"And he said 'I shot Walker'"

[Lance Payette]

I have to admit I was more definitive about the handwriting analysis then it was. Your post cleared that up.

Re the note: The very smart Jean Davison showed that note to some graduate Russian language students for their judgment. The consensus was that it was poorly written, with all sorts of grammatical and spelling mistakes.

One point (hijacking this a bit) about Oswald's views about JFK: This is one mystery that I can't figure out. Reportedly he said positive things about JFK especially on civil rights. Michael Paine said Oswald told him that JFK was the best president of his lifetime. How to explain this? If he was pretending to be a Marxist, if it was a cover story, he was pulling a Herbert Philbrick act, wouldn't he condemn JFK? That would be part of the act. If he was a Marxist (as he understood it) and a Castro supporter, wouldn't he also condemn JFK for his Cuba policies?

But there's little there and what little there is is positive.

On the other hand, he wrote that there wasn't any difference between non-Marxists, that whether they were liberal or conservative or Christian Democrats or anything else, it didn't matter. They were on the wrong side of history. That's always been the Marxist interpretation of history. So in this view there's no difference between JFK and Walker.

And Fritz said that Oswald said this about JFK's death.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask him what he thought of President Kennedy or his family?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him what he thought of the President.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. What he thought about the family--he said he didn't have any particular comment to make about the President.
He said he had a nice family, that he admired his family, something to that effect. At one time, I don't have this in my report, but at one time I told him, I said, "You know you have killed the President, and this is a very serious charge."
He denied it and said he hadn't killed the President.
I said he had been killed. He said people will forget that within a few days and there would be another President."

I have shown all of Oswald's writings to my wife, a native Russian speaker for 70 years. Her reaction has been the same - not absurdly bad, but also not someone with any real command of the language. She says he often uses a word that is Russian and technically correct, but not a word that anyone who really knew Russian would ever use. I recall her laughing at something where he meant to say he was going duck hunting, but the word he used was "baby duckling." I just happened to have read an interview the other day with Paul Gregory, and his assessment of Oswald's Russian was the same.

My thinking on JFK is that Oswald was genuinely focused on Cuba and a possible role for him there, Castro's warnings about American assassination attempts had been recently published, "something" happened in Mexico City, and by 11-22 Oswald had convinced himself that the assassination was a pro-Castro act that would establish him as a true Marxist and friend of Cuba even if he didn't survive - and if he did, it would surely be his ticket to glory in Cuba. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Any one who doesn't think CTers are loons really needs to visit the counterpart to this thread at the Ed Forum. Good Lord, what an inane bunch of responses from some pretty prominent folks.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Sirhan, when interviewed in 1988 by David Frost, admitted that he killed Bobby Kennedy and even explained his motive for doing so in complete detail.

Griffith actually thinks the CIA developed mind control capability. The MK-Ultra program was a complete failure. They gave people drugs and lost control of them. Not only does he think the CIA could control people he thinks Sirhan was *possibly* one of them. He says we can't rule it out. And the evidence for this is they tried to do so, had programs that they looked into, and Sirhan (actually his defense lawyer) said that *after* the shooting he had no memory of what he did. In Michael Griffith's world that's evidence that he possibly was.

Here is Sirhan in the Frost interview: "I sincerely regret my actions [in shooting RFK] for that I was young I was you know immature I was wild...I really didn't have the ability to sit back and reflect on it as just one speech one perhaps one pandering speech to a you know a potential bloc of voters whom he was appealing to and now of course I realized that and then and I wish that I could reverse all my actions concerning Robert Kennedy....."

The speech he is referring to was the one where RFK supported sending military aid/fighter aircraft to Israel in the 1968 war.

Sirhan is under control here, has agency, knew what he did was wrong and admitted it. Nothing here at all indicating any mind control or lack of memory as to what happened.

[John Mytton]

First off, yes, I stand corrected about the conclusions of the HSCA handwriting experts on the note's handwriting. I got that claim from the usually reliable 22november1963.org.uk website. I should have gone back and double-checked the handwriting experts' report, which the 22november1963 folks actually cite with a link. Clearly, they either misread the report or chose to misrepresent it.

