JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on February 24, 2019, 11:45:30 AM
-
...How would she [Marina] forget that she held the camera at waist level? The Imperial reflex is operated like a Hasselblad, not like a 35mm eye level camera, and unlike the Hasselblad does not have an eye view finder. She said she held it to up her eyes. She should also have remembered that the image in the camera was upside down, which it is in a reflex camera. Both very hard to forget.
The Marina 'testimony' regarding the Backyard camera was a fiasco. Marina lied to the Warren Commission with their blessing. Then, when she 'testified' to the HSCA she told a completely contradictory lie.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. ... I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.
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
If this is solid testimony...I'm a monkey's uncle. There is an hour or so and umpteen+ bunches of scraps and notes that were written by Oswald in Russian [that said nothing apparently] and were entered into evidence along with Oswald's pants, sweaters, underwear, etc by the chief counsel. Rankin coddled his witness knowing that she was willingly falsifying just about everything she said.
Rankin didn't seem to want to pursue or didn't seem interested with certainty in the identity of the camera that was used to take the photos of the 'armed Oswald'.
Rankin entered into exhibit CE-114..as Oswald's binoculars that he used in the Walker shooting. There was no evidence of that. Even Marina stated that she 'didn't know'.
Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 136 is a camera contained within a leather case.
Mrs. OSWALD. This is a Russian camera.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that the camera you used to take the pictures you have referred to?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember exactly whether it was an American camera or this.
Mr. RANKIN. But this was one of your cameras, or your husband's cameras?
Mrs. OSWALD. My husband's camera.
Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Exhibit 136.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
Why was CE-136 admitted into evidence? [As if it qualified as the backyard camera]
Maybe it was lost in translation but Marina said she never operated a camera before and she "didn't attach any significance to it at the time."
Where is there any mention of CE-750 in this testimony...the twin lens reflex camera?
-
The Marina 'testimony' regarding the Backyard camera was a fiasco. Marina lied to the Warren Commission with their blessing. Then, when she 'testified' to the HSCA she told a completely contradictory lie.
If this is solid testimony...I'm a monkey's uncle. There is an hour or so and umpteen+ bunches of scraps and notes that were written by Oswald in Russian [that said nothing apparently] and were entered into evidence along with Oswald's pants, sweaters, underwear, etc by the chief counsel. Rankin coddled his witness knowing that she was willingly falsifying just about everything she said.
Rankin didn't seem to want to pursue or didn't seem interested with certainty in the identity of the camera that was used to take the photos of the 'armed Oswald'.
Rankin entered into exhibit CE-114..as Oswald's binoculars that he used in the Walker shooting. There was no evidence of that. Even Marina stated that she 'didn't know'.Why was CE-136 admitted into evidence? [As if it qualified as the backyard camera]
Maybe it was lost in translation but Marina said she never operated a camera before and she "didn't attach any significance to it at the time."
Where is there any mention of CE-750 in this testimony...the Japanese twin lens reflex camera?
Hi Jerry.....I just finished reading a book entitled "BETRAYAL" By David Alan Johnson. ( He's obviously not related to Lynin Bastroid Johnson)
An excellent true story about German Saboteurs who landed in New Jersey in 1942. The leader had no intention of sabotaging anything....George Dasch the leader wanted to get to the American authorities ASAP and report the operation. Which he did.... Unfortunately J.Edgar Hoover wanted to be recognized as uncovering the plot and didn't want anybody to know that George Dasch had simply handed him the whole story, so Hoover, after rounding up the crew of saboteurs had six of them executed, and he had the other two ( Dasch and Burger ) locked away in solitary confinement where they couldn't tell the true story.
Hoover's finger prints are all over this interrogation of Marina ......And she was putty in his hands.
-
[After further review] the twin lens camera was American made.
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Imperial
-
Yes, she was quite wrong, and that what makes it so suspicious. Of course you would remember if you had to look down at an upside down image.
My point was that it is NOT upside-down. It is just switched right-left, which is not that obvious.
-
My point was that it is NOT upside-down. It is just switched right-left, which is not that obvious.
