't tell the difference?
curtj...@webtv.net
AJH wrote:
> Like many of us, Marina has changed her opinions back & forth over time.
> But having said so many different things, she was not a credible witness.
> Despite this fact, the HSCA said that their conclusion that Oswald was JFK's
> assassin ultimately hinged on believing the incriminating parts of Marina's
> testimony. Without her testimony, or if they could have positively caught
> her in a lie, they would have determined there was insufficient evidence to
> make a conclusion about Oswald's guilt or innocence.
>
husband in a court of law.
Anthony Marsh
> Her statements are valuable, in part for giving us an idea of the
> circumstances under which her previous statements were made. She finally
> felt comfortable speaking out candidly in 1988, though she is really not
> very comfortable being a public figure.
> Some comments on what you mention here:
> 1) Despite what I used to think, the backyard photos are authentic.
> Three things changed my mind:
> a) Marina told Walt Brown (JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) in 1995 that
> she took all of the backyard photos of Lee, and identified the extant
> photos as the ones she took.
> b) Staffers from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the early 1960s
> admitted to another former member, researcher Hal Verb, that they
> recalled receiving one of the backyard photos from Lee in the mail.
> Fearing a provocation, they quickly disposed of it.
> c) Another photo from the same session, one of Marina taken by Lee,
> turned up among the belongings of a friend to whom Marina wrote before
> the assassination, enclosing it. Researcher Peter Wronski, who has
> focused on Lee's time in the Soviet Union, was able to obtain a copy.
>
Supposedly? Another pose? Then why don't we have it in a book or online?
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://users.rcn.com/puzzlepalace/
Jean Davison
>
> "Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jusof.40885$Zv5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:wTrof.153045$0l5.9168@dukeread06...
>>> Please check the name calling by people on your side which never
>>> bothered you.
>>> LIKE....kooks/commies/anti-American.etc etc.
>>>
>> I'm responsible for what I post, not for what anyone else posts.
>>
>>> When you refused to correct/condemn THAT, you Opened the door for
>>> "Retaliation" against your side.
>>
>> Oh, is this what is called "turning the other cheek"? "Do unto
>> others
>> as you would have others do unto you"? Any of that ring a bell?
>>
>>>
>>> So, I refer to everyone who refuses to see Reasonable Doubt as
>>> "Accessories After the Fact".
>>>
> ==================================================================
>> You didn't give me a trial before you declared me guilty, Your
>> Honor. You
>> didn't even read me my rights.
>
> THAT didn't seem to Bother you when it happened to Oswald.
If Oswald hadn't been killed, I'd have supported his right to a fair
trial. What would you like me to do now, dig him up and get him a lawyer?
Is it okay to say that Booth shot Lincoln, or is that a violation of
the poor darling's rights?
>
> I never figured you to harbor a Double Standard.
> I gave you more credit than that. (Seriously)
I've been trying to point out that *you* are the one with a
Double Standard. You've charged numerous people with "felonies" who've never
even been read their Miranda rights, much less convicted of anything. Is
Oswald the only person with any rights in your world?
> ===================================================================
>>> Especially those who claim to be well Read on the subject.
>>>
>>> Merry Christmas
> ===================================================================
>> Spoken in the true "holiday spirit."
>> Jean
> As it was Meant to Be.
"Retaliation" is in the Christmas tradition? Do tell.
Jean
Ben Holmes
>
>Martin Shackelford wrote:
>
>> Her statements are valuable, in part for giving us an idea of the
>> circumstances under which her previous statements were made. She finally
>> felt comfortable speaking out candidly in 1988, though she is really not
>> very comfortable being a public figure.
>> Some comments on what you mention here:
>> 1) Despite what I used to think, the backyard photos are authentic.
>> Three things changed my mind:
>> a) Marina told Walt Brown (JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) in 1995 that
>> she took all of the backyard photos of Lee, and identified the extant
>> photos as the ones she took.
>> b) Staffers from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the early 1960s
>> admitted to another former member, researcher Hal Verb, that they
>> recalled receiving one of the backyard photos from Lee in the mail.
>> Fearing a provocation, they quickly disposed of it.