And, oh yes, I see, not surprisingly, that a bunch of WC apologists are hooting and posturing over my mistake, labeling it as proof of my many supposed "lies," etc., etc. Unlike you folks, when I make a mistake, I admit it. You guys have made many egregious errors that I have documented for you, but you have never once acknowledged any of them.

Two, I note that you once again failed to address the fact (1) that the one eyewitness saw two men hurriedly leave and said neither man resembled Oswald, and (2) that none of the several fingerprints on the note were Oswald's or Marina's prints. In all your excitement over being able to pounce on one of my rare errors, perhaps you just forgot about these two key facts. So let me discuss them again:

The one eyewitness, Walter Coleman, said he saw two men hurriedly leave the church parking lot next to Walker's house and that neither man looked like Oswald. Coleman said he had seen numerous pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, and he was shown a photograph of Oswald among several other photographs. He said that neither of the men he saw resembled Oswald, and that he had never seen anyone in or around the Walker residence before or after the night of the shooting who resembled Oswald.

I should add that Robert Surrey reported that days before the Walker shooting he saw two men sitting in a car near Walker's house and that the men later seemed to be inspecting the windows and area surrounding the Walker home. Surrey said that neither of these men resembled Oswald (https://www.tpaak.com/walker-allegations).

And, not one of the several fingerprints on the goodbye note belonged to Oswald or Marina. Seven fingerprints were found on the note, but none of them belonged to Oswald or his wife. How do you write a note and not leave a single fingerprint on it? How did Marina read the note without leaving a single print on it?

Three, yes, Walker said the bullet was mangled, but he also made it clear that the bullet was not a WCC Carcano FMJ bullet. He was adamant on this point:

During the HSCA investigation in the 1970’s, General Walker himself said that
the bullet in evidence was not the same bullet that was found in his house on 10th
April 1963. He wrote to the Attorney General in February 1979 and said that it was
“a ridiculous substitute.” He went on to state that “I saw the hunk of lead, picked up
by a policeman in my house, and I took it from him and I inspected it carefully.
There is no mistake. There has been a substitution for the bullet fired by Oswald and
taken out of my house.”
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance)

Also, the first police description of the bullet said it "was a steel jacket bullet," and the supposed Walker bullet in evidence, CE 573, does not contain Lt. Day's chain-of-evidence mark. Cole and Gram discuss some of the evidence that CE 573 is not the Walker bullet:

The original and official DPD reports described a relatively rare “steel jacketed”
slug found in the Walker home, on April 10, 1963, the night of the shooting.
The bullet was handled and initialed through inscribing by four DPD officers.
But CE 573—the WC’s purported Walker Bullet—is obviously copper-jacketed.

The extremely thin Warren Commission questioning of FBI agent Frazier, as to
how and why the Walker Bullet could ever be described as “steel jacketed” by
DPD detectives. Frazier answered that “some individuals refer to all rifle bullets
as steel jacketed,” a novel and unique observation. There is nothing in police or
FBI literature to suggest police detectives or FBI special agents anywhere ever
described “all rifle bullets” as steel jacketed—especially when copper-jacketed
rifle bullets were and are the norm.

Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department, stating unequivocally to the FBI and
then to the WC that he had carved the true Walker slug with his name “DAY” and a
cross. No such markings can be seen on CE 573, even under a microscope.

The lack of same-day April 10, 1963, or indeed any Dallas Police Department
photographs of the true Walker Bullet. The true Walker Bullet was never
photographed or, if it was, the photographs have disappeared. Moreover, there
are no surviving written DPD lab reports on the Walker Bullet that describe the
slug as steel- or copper-jacketed.