Again....A mirror was utilized to keep the image from inverting. I also found the Marina statement about the twin lens camera FBI statement CE 1788 http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1788.pdf
[If you want to call that 'testimony'] Recall that Marina said that she took one picture of the 'armed Oswald' ..two showed up for the Commission Report and then a third one for the HSCA hearing. The camera used type 620 film which contained up to 12 exposures. What was done with the other 9 exposures? No family pictures. No baby pictures. No pictures at the park :-\
-
Again....A mirror was utilized to keep the image from inverting. I also found the Marina statement about the twin lens camera FBI statement CE 1788 http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1788.pdf
[If you want to call that 'testimony'] Recall that Marina said that she took one picture of the 'armed Oswald' ..two showed up for the Commission Report and then a third one for the HSCA hearing.
If you accept Marina's admission that she burned the prints of the backyard photos, that ends the controversy over whether they were forged (if the negative of CE133B doesn't end it by itself). There are only two possibilities:
1. Marina was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald by lying about taking the backyard photographs that she knew she had not taken but had been doctored to show Oswald with the murder weapons or
2. Marina was telling the truth that they were undoctored photos taken by her.
If 1 is true, it would make no sense for her to burn copies of the photographs as Marguerite requested.
The camera used type 620 film which contained up to 12 exposures. What was done with the other 9 exposures? No family pictures. No baby pictures. No pictures at the park :-\
Maybe the same roll of film was used for the other "backyard" photos - the ones Oswald took of General Walker's back yard. They were taken by the same Imperial Reflex 620 camera based the edge detail of the Walker photograph matching that of Oswald's camera. (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0310b.htm)
How do you know that Oswald's camera took 12 photos on a roll of 620 film? I had an old Kodak accordian type fold-out camera that used 620 film and I could get only 8 photographs per roll. They were nice large negatives though.
-
Again....A mirror was utilized to keep the image from inverting. I also found the Marina statement about the twin lens camera FBI statement CE 1788 http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1788.pdf
[If you want to call that 'testimony'] Recall that Marina said that she took one picture of the 'armed Oswald' ..two showed up for the Commission Report and then a third one for the HSCA hearing. The camera used type 620 film which contained up to 12 exposures. What was done with the other 9 exposures? No family pictures. No baby pictures. No pictures at the park :-\
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1788.pdf
So she snapped the shutter twice without advancing the film....and took two different photos....How's that possible?
-
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1788.pdf
So she snapped the shutter twice without advancing the film....and took two different photos....How's that possible?
If she didn't understand how to work the camera, maybe Oswald advanced the film for her. Or maybe she figured it out, advanced the film but forgot that she had done that. And she obviously took at least 3 photos since 133c is a different photo taken at the same time.
-
... the ones Oswald [allegedly] took of General Walker's back yard. They were taken by the same Imperial Reflex 620 camera [reportedly] How do you know that Oswald's camera took 12 photos on a roll of 620 film? I had an old Kodak accordian type fold-out camera that used 620 film and I could get only 8 photographs per roll. They were nice large negatives though.
Another mystery...who printed all these pictures? Personally, I think they were processed in the Dallas police photo lab.
The Imperial 620 Snap Shot Camera was made by the Herbert George Company of Chicago Illinois in circa 1961. It is a simple twin-lens reflex style vertical camera constructed of Bakelite plastic. It features a full sized built-in view finder, removable synchronized flash unit, fixed focus lens and simple snap shot shutter. It was capable of capturing twelve exposures, 3 1/2 x 3 1/2 inch in size, on number 620 color or black and white roll film. It was made in various colors including black or grey with a cream front.
http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Imperial-Camera/Reflex.html
I would have thought the size was 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 :-\
If she didn't understand how to work the camera, maybe Oswald advanced the film for her. Or maybe she figured it out, advanced the film but forgot that she had done that. And she obviously took at least 3 photos since 133c is a different photo taken at the same time.
Why is it obvious? Face it ----she just lied.
-
Part 1
Part 2
-
If she didn't understand how to work the camera, maybe Oswald advanced the film for her. Or maybe she figured it out, advanced the film but forgot that she had done that. And she obviously took at least 3 photos since 133c is a different photo taken at the same time.