>> c) Another photo from the same session, one of Marina taken by Lee,
>> turned up among the belongings of a friend to whom Marina wrote before
>> the assassination, enclosing it. Researcher Peter Wronski, who has
>> focused on Lee's time in the Soviet Union, was able to obtain a copy.
>>
>
>Supposedly? Another pose? Then why don't we have it in a book or online?
Just what pose are you suggesting that Marina took? Or, for that matter, would
you care to reference what you're implying was the first pose?
tomnln
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:HlLof.34110$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
*****************************************************************
> I've been trying to point out that *you* are the one with a
> Double Standard. You've charged numerous people with "felonies" who've
> never
> even been read their Miranda rights, much less convicted of anything. Is
> Oswald the only person with any rights in your world?
Are you Denying that Destruction of Evidence is a Felony?
********************************************************************
>> ===================================================================
>>>> Especially those who claim to be well Read on the subject.
>>>>
>>>> Merry Christmas
>> ===================================================================
>>> Spoken in the true "holiday spirit."
>>> Jean
>> As it was Meant to Be.
********************************************************************************
> "Retaliation" is in the Christmas tradition? Do tell.
> Jean
Jean;
When an Idiot posts Lies then Attacks me with Personal Insults, you can Bet
The Farm I Will Retaliate.
Especially after I Warned him.
May I ask if YOU would Retaliate after repeated Attacks?
I walk on Water only in the Winter Time.
********************************************************************************
Anthony Marsh
> In article <Ftudnfq3Eek...@rcn.net>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>>Martin Shackelford wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Her statements are valuable, in part for giving us an idea of the
>>>circumstances under which her previous statements were made. She finally
>>>felt comfortable speaking out candidly in 1988, though she is really not
>>>very comfortable being a public figure.
>>>Some comments on what you mention here:
>>>1) Despite what I used to think, the backyard photos are authentic.
>>>Three things changed my mind:
>>> a) Marina told Walt Brown (JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) in 1995 that
>>>she took all of the backyard photos of Lee, and identified the extant
>>>photos as the ones she took.
>>> b) Staffers from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the early 1960s
>>>admitted to another former member, researcher Hal Verb, that they
>>>recalled receiving one of the backyard photos from Lee in the mail.
>>>Fearing a provocation, they quickly disposed of it.
>>> c) Another photo from the same session, one of Marina taken by Lee,
>>>turned up among the belongings of a friend to whom Marina wrote before
>>>the assassination, enclosing it. Researcher Peter Wronski, who has
>>>focused on Lee's time in the Soviet Union, was able to obtain a copy.
>>>
>>
>>Supposedly? Another pose? Then why don't we have it in a book or online?
>
>
>
> Just what pose are you suggesting that Marina took? Or, for that matter, would
> you care to reference what you're implying was the first pose?
>
Not sure it was the first pose. One of four. Holding the rifle over his
head.
curtj...@webtv.net
> That Lee Oswald was quite a guy. Marine Corp hero. Loyal American.
> Loving husband.
>
> Tragically present at the TSBD on 11-22-63 as part of a super-covert
> deep-cover CIA project, Oswald unwittingly realized just seconds after
> the attack the magnitude and horror of what was transpiring. He did
> what any patriotic CIA agent would do; he fled. His goal? To reach his
> secret rally point at the Texas Theater and await further instructions.
> Plus, "Cry of Battle" and "War is Hell" was playing. Nothing like a
> good double feature to take your mind off of work when you are stressed
> out.
>
> Next, he would foil the plot to turn America into Amerika and cleanse
> the intel agencies of the evil minions plotting America's downfall. His
> dramatic revelations on the three major networks, in front of several
> Senate committees and to Buffalo Bob on a special episode of The
> Howdy-Doody Show would save 58,000 lives in Vietnam, re-ignite the
> Civil Rights movement and usher in peaceful coexistance with the Soviet
> Union, with Ozzie being named World Diplomat For Peace and TIME
> magazine's Man Of The Year. After that, it's back to High School to
> finish with that whole diploma thing.