The weak chain of evidence confirmation by the FBI-WC on the provenance
of CE 573. The FBI in 1964 showed a slug purported to be the Walker Bullet
only to Norvell, the DPD patrolman, who at best handled the slug briefly 14
months earlier. The FBI did not show the purported Walker Bullet to detectives
McElroy or Van Cleave.
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/1408)

Four, I see that Mytton is once again trotting out the backyard rifle photos as supposed proof of Oswald's guilt in both the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting. Those photos are as phony as a three-dollar bill. See

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view

Are you guys ever, ever, ever going to deal with the parallax measurements showing the impossibly microscopic differences in distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos? There is no way on this planet that photos taken with a cheap handheld camera that was supposedly handed back and forth to advance the film would have such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between the objects in the backgrounds in the photos. This is not to mention that the variant shadows in the photos have never been duplicated, among other problems with the photos.

Five, apparently it has not occurred to any of you to wonder how your supposed skilled "sharpshooter" assassin managed to miss Walker from less than 120 feet away while having all the time in the world to aim and fire. Yet, you claim this is the same guy who performed a shooting feat against JFK that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's shooting simulation, using the alleged murder weapon, did not even come close to duplicating, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at a stationary target boards, and took as much time as they wanted for their first shot.

Six, the attempts to explain why Oswald would try to shoot the rabid right-winger Walker and then turn around and shoot the man whom Walker had publicly condemned, i.e., JFK, border on incoherent.

Seven, the NAA testing that supposedly linked the Walker bullet to Oswald's rifle was discredited nearly 20 years ago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18709539
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/900118

Two, I note that you once again failed to address the fact (1) that the one eyewitness saw two men hurriedly leave and said neither man resembled Oswald, and (2) that none of the several fingerprints on the note were Oswald's or Marina's prints. In all your excitement over being able to pounce on one of my rare errors, perhaps you just forgot about these two key facts. So let me discuss them again:

The one eyewitness, Walter Coleman, said he saw two men hurriedly leave the church parking lot next to Walker's house and that neither man looked like Oswald. Coleman said he had seen numerous pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, and he was shown a photograph of Oswald among several other photographs. He said that neither of the men he saw resembled Oswald, and that he had never seen anyone in or around the Walker residence before or after the night of the shooting who resembled Oswald.

I should add that Robert Surrey reported that days before the Walker shooting he saw two men sitting in a car near Walker's house and that the men later seemed to be inspecting the windows and area surrounding the Walker home. Surrey said that neither of these men resembled Oswald (https://www.tpaak.com/walker-allegations).

Real interesting but where to start?

My quick notes based on the Police and FBI reports

Kirk Coleman on the day after tells Police the only description was the man who got in the 1949 or 1950 Ford was middle sized with long black hair, Kirk tells the FBI almost a full year later(with a sudden photographic like recollection) that the white man was real skinny, dark bushy hair, a thin face, with a large nose, about 5'10 19 years old and about 130 pounds wearing Khaki pants and a sports shirt, gets into a 1950 white or beige Ford and drives away in a hurry. Later tells FBI that car drives off at normal rate of speed.
The other man 6'1 200 pounds, no age, long sleeve shirt with dark pants, Tells Police the man in the other car doesn't seem to be in a hurry, the only description of the car is black with a white stripe and later tells the FBI the 2nd man is leaning into the back seat of an open door, 2 door black over white 1958 Chevrolet sedan, Kirk doesn't see 2nd man leave.
Coleman initially tells the Police that the lights in the car park were not on and later tells the FBI that he was able to observe this even though it was night time because the car park was lit by a flood light.

Besides two men occupying the same car park on a church meeting night, who at one point were about ten yards apart of each other, I can not find any meaningful connection?