Andrew....Marina Did NOT take more than ONE BY photo. LOOK at 133B.....It's obviously a fake made by using the background from the Negative of CE 133A....
And 133c was made by the DPD....
-
Andrew....Marina Did NOT take more than ONE BY photo. LOOK at 133B.....It's obviously a fake made by using the background from the Negative of CE 133A....
And 133c was made by the DPD....
133B was taken by Oswald's Imperial Reflex TLR camera. That can be proven from the negative. The only way that 133B could be a fake is if it was a photograph of a photograph. A big problem with that, however, is that the focal length of the lens does not permit a close-up. So the original photo and Oswald's superimposed face would have to have been printed life-size in order to do the forgery. The second generation copy would also lose detail and would have increased contrast. And it would be easy to distinguish from 133A and 133c. One photo would be extremely difficult to fake but it would be easy to detect - unless 133A and 133c were also fakes. In that case someone had to do the next to impossible fakery three times using a different position of Oswald and the guns/newspapers. One would also need three slightly different poses of Oswald's face. The faces and stand-in bodies would have to be enlarged to life-size, then the face meticulously superimposed on each and re-photographed with Oswald's camera. And that makes absolutely no sense! All you need is one photo putting Oswald with the gun. Why go to all the trouble of making three extremely difficult to disguise fakes when only one would be needed. There is a much simpler explanation: the photographs are not fakes!
-
All you need is one photo putting Oswald with the gun. Why go to all the trouble of making three extremely difficult to disguise fakes when only one would be needed.
True. If you think that any of the BY photos are authentic ("if") then it doesn't matter how many other versions there are.
-
Part 1
This is a very unscientific analysis, pretending to be scientific. We are supposed to be persuaded that the photos were taken hours apart because the narrator says confidently that 133A has a 10 o'clock shadow and 133B has more of a 12 o'clock shadow? We can see that the shadows are the same in both (look at the shadows under the stairs). The sun moves 30 degrees in 2 hours!! If he was being scientific, he would know how to show what two hours difference in shadows looks like and show us the difference in the photos. But, of course, he can't. His measurements are laughable - he says one head looks bigger in proportion to the body but doesn't show it with measurements!! It doesn't look bigger to me - you have to do proper measurements. The "centre of gravity" issue is laughable as well. Not only does he not explain how the centre of gravity is determined and fails to show how it is impossible to stand that way, he actually has someone stand that way without falling down. The missing fingernail issue is also laughable. If the fingernails are missing it is much more likely because Oswald is gripping the paper with his distal phalanges directed toward the newspaper -what one might be expected to do to keep a newspaper rolled up. Totally ridiculous!
-
This is a very unscientific analysis, pretending to be scientific. We are supposed to be persuaded that the photos were taken hours apart because the narrator says confidently that 133A has a 10 o'clock shadow and 133B has more of a 12 o'clock shadow? We can see that the shadows are the same in both (look at the shadows under the stairs). The sun moves 30 degrees in 2 hours!! If he was being scientific, he would know how to show what two hours difference in shadows looks like and show us the difference in the photos. But, of course, he can't. His measurements are laughable - he says one head looks bigger in proportion to the body but doesn't show it with measurements!! It doesn't look bigger to me - you have to do proper measurements. The "centre of gravity" issue is laughable as well. Not only does he not explain how the centre of gravity is determined and fails to show how it is impossible to stand that way, he actually has someone stand that way without falling down. The missing fingernail issue is also laughable. If the fingernails are missing it is much more likely because Oswald is gripping the paper with his distal phalanges directed toward the newspaper -what one might be expected to do to keep a newspaper rolled up. Totally ridiculous!
If you want to totally blow the WC Report out of the water, have the current administration bring Marina in front of a commission established by Pres. Trump and testify whether she did or did not take the two ( three?) photographs. She has nothing to lose now. Give her immunity. I'd be willing to bet that she'd testify now that SHE NEVER took these photos. If she does that......end of case. LNer's are dead in the water. WC is dead in the water.