>
> Unfortunately, the Forces Of Evil were too powerful for our Hero Oswald
> to combat. J.D. Tippit, communicating with the cop with the super
> secret listening device in his ear in the plaza that had arrested the
> Tramps, "Raoul", Sturgis, Holt, Harrelson, Hunt, Moe, Larry and Curly,
> was alerted. JDT promptly attempted to arrest Oswald, but our Hero
> out-flanked him and gunned down the Evil cop. Or maybe it was someone
> else that killed Tippit. Whatever.
>
> Ozzie tried, darn it. He tried to tell America what was happening. He
> sent out his first clarion call of alarm at the Police station after
> his arrest when he yelled "I'm just a patsy!"
>
> Why would he lie?
>
Just giving the benefit of the doubt he would, let's put a stress
evaluator monitoring those words. Ooops, he was telling the truth. Hey
why don't put one of those on every politicians voice? And maybe there
are a few case pertinent people that could use a little evaluatin'?
> Unfortunately the world never got to hear this story in court. After
> signaling with a honking car horn that all was set, LHO was led to his
> untimely death in the basement of the Dallas police station when
> Mafioso Kingfish Jack Ruby gunned him down. Many people noticed the
> glint of recognition in LHO's eyes as his fast friend Ruby snuffed out
> his short but courageous life.
>
> Marine. CIA/FBI agent/informant. Kennedy admirer. Staunch Anti-Castro
> freedom fighter. Animal Rights Activist. Pamphleteer. Futurist.
>
> Friend.
>
> We miss 'ya Lee. Take care.
Well, at least he pointed us in the right direction. Darn those slow
starts.
Bud
About being picked on because he had visited Russia? I think the cops
didn`t know that when they arrested him, I think they arrested him because
he tried to kill them when they confronted him.
> Hey
> why don't put one of those on every politicians voice?
Because they`re worthless. Less acurate than a lie detector test, and
even those aren`t reliable enough to use in a court of law.
> And maybe there
> are a few case pertinent people that could use a little evaluatin'?
>
> > Unfortunately the world never got to hear this story in court. After
> > signaling with a honking car horn that all was set, LHO was led to his
> > untimely death in the basement of the Dallas police station when
> > Mafioso Kingfish Jack Ruby gunned him down. Many people noticed the
> > glint of recognition in LHO's eyes as his fast friend Ruby snuffed out
> > his short but courageous life.
> >
> > Marine. CIA/FBI agent/informant. Kennedy admirer. Staunch Anti-Castro
> > freedom fighter. Animal Rights Activist. Pamphleteer. Futurist.
> >
> > Friend.
> >
> > We miss 'ya Lee. Take care.
>
> Well, at least he pointed us in the right direction.
He sure did. Kooks would rather look elsewhere.
> Darn those slow
> starts.
You`re only meandering anyway, whats your hurry?
Martin Shackelford
"evidence" against her husband, and convinced at the time that the case
was airtight. Of course, even the Dallas Police Chief knew the case was
flawed, as he later wrote--that they couldn't even place Oswald in the
window at the time of the shooting.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
mailed in April, though it was taken in the same location.
Martin
Ben Holmes
Seems that even a gentle jab is too subtle for Tony.
HEY TONY!!! NO-ONE IS TALKING ABOUT A LEE HARVEY OSWALD POSE. IT'S AN ASSERTION
OF A POSE BY MARINA - TAKEN BY LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
twvaug...@yahoo.com
Are you sure that was taken on Neely Street?
Todd
twvaug...@yahoo.com
twvaug...@yahoo.com
What makes you think it was taken in the same location?
Todd
Martin Shackelford
Martin
twvaug...@yahoo.com
Martin,
I'll have to check to see when they moved into the Neely Street
apartment. But regardless, what is there within the photograph that
makes you think the photograph was taken at Neely Street? Surely the
camera could take pictures at other locations. I don't see anything in
the picture at Wronksi's site that identifies it as having been taken
at Neely Street.
Todd
twvaug...@yahoo.com
March 2nd 1963.
Therefore this photograph was not taken on Neely Street, as I
suspected.
Todd
Martin Shackelford
be if the pic matched the camera characteristics present in the backyard
photos of Oswald.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
twvaug...@yahoo.com
that's a good guess.