On The Trail Of Delusion

[Martin Weidmann]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary is extremely misleading on the relationship between Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald. The film claims that Banister gave Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation.

fred

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Jon Banks]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Evidence doesn't matter to Fred. He spins everything to support his anti-Oliver Stone narratives in his bad faith blog posts.

[Sean Kneringer]

Saint Jack vs. the Eeeeeevil CIA. That about sums it up. And did you notice that they totally skipped the head x-rays when discussing the autopsy? Gee, I wonder why.

[Jon Banks]

Saint Jack vs. the Eeeeeevil CIA. That about sums it up. And did you notice that they totally skipped the head x-rays when discussing the autopsy? Gee, I wonder why.

I assume the omissions were due to time constraints not dishonesty. They wanted to produce a TV series but Showtime only wanted a two-hour film. There's an extended version coming in February.

Dr's David Mantik and Gary Aguilar, who appear in the film, have disputed the x-rays.

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm

[Martin Weidmann]

Instead of playing the endless contrarian how about you provide us with some explanation of how a note written in Russian is on this BY photo?  How many people, for example, who had access to this picture in Dallas could write in Russian?  That can't be a long list.  If it wasn't Marina, then who do you believe are the suspects and why did they write it?  It's not clear what you are even suggesting.  You appear to accept the photo is genuine.  Oswald himself signed and inscribed it to DeM.  So tell us what point you are trying to make here.

how about you provide us with some explanation of how a note written in Russian is on this BY photo?

No, let's not play that game. There is Russian handwriting on the back of the DeMohrenschildt BY photo and it was not ever linked to anybody we know. As you are the one who is ruling out the involvement of anybody else in the assassination of Kennedy, it's up to you to tell us how that handwriting got there and who wrote it.

How many people, for example, who had access to this picture in Dallas could write in Russian?  That can't be a long list.

You tell me. You are the one who constantly claims to know details about Oswald that none of us know. I most certainly do not know how many people, that could write in Russian, Oswald was in contact with in late March 1963.

If it wasn't Marina, then who do you believe are the suspects and why did they write it?  It's not clear what you are even suggesting.

We know it wasn't Marina. There is no "if" about it. Who did write the text is unknown and that's exactly the point. And you understand this, but you can't explain it, which is why you now suddenly play ignorant and try to shift the burden of proof.

You appear to accept the photo is genuine. 

Yes, I don't think it's faked, if that's what you mean. What I have serious doubts about is the backdrop story.

Oswald himself signed and inscribed it to DeM.  So tell us what point you are trying to make here.

Well, let's see;

The official narrative tells us Marina took the pictures and the Oswald developed them at his place of work, which implies that they were the only to people involved in the making of these photos.

However, over the years that pass, Marina frequently tells a different story about the number of photos that she took and when asked for a demonstration, it turns out she doesn't even know how the work the camera. Then we learn that a copy of one of the photos is found, in 1967, in a storage room of the DeMohrenschildt's which allegedly has Oswald's handwriting on the back as well as a text in Russian written by an unknown individual. Now, the story becomes that Oswald gave that picture to George DeMohrenschildt as a present, before he left the country.

Strangely enough neither George or Jeanne DeMohrenschildt mention that picture in their testimony to the WC,  in April 1964, some two months after Life Magazine caused a publicity storm by publishing one of the pictures on it's front cover.

So, now we have already four known persons involved with the BY pictures and one unknown person who wrote the Russian text on the back.

Today, we also know that Michael Paine confirmed in a television interview (iirc with CBS) that Oswald had shown him the BY photo shortly after it had been taken. However, Paine also not only did not tell the WC and/or investigators this. He went even so far as to claim that he did not know Oswald had a rifle.

So, at least five personswe know were somehow involved with the pictures. Massive media attention because of the Life Magazine publication and nobody is talking, except Marina, who can't get her facts right. And then there is the unknown writer of the Russian text.

Now you do the math....

[Jerry Freeman]

Having to cast doubt on the evidence as the product of lies or fakery is an implicit acknowledgement on Stone's part that the evidence links Oswald to the crime. The same could be said for the naysayers who frequent this forum. Yet they would never admit that the Warren Commission got anything right.

Why don't you stick with your endless political rants and leave the discussion of the JFK case to others?

So any skeptics should just leave the forum and let the nutters all sit around and agree with each other?
The are no discussions just attaboy pat pat ...conspiracy kooks --"indeed"  ...Oswald did it -never mind the particulars.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If Stone just believed in one specific JFK conspiracy theory, that would be bad enough but he apparently accepts them all.  Hundreds or thousands of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy under Stone's interpretation of events.