-
133B was taken by Oswald's Imperial Reflex TLR camera. That can be proven from the negative. The only way that 133B could be a fake is if it was a photograph of a photograph. A big problem with that, however, is that the focal length of the lens does not permit a close-up. So the original photo and Oswald's superimposed face would have to have been printed life-size in order to do the forgery. The second generation copy would also lose detail and would have increased contrast. And it would be easy to distinguish from 133A and 133c. One photo would be extremely difficult to fake but it would be easy to detect - unless 133A and 133c were also fakes. In that case someone had to do the next to impossible fakery three times using a different position of Oswald and the guns/newspapers. One would also need three slightly different poses of Oswald's face. The faces and stand-in bodies would have to be enlarged to life-size, then the face meticulously superimposed on each and re-photographed with Oswald's camera. And that makes absolutely no sense! All you need is one photo putting Oswald with the gun. Why go to all the trouble of making three extremely difficult to disguise fakes when only one would be needed. There is a much simpler explanation: the photographs are not fakes!
Andrew..LOOK at CE 133B.....It's the photo with the rifle in the man's left hand and on the his hip .....Notice the black triangle on the fence....That triangle is a dead giveaway that the background from CE 133A was used to create CE 133B..... And I suspect that it was Lee Oswald who created that fake.... He was just fooling around and trying to create a good "carnival photo" that would cause the viewer to believe that they were actually looking at a genuine communist revolutionary who was armed and ready for a fight. In my opinion the BY photo CE 133A is a ludicrous incredibly silly portrait of a nut who was too naive to understand that he was overdoing the act. ...
But maybe "Someone" saw the obvious silliness ...because on the back of the Demorhenschildt print was written...."Hunter of Fascists...Ha,ha,ha"...
-
If you accept Marina's admission that she burned the prints of the backyard photos, that ends the controversy over whether they were forged (if the negative of CE133B doesn't end it by itself). There are only two possibilities:
1. Marina was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald by lying about taking the backyard photographs that she knew she had not taken but had been doctored to show Oswald with the murder weapons or
2. Marina was telling the truth that they were undoctored photos taken by her.
If 1 is true, it would make no sense for her to burn copies of the photographs as Marguerite requested.
Maybe the same roll of film was used for the other "backyard" photos - the ones Oswald took of General Walker's back yard. They were taken by the same Imperial Reflex 620 camera based the edge detail of the Walker photograph matching that of Oswald's camera. (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0310b.htm)
How do you know that Oswald's camera took 12 photos on a roll of 620 film? I had an old Kodak accordian type fold-out camera that used 620 film and I could get only 8 photographs per roll. They were nice large negatives though.
Or there is option 3. A young widow, alone with two small children and faced with possible extradition buckling under the pressure of a multitude of interrogations and testifying to what she believes the powers that be want to hear for pure self preservation.
-
I'd be willing to bet that she'd testify now that SHE NEVER took these photos. If she does that......end of case. LNer's are dead in the water. WC is dead in the water.
She has already testified under oath that she took the photos. If she now were to tell the "truth" and admit she did not take them, she would have even more questions to answer: e.g. how she got the photos (and how it was that de Mohrenschildt got a copy signed by Oswald and with her handwriting on it "Hunter of Fascists") why they were faked, how they were faked, and why she lied. Her "immunity" would be only if she told the truth this time (i.e immunity from past perjury).
-
She has already testified under oath that she took the photos. If she now were to tell the "truth" and admit she did not take them, she would have even more questions to answer: e.g. how she got the photos (and how it was that de Mohrenschildt got a copy signed by Oswald and with her handwriting on it "Hunter of Fascists") why they were faked, how they were faked, and why she lied. Her "immunity" would be only if she told the truth this time (i.e immunity from past perjury).
Actually, Marina has always denied and it was determined conclusively that Marina did not write "hunter of fascists" on the back of the De Mohrenschildt photo, which of course opens up a whole new line of enquiry.
De Mohrenschildt believed that Michael Paine had placed the box with records, containing, the photo in his storage unit, which by itself is somewhat strange since the Paine's have always stated that they did not know the De Mohrenschildt's very well. So, if Michael Paine did indeed place that photo in the storage unit and it wasn't Marina who wrote that Russian tekst, then who did? Who else is involved in the BY photos saga?