Robert Surrey on the night of the 8th( two days before) says the men were in their 30's and between 5'10 and 6 foot and one was 160 and the other 190 pounds.
They were well dressed in suits, dress shirts and ties.
They got out of a 1963 4 door Ford dark brown or maroon. They walk up alley to the Walker house and look through the windows and Leave about half an hour later, Surrey gets into car and checks glovebox for ID? (a new 1963 car was left unlocked?)
Tells FBI he was not certain if he could identify either man again, but was of the opinion that neither man was identical to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Links
Police report for Kirk Coleman
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338185/m1/15/?q=General%20Edwin%20Walker

FBI report for both Surrey and Coleman.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60410#relPageId=117&search=%22Robert_Surrey%22

And, not one of the several fingerprints on the goodbye note belonged to Oswald or Marina. Seven fingerprints were found on the note, but none of them belonged to Oswald or his wife. How do you write a note and not leave a single fingerprint on it? How did Marina read the note without leaving a single print on it?

And secondly, real life isn't like TV's CSI, legible fingerprints from crime scenes can be difficult to recover from non-porous surfaces and especially difficult from porous surfaces like paper. For instance from Oswald's rifle bag, only two relatively small prints were recovered.

From Google AI
Recovering fingerprints at crime scenes can be challenging due to various factors, including the surface type, environmental conditions, and the age and quality of the fingerprint itself. While some surfaces like glass are relatively easy to process, others like textured or curved surfaces, or those exposed to heat or harsh conditions, present significant difficulties.

Factors Affecting Fingerprint Recovery:
Surface Type:
Porous surfaces (like paper) absorb fingerprint residue, making it harder to lift. Non-porous surfaces (like glass or metal) are generally easier to work with, but even these can be problematic if textured or contaminated.
Environmental Conditions:
Heat, humidity, and exposure to the elements can degrade or destroy fingerprints, especially if they are exposed for extended periods.
Age of the Print:
The longer a fingerprint has been exposed, the more likely it is to be degraded or obscured by dust, dirt, or other contaminants.
Quality of the Print:
Partial prints, smudged prints, or prints with poor ridge detail are difficult to process and analyze.
Nature of the Crime:
Fingerprints on items like fired ammunition casings, knives, or bomb fragments may be difficult to recover due to heat and potential damage.
Challenges in Fingerprint Recovery:
Difficult Surfaces:
Textured surfaces (like fabrics or rough metals) and curved surfaces (like bottles) present challenges in applying and lifting fingerprint powder or other enhancement techniques.
Contamination:
Fingerprints can be contaminated by other substances, making them difficult to visualize and lift.
Heat and Damage:
Fingerprints on items exposed to high temperatures (like fired bullet casings) may be damaged or destroyed.
Partial Prints:
Partial fingerprints may not contain enough detail for reliable identification.
Complex Backgrounds:
Fingerprints on complex backgrounds (like patterned surfaces or cluttered areas) can be difficult to distinguish.

Latona the FBI's fingerprint expert says that prints tested on the sniper's nest boxes have a relatively short life, and how long was it before Marina and/or Oswald handled the note? In my research some prints from some types of paper can be recovered after what appears to be years but as noted above and below, many factors must be considered.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be the outermost limit that you can testify concerning?
Mr. LATONA. We have, run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure I understand your reference to a minimum of 24 hours.
Mr. LATONA. We have conducted tests with various types of materials as to how long it could be before we would not develop a latent print.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. LATONA. Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that is a maximum of 24 hours?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.

But at the end of the day, Experts did in fact positively linked Oswald's writing to the Walker note. Sorry bout that.
And besides, wouldn't conspirators clearly spell out the Walker connection with Walker's name, a clear date and more incriminating evidence?

Are you guys ever, ever, ever going to deal with the parallax measurements showing the impossibly microscopic differences in distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos? There is no way on this planet that photos taken with a cheap handheld camera that was supposedly handed back and forth to advance the film would have such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between the objects in the backgrounds in the photos. This is not to mention that the variant shadows in the photos have never been duplicated, among other problems with the photos.

Griffith get a grip, you have fake photos, films, x-rays, autopsy photos, forged documents, the list is endless and quite pathetic. Anyway, I have dealt with the vast differences in parallax caused by Marina's changing POV, which conclusively show that the photos were NOT taken on a tripod and that there was more than a solitary backdrop. Marina stood in 1 position and took at least three photos. Do the experiment yourself before you make yourself look the Fool yet again!