I have no idea, none, why reasonable conspiracy believers - and there are some - are not furious with this nonsense by Stone and DiEugenio. Nothing discredits their theories, their concerns, their legitimate questions (there are still a few at this late date) than this series of slanders and outrages and fantasies promoted by them.

I mentioned before that response by Stone when asked about the smearing of Shaw: he said, "Sometimes in a war you have to sacrifice people." My guess is that this is what he and DiEugenio are doing. They think they're fighting a war against the secret "they" that really runs America, to wit, this mix of "deep state" actors and military industrialists and quasi-fascists in Wall Street and elsewhere. And so in such a battle if innocents get hurt that's just the price that will be paid. It's a nasty business; collateral damage will happen.

If I wanted to discredit the conspiracy movement or cause I would hire someone like Stone and DiEugenio to do so. And this is how I'd do it.

I guess if you believe the Cold War was caused by the US, by Truman's policies, by the "national security state" and "military industrial complex" and you think that JFK was going to end all of that - Stone, DiEugenio and the absurd Jim Garrison did - then it makes sense on some level that the assassination was engineered by them. That's providing a twisted sort of motive but never explains how.  In any case, it is sheer nonsense and completely false that the East-West conflict was caused solely or even predominantly by the West. I mean good lord, Josef Stalin a victim?

[Richard Smith]

how about you provide us with some explanation of how a note written in Russian is on this BY photo?

No, let's not play that game. There is Russian handwriting on the back of the DeMohrenschildt BY photo and it was not ever linked to anybody we know. As you are the one who is ruling out the involvement of anybody else in the assassination of Kennedy, it's up to you to tell us how that handwriting got there and who wrote it.

How many people, for example, who had access to this picture in Dallas could write in Russian?  That can't be a long list.

You tell me. You are the one who constantly claims to know details about Oswald that none of us know. I most certainly do not know how many people, that could write in Russian, Oswald was in contact with in late March 1963.

If it wasn't Marina, then who do you believe are the suspects and why did they write it?  It's not clear what you are even suggesting.

We know it wasn't Marina. There is no "if" about it. Who did write the text is unknown and that's exactly the point. And you understand this, but you can't explain it, which is why you now suddenly play ignorant and try to shift the burden of proof.

You appear to accept the photo is genuine. 

Yes, I don't think it's faked, if that's what you mean. What I have serious doubts about is the backdrop story.

Oswald himself signed and inscribed it to DeM.  So tell us what point you are trying to make here.

Well, let's see;

The official narrative tells us Marina took the pictures and the Oswald developed them at his place of work, which implies that they were the only to people involved in the making of these photos.

However, over the years that pass, Marina frequently tells a different story about the number of photos that she took and when asked for a demonstration, it turns out she doesn't even know how the work the camera. Then we learn that a copy of one of the photos is found, in 1967, in a storage room of the DeMohrenschildt's which allegedly has Oswald's handwriting on the back as well as a text in Russian written by an unknown individual. Now, the story becomes that Oswald gave that picture to George DeMohrenschildt as a present, before he left the country.

Strangely enough neither George or Jeanne DeMohrenschildt mention that picture in their testimony to the WC,  in April 1964, some two months after Life Magazine caused a publicity storm by publishing one of the pictures on it's front cover.

So, now we have already four known persons involved with the BY pictures and one unknown person who wrote the Russian text on the back.

Today, we also know that Michael Paine confirmed in a television interview (iirc with CBS) that Oswald had shown him the BY photo shortly after it had been taken. However, Paine also not only did not tell the WC and/or investigators this. He went even so far as to claim that he did not know Oswald had a rifle.

So, at least five personswe know were somehow involved with the pictures. Massive media attention because of the Life Magazine publication and nobody is talking, except Marina, who can't get her facts right. And then there is the unknown writer of the Russian text.

Now you do the math....

Bottom line - the photos are genuine.  They depict Oswald holding the murder weapon and Commie literature (the relevant point).  There may be some debate about who wrote the "Hunter of Fascists" note on the back but it likely wasn't Oswald.  Most believe it was Marina and contrary to your claim she has not been ruled out.  If she didn't do it, that only leaves a couple of folks who had access to this photo and could write in Russian.  Big deal.  What difference does it make unless you think some fantasy conspirator wrote it for some inexplicable reason?  How is that relevant to what the picture depicts?  This is just more rabbit hole nonsense to deflect from the important point.  The photo is genuine and Oswald is holding the murder weapon.   There was understandable reluctance by George DeM and Marina to be associated with these photos.  Awareness of Oswald's bizarre behavior could lend itself to criticism that they should have known he was a potentially violent kook and reported him.  George DeM wanted nothing to do with that.  So maybe he socks his picture away and plays dumb.