-
Andrew..LOOK at CE 133B.....It's the photo with the rifle in the man's left hand and on the his hip .....Notice the black triangle on the fence....That triangle is a dead giveaway that the background from CE 133A was used to create CE 133B..... And I suspect that it was Lee Oswald who created that fake.... He was just fooling around and trying to create a good "carnival photo" that would cause the viewer to believe that they were actually looking at a genuine communist revolutionary who was armed and ready for a fight. In my opinion the BY photo CE 133A is a ludicrous incredibly silly portrait of a nut who was too naive to understand that he was overdoing the act. ...
But maybe "Someone" saw the obvious silliness ...because on the back of the Demorhenschildt print was written...."Hunter of Fascists...Ha,ha,ha"...
I don't get then why you would call that a fake i.e. a picture of Oswald with his guns. If Oswald wanted to produce a picture showing him as a hunter of fascists, why would he take a picture of someone else with his guns and then stick his head on it? Why not just get the guy to take the picture of him? And, even easier, why not just get his wife to take it and not bother with finding a guy about his size and body type and age who would not reveal the deep dark secret later....
-
Or there is option 3. A young widow, alone with two small children and faced with possible extradition buckling under the pressure of a multitude of interrogations and testifying to what she believes the powers that be want to hear for pure self preservation.
A young widow, alone with two small children and faced with possible extradition buckling under the pressure of a multitude of interrogations and testifying to what she believes the powers that be want to hear for pure self preservation.
I agree....I believe you hitting the nail....but not quite squarely on the head with full force....
I would add that she was up against a vile inhuman beast who sat at the seat of power as director of the the FBI. That fiend had sent powerless people like Marina to their executions on trumped up charges....
She may not have known who was holding the lever of the guillotine ....but she damned sure knew her head was in the block....
-
A young widow, alone with two small children and faced with possible extradition buckling under the pressure of a multitude of interrogations and testifying to what she believes the powers that be want to hear for pure self preservation.
I agree....I believe you hitting the nail....but not quite squarely on the head with full force....
I would add that she was up against a vile inhuman beast who sat at the seat of power as director of the the FBI. That fiend had sent powerless people like Marina to their executions on trumped up charges....
She may not have known who was holding the lever of the guillotine ....but she damned sure knew her head was in the block....
She may not have known who was holding the lever of the guillotine ....but she damned sure knew her head was in the block....
You're making crap up. Again.
-
She may not have known who was holding the lever of the guillotine ....but she damned sure knew her head was in the block....
You're making crap up. Again.
It's a matter of historical record.....No need to make it up.....
-
If 1 is true, it would make no sense for her to burn copies of the photographs as Marguerite requested.
Maybe the same roll of film was used for the other "backyard" photos - the ones Oswald took of General Walker's back yard. They were taken by the same Imperial Reflex 620 camera based the edge detail of the Walker photograph matching that of Oswald's camera. (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0310b.htm)
What exactly is the evidence that this Imperial Reflex 620 was Oswald's camera?
-
What exactly is the evidence that this Imperial Reflex 620 was Oswald's camera?
Marina said it was Oswald's camera and it was in their possession.
-
Marina said it was Oswald's camera and it was in their possession.
Marina's testimony to the HSCA.
"Q. The camera you took them on, was that Lee Harvey Oswald's camera?
A. I believe so.
Q. Was it the same one he had in Russia or a different one, do you know?
A. I don't know, but I do believe it could be the same.
[She doesn't seem exactly sure it was Oswald's camera.]
Q. What did he tell you to do with the camera as far as taking the pictures?
A. He just told me which button to push and I did.
Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And after you took the picture what did you do after you took the first picture?
A. I went into the house and did things I had to attend to.
Q. How many pictures did you take?
A. I think I took two.
Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye?
A. Yes; that is what I recall.
Q. What did you do next?
A. I believe he did something with it and told me to push it again.
Q. The first time you pushed it down to take the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first time, what happened before you took the second picture?
A. He changed his pose.
Q. What I am getting at is, did you give the camera to him so he would move the film forward or did you do that?
A. He did that.
Q. So you took the picture and handed the camera to him?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he do?
A. He said, "Once again," and I did it again.
Q. So he have you back the camera?
A. For the second time; yes.
Q. Did he put the rifle down?
[Strange she didn't remember this to the Warren Commission.]