Look closely at the relative movement between background objects, like the shutters, stairs, roof behind and ETC, and there is massive amounts of parallax happening right before your eyes.







And not the shadows again(yawn), this has been recreated at the scene and by advanced CGI.





George de Mohrenschildt's backyard photo signed by Oswald.



And to top it off, a photographic negative exists which came directly from Oswald's camera which is definitive proof of the authenticity of the photo. As they say in the classics, That's All Folks!!



JohnM

[John Mytton]

And here's more.

Check out the relative parallax movement of the roof next door.



The electricity wires cast a shadow onto the stair post which shows a passage of time



Oswald's square chin is simply a result of overhead lighting, Hollywood has used this technique to make their stars more masculine. Notice the similar shadows below the eyebrows and nose.





The grain structure of the negative shows a consistent distribution of film grain across the entire photo therefore it shows no sign of being a composite because this merging would require a photo of Oswald's head to be taken with the exact same type of film, the same camera and from the exact same distance as the original. And then there is the problem of matching the overhead lighting which would require dragging Oswald out into a sunlit day and position him at the same angle and at the same time. And anyway this would all be for nought because by definition at the very least a composite requires a doubling up of film and this additional film grain would stick out like a LNer at a Kook convention.



Here's an interesting comparison between the DP backyard cut-out photo and Oswald's backyard photo and the bush to Oswald's left has shown considerable growth meaning that the cut-out photo wasn't a template for the backyard photos. And this is proof that the Oswald backyard photo was taken many months before, so either the backyard photos were some type of long term plan or someone had the psychic ability to take a photo of Oswald's backyard in anticipation of Oswald being a patsy.



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Real interesting but where to start? My quick notes based on the Police and FBI reports

Kirk Coleman on the day after tells Police the only description was the man who got in the 1949 or 1950 Ford was middle sized with long black hair, Kirk tells the FBI almost a full year later(with a sudden photographic like recollection) that the white man was real skinny, dark bushy hair, a thin face, with a large nose, about 5'10 19 years old and about 130 pounds wearing Khaki pants and a sports shirt, gets into a 1950 white or beige Ford and drives away in a hurry.

But, of course, you see nothing suspicious here. Coleman ran to the fence to look at the parking lot right after he heard the shot. He saw a man near a car, saw the man look at him, saw the man get into the car, and saw the man speed off out of the parking lot. Just one big whopping coincidence, right?

Later tells FBI that car drives off at normal rate of speed.

I'm guessing you don't know that we have dozens of examples of FBI agents misrepresenting what witneses told them. You choose to dismiss the account Coleman gave right after the event and to rely on the FBI's version of what he allegedly said to them later.

I'll take his first account, since it was given much sooner after the event occurred.

The other man 6'1 200 pounds, no age, long sleeve shirt with dark pants, Tells Police the man in the other car doesn't seem to be in a hurry, the only description of the car is black with a white stripe and later tells the FBI the 2nd man is leaning into the back seat of an open door, 2 door black over white 1958 Chevrolet sedan, Kirk doesn't see 2nd man leave.

Coleman initially tells the Police that the lights in the car park were not on and later tells the FBI that he was able to observe this even though it was night time because the car park was lit by a flood light.

Besides two men occupying the same car park on a church meeting night, who at one point were about ten yards apart of each other, I can not find any meaningful connection?

Humm, so it's just a coincidence that Surrey saw two men, driving a car with no license plate, walking around Walker's house and looking into his windows, right? Of course.

Robert Surrey on the night of the 8th( two days before) says the men were in their 30's and between 5'10 and 6 foot and one was 160 and the other 190 pounds.
They were well dressed in suits, dress shirts and ties.
They got out of a 1963 4 door Ford dark brown or maroon. They walk up alley to the Walker house and look through the windows and Leave about half an hour later, Surrey gets into car and checks glovebox for ID? (a new 1963 car was left unlocked?)
Tells FBI he was not certain if he could identify either man again, but was of the opinion that neither man was identical to Lee Harvey Oswald.

You know that you've omitted some key information. You didn't mention that Surrey said the men's car had no license plate. You also didn't mention that Surrey said the two men did not return to their car for about half an hour. But, nothing suspicious here, right?

And secondly, real life isn't like TV's CSI, legible fingerprints from crime scenes can be difficult to recover from non-porous surfaces and especially difficult from porous surfaces like paper. For instance from Oswald's rifle bag, only two relatively small prints were recovered.

It wasn't his rifle bag. The bag was a phony piece of evidence. Are you not aware of any of the glaring problems with the "rifle bag"?

From Google AI
Recovering fingerprints at crime scenes can be challenging due to various factors, including the surface type, environmental conditions, and the age and quality of the fingerprint itself. While some surfaces like glass are relatively easy to process, others like textured or curved surfaces, or those exposed to heat or harsh conditions, present significant difficulties. [SNIP]

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be the outermost limit that you can testify concerning?
Mr. LATONA. We have, run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.

So the seven fingerprints that were found on the note were all put on the note within 24 hours of its being examined by the FBI?!

Fingerprints have been recovered from paper years after being touched. In some cases, fingerprints can stay on paper for decades.

But at the end of the day, Experts did in fact positively linked Oswald's writing to the Walker note. Sorry bout that.

Yeah, and he wrote the note without leaving a single fingerprint on it. And Marina read the note without leaving a single fingerprint on it. Sounds totally plausible.

Do you have any idea how carefully and convincingly someone's handwriting can be forged by people who are trained in handwriting forgery?

And besides, wouldn't conspirators clearly spell out the Walker connection with Walker's name, a clear date and more incriminating evidence?

If they had done this, you would be citing the note as ironclad proof of Oswald's guilt. As some researchers have suggested, Oswald could have written the note for a reason that had nothing to do with the Walker shooting, and when the authorities found the note they decided to use it to pin the Walker shooting on Oswald. But,l the note could have been forged, which would explain why Oswald's prints were not found on it.

Griffith get a grip, you have fake photos, films, x-rays, autopsy photos, forged documents, the list is endless and quite pathetic.

No, it's not "endless." How many documents were fabricated/altered and how much evidence was planted in the cases of the Birmingham Six and the LAPD Rampart scandal? How many phony documents were created to conceal illegal transactions in the Iran-Contra conspiracy? How many hundreds of documents did Oliver North and crew shred after the arms-for-hostages story broke and before federal agents arrived? How many fake photos and documents did the KGB produce during the Cold War?

You guys act like people engaged in illegal activity have never planted, altered, or destroyed evidence.

Anyway, I have dealt with the vast differences in parallax caused by Marina's changing POV,

HUH??? The "vast differences in parallax" You don't even know what in the world you're talking about. There are no "vast differences in parallax" between the background objects in the backyard photos. Rather, there are incredibly tiny, microscopic differences that had to be measured in millimeters: 0.1 mm, 0.8 mm, 0.5 mm, etc. Do you know what 0.5 mm is in inches? It's 0.019685 inches. 0.019685 inches is less than 1/50th of an inch.

which conclusively show that the photos were NOT taken on a tripod and that there was more than a solitary backdrop. Marina stood in 1 position and took at least three photos. Do the experiment yourself before you make yourself look the Fool yet again!

This is just gibberish. Again, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even understand the basics of the science and mechanics involved here.

Oswald and Marina both would have had to move for Oswald to allegedly take the camera from her, forward the film, and hand the camera back to her. Three photos taken in this manner would have produced enormous differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos, especially since the camera's trigger was a lever that had to be pushed down while holding the camera at waist level. Yet, the backyard rifle photos contain only microscopic differences in distances between the background objects, an effect that would be difficult to achieve even using a modern camera with a soft-touch digital trigger button.

Look closely at the relative movement between background objects, like the shutters, stairs, roof behind and ETC, and there is massive amounts of parallax happening right before your eyes.

Just shaking my head. Again, we're not talking about "massive amounts of parallax." We're talking about extremely tiny, virtually microscopic amounts of parallax. Again, the differences were in millimeters/tiny fractions of inches. For example, the HSCA PEP found that the "gate bolt to screen" difference in distance between 133-A and 133-B, adjusted for scaling distance, is 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches, i.e., 1/168th of an inch.

Your graphics are downright goofy and show that you don't understand the basics of the problem.

George de Mohrenschildt's backyard photo signed by Oswald.

You bet. Just like the Hunt note, right? You guys swear up and down that the Hunt note, written and signed by Oswald, in which Oswald asks about his next "assignment," is a forgery. The HSCA's handwriting experts said they could not reach a firm conclusion because the note is a xerox of the original, but they noted that the "the writing pattern or the overall letter designs are consistent with those as written on the other [Oswald] documents" and that the handwriting "does agree basically with the overall writing characteristics of the previous Oswald writings." Moreover, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note for the Dallas Morning News and concluded it was written by Oswald.

In short, you guys are entirely willing to argue that the Hunt note was forged, but you refuse to allow that Oswald's signature could have been forged.

And to top it off, a photographic negative exists which came directly from Oswald's camera which is definitive proof of the authenticity of the photo. As they say in the classics, That's All Folks!!

Again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The negative is a big problem for your side. You didn't bother to read my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos," did you? I discuss the negative in the article.

Here's one question for you regarding the negative: How could the DeM photo have been produced from the 133-A negative when the DeM photo is considerably clearer than 133-A? How could both photos have been produced from the same negative, especially if they were both printed with the regular photo printing machines commonly used at drugstores, etc.? The DeM photo was clearly not taken with the cheap, inferior IR camera, but with an expensive, high-quality camera.

Revealingly, the HSCA PEP acknowledged that the DeM photo was “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens” because of its higher resolution (6 HSCA 148). This clearly indicates it was not processed at the same place the two original prints, 133-A and 133-B, were processed.

And, the fact remains, as I discuss in my article, that the impossible variant shadows in the backyard rifle photos have never been duplicated. The HSCA PEP tried very hard to do so, but failed.

[Lance Payette]

I think Bill's point was the critical one: Marina immediately coming forth with the Walker account upon being shown the note on 12-3-63, and holding to that story for decades, pretty much seals the deal. The note and Marina really cannot be explained away.

All the focus in the counterpart thread at the Ed Forum seems to be on Marina supposedly being under great duress, fearful of being deported, and telling the Walker tale to protect herself and her children. I have yet to see one word as to WHAT SENSE this makes. The discussion seems to take for granted that it DOES makes sense (which I fear it somehow does in the minds of rabid CTers).

Did "they" (whoever you think "they" are) fabricate and plant the Walker note within a week of the JFKA and twist Marina's arm to play along with the Walker story under threat of deportation? WHY? What would be gained by tying the dead Oswald to the Walker attempt? Can someone explain to me why on earth "they" would be thinking in these terms a week after the JFKA? Marina's account as documented in the SS and FBI memos on 12-3 was detailed and specific - was that all concocted in advance by "them"? And why was Ruth's testimony at the WC so benign when "they" could have so easily prepared her to slip in a few zingers about Oswald's hatred for Walker?

Or is the theory that Marina came up with this on her own? Why would she have done that? Doesn't it raise all kinds of questions about why she didn't tell someone at the time (as indeed it actually did)?

Is it somehow impolite, or against the rules of the Conspiracy Game, to ask WHAT SENSE any of this makes? There are never any answers from the CTers. Would someone like to take a stab at how this all supposedly worked and WHAT SENSE it would have made? Pretend you're Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle and stun us with a scenario that leaves us slapping our foreheads and exclaiming "Well, by God, it DOES make sense! Wow, that was clever of those crafty conspirators!"

I find it kind of dismaying how these threads always devolve into a "did not, did too" debate over details, which seems to me to be playing the Conspiracy Game on the CTers' turf. I simply challenge them to tell me WHAT SENSE their theory that the note was fabricated and Marina was coerced makes in the context of the JFKA. Is that too much to ask?

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is dubious hearsay given by Marina when she was being held in a hotel room and threatened by the Secret Service and the FBI and was scared to death of being deported.

According to James Hosty in his book “Assignment Oswald” an Immigration and Naturalization Service attorney told Marina Oswald, just before his first post assassination interview with Marina on Wednesday 11/27/63, that she definitely was not going to be deported. Here is a snippet from Hosty’s book page 120:

After just a few minutes the INS attorney and Gopadze came out of the room. The INS attorney, acting jittery and nervous, headed straight for the door and quickly left. Brown and I huddled with Gopadze and asked him what that was all about. Shaking his head in disgust, Gopadze told us that the INS man had just informed Marina that the INS was most definitely not going to deport her, but that they still wanted her to cooperate with the FBI.

And if one reads further on about Hosty’s interview, it turns out that Robert Oswald was present and was trying to be sure Marina was treated properly.

This is another prime example of the disconnect between lone-gunman theorists and the facts. Marina Oswald repeatedly said she was threatened with deportation if she did not "cooperate." But, you take the word of James Hosty, of all people, and claim that Marina was assured she would not be deported.

It takes a minute to think of a more unreliable, discredited source than James Hosty. 

Also, I note that no one is dealing with the evidence that CE 573 is not the Walker bullet and with the fact that Walker himself, an experienced military officer, insisted that CE 573 was not the bullet that was fired at him.
 

Griffith,

Why can't you accept the possibility that Oswald didn't see the wooden cross-piece in the window frame due to a bright light inside Walker's room?

Because it's totally ridiculous. Did Walker have a giant flood light in his dining room?! Moreover, since it was late at night (9:00 PM), even a very bright light inside the dining room would not have made the window frame invisible but rather would have made the frame contrast even more with the window glass. There is no way that anyone using either the iron sights or the scope could not have seen the window frame, bright light or no bright light, at night.

This is yet another example of the absurd assumptions you guys have to make to believe in the lone-gunman theory.

Two more points:

One, no, Sirhan has never "admitted" that he killed RFK. He has never ceased to say that he has no memory of even being in the pantry that night, much less of shooting RFK. For a time, he took the word of others and assumed that he shot RFK, but he changed his mind after he became aware of the evidence that he could not have shot RFK.

Two, no, contrary to Steve Galbraith's erroneous claim, the CIA's mind-control program was not a "complete failure." Galbraith made this claim in a reply he wrote barely 24 hours after my response, so I suspect he didn't bother to read Kinzer's book on the subject. I also recommend Hank Albarelli's historic 2009 book A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments.

Dr. Herbert Spiegel, a New York psychiatrist and world-renowned expert on hypnosis who teaches at Columbia University, has concluded that "Sirhan was probably programmed through hypnosis to fire a gun in the presence of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy without knowing what he was doing and without being able to recall either the events or the process of being programmed" (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-05-le-textbooks5.3-story.html)

I again recommend the video The Real Manchurian Candidate, which is available on YouTube. In the video, another leading expert on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, explains his years-long examination of Sirhan and his conclusion that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to shoot RFK and not to remember doing so and being programmed to do so.

[John Mytton]

Just shaking my head. Again, we're not talking about "massive amounts of parallax." We're talking about extremely tiny, virtually microscopic amounts of parallax. Again, the differences were in millimeters/tiny fractions of inches. For example, the HSCA PEP found that the "gate bolt to screen" difference in distance between 133-A and 133-B, adjusted for scaling distance, is 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches, i.e., 1/168th of an inch.

Your graphics are downright goofy and show that you don't understand the basics of the problem.

Like your many Zapruder failures, here again, you haven't got a clue!

Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.



Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo.
And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos.

I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!



BTW on your Backyard photo fraud page you seem to rely on Jack White who believes in Moon Landing and 9/11 fakery, which goes a long way to explain your belief system.

JohnM