A. You see, that is the way I remember it.
Q. Did he put the rifle down on the ground between--
A. I don't remember. I was so annoyed with all this procedure so the sooner I could get through, the better, so I don't recollect.
Q. But you do remember taking the picture?
A. Yes; I am the one who took the picture and the weather was right.
Q. What did you say?
A. Somebody speculated the picture couldn't be taken; the weather was wrong.
Q. I am not interested in what people speculated.
A. There is nobody to blame for it but me.
Q. When you took the first picture and you gave him the camera, did you walk over to him and give him the camera or did he walk over to you?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Are these the only two pictures you ever took in your life at least up to that time?
A. Yes.
[Her testimony is not worth a carrot. Her story keeps changing.]
-
Marina's testimony to the HSCA.
"Q. The camera you took them on, was that Lee Harvey Oswald's camera?
A. I believe so.
Q. Was it the same one he had in Russia or a different one, do you know?
A. I don't know, but I do believe it could be the same.
[She doesn't seem exactly sure it was Oswald's camera.]
Q. What did he tell you to do with the camera as far as taking the pictures?
A. He just told me which button to push and I did.
Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And after you took the picture what did you do after you took the first picture?
A. I went into the house and did things I had to attend to.
Q. How many pictures did you take?
A. I think I took two.
Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye?
A. Yes; that is what I recall.
Q. What did you do next?
A. I believe he did something with it and told me to push it again.
Q. The first time you pushed it down to take the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first time, what happened before you took the second picture?
A. He changed his pose.
Q. What I am getting at is, did you give the camera to him so he would move the film forward or did you do that?
A. He did that.
Q. So you took the picture and handed the camera to him?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he do?
A. He said, "Once again," and I did it again.
Q. So he have you back the camera?
A. For the second time; yes.
Q. Did he put the rifle down?
[Strange she didn't remember this to the Warren Commission.]
A. You see, that is the way I remember it.
Q. Did he put the rifle down on the ground between--
A. I don't remember. I was so annoyed with all this procedure so the sooner I could get through, the better, so I don't recollect.
Q. But you do remember taking the picture?
A. Yes; I am the one who took the picture and the weather was right.
Q. What did you say?
A. Somebody speculated the picture couldn't be taken; the weather was wrong.
Q. I am not interested in what people speculated.
A. There is nobody to blame for it but me.
Q. When you took the first picture and you gave him the camera, did you walk over to him and give him the camera or did he walk over to you?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Are these the only two pictures you ever took in your life at least up to that time?
A. Yes.
[Her testimony is not worth a carrot. Her story keeps changing.]
I believe Marina is telling the truth , as best she can recall a trivial event..... ( Taking a photo of someone isn't exactly a memorable event)
Sure she may appear to be lying because she doesn't remember exact details......But I believe her strong response to questions speaks loud and clear.
Q. But you do remember taking the picture?
A. Yes; I am the one who took the picture and the weather was right.
Q. What did you say?
A. Somebody speculated the picture couldn't be taken; the weather was wrong.
Q. I am not interested in what people speculated.
A. There is nobody to blame for it but me.
-
She may not have known who was holding the lever of the guillotine ....but she damned sure knew her head was in the block....
You're making crap up. Again.
Whew! Gotta catch my breath! I just raced back here after single-handedly persuading my NK "lover" to turn over all NK nukes to
international inspectors and allow 50,000 of them to immediately reside in NK indefinitely, with authorization from my new lover
to travel anywhere, anytime, in NK in groups no greater than a thousand in any unannounced group! Nobel Peace Prize, next?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pdf/WH21_Shaneyfelt_Ex_10.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/LifeBYPShsneyfeltExhibit10.jpg)
Marina's original business manager, Jim Martin, later recalled that he sold a BYP print, sourced directly from Marina, to
Life Magazine, on Marina's behalf. Martin is backed up by an FBI communication rational readers will likely understand is obscure as
a result of FBI attempt to protect sources and methods! (Hint...this FBI document suppoirts the much later recollection by Jim Martin,
nearly word for word!)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldMarinaFBIsoucreSupportingMuchLaterJimMartinBYPSourceClaim.jpg)
In what I predict will be a futile attempt by me to "call off the dogs," readers are now informed that the above memo is
known to the community, unlike the obscure, Jim Martin (pre-internet era, but not newsgroup era) interview backing up the FBI document.....
https://newsok.com/article/2413872/a-friend-to-marina-oswald-norman-man-recalls-assassins-widowA
Friend to Marina Oswald Norman Man Recalls Assassin's Widow
DAVID ZIZZO Published: Sun, November 29, 1992
...Martin told the commission Marina seemed to believe her husband alone killed Kennedy.
But his recollection now is, "I don't really think she thought he was guilty. " ....
...While it lasted, being Marina's business manager was a unique experience, Martin said.
He said he sold the photo of Oswald holding a rifle to Life Magazine for $5,000. He said the photo "came directly from her scrapbook" and could not have been altered after the assassination, as some conspiracy theorists allege.
"If it had, it was doctored right after it was taken," Martin said....
http://www.blackopradio.com/Reference_Three.html
Reference Material Section Three:
2,031 links to significant documents
related to Black Op Radio topics
.......
.......
(1964 02/25) FBI Memorandum: C. D. DeLoach to Mr. Mohr (jfk.hood.edu)
Mrs. Bucknell told Wick today that "Life" magazine purchased the
photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald shown with a rifle and a revolver
(which appears on "Life" cover of 2-21-64) from Mrs. Marina Oswald
........
-
Whew! Gotta catch my breath! I just raced back here after single-handedly persuading my NK "lover" to turn over all NK nukes to
international inspectors and allow 50,000 of them to immediately reside in NK indefinitely, with authorization from my new lover
to travel anywhere, anytime, in NK in groups no greater than a thousand in any unannounce group! Nobel Peace Prize, next?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pdf/WH21_Shaneyfelt_Ex_10.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/LifeBYPShsneyfeltExhibit10.jpg)
Marina's original business manager, Jim Martin, later recalled that he sold a BYP print, sourced directly from Marina, to
Life Magazine, on Marina's behalf. Martin is backed up by an FBI communication rational readers will likely understand is obscure as
a result of FBI attempt to protect sources and methods! (Hint...this FBI document suppoirts the much later recollection by Jim Martin,
nearly word for word!)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldMarinaFBIsoucreSupportingMuchLaterJimMartinBYPSourceClaim.jpg)
In what I predict will be a futile attempt by me to "call off the dogs," readers are now informed that the above memo is
known to the community, unlike the obscure, Jim Martin (pre-internet era, but not newsgroup era) interview backing up the FBI document.....
I thought that I had posted a reply to Mr Scully's post.....
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldMarinaFBIsoucreSupportingMuchLaterJimMartinBYPSourceClaim.jpg)
re:..."Mrs Bucknell said that she did not know how any of the other papers obtained a similar photograph. "
Mrs Bucknell was referring to the Detroit Free Press newspaper......
If Mrs Bucknell had had a big gun that she could have put between the eyes of the DFP Editor she might have learned that Hoover's agent Mr Gerald Ford had stolen the BY photo from the Warren Commission and gave it to the editor of the Detroit newspaper.
(Ford was indebted to the editor for his support in getting the dunce Ford elected to the US house).......
In February of 64 Hoover and LBJ were desperate skunks.... The public had smelled a skunk and they were demanding answers to the many unanswered questions about the murder of our 35th President. Hoover being the master deceiver that he was, knew that the BY photo that showed the arch villain, Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald "with the guns that he used to kill JFK and officer JD Tippit "( the caption on the cover of LIFE) would be all that was necessary to dupe the us gullible pissants into believing the tale.
The DFP had published a copy of the BY photo before LIFE published the Feb 21st edition of LIFE magazine. But the picture and caption on the cover of Life was the Keystone in the lie that has endured to this very day. Life published the BY photo like a giant "wanted" poster of the FBI's most wanted that was posted in US Post offices. Life enlarged the photo to cover the entire front cover of the 10" X 14" magazine ..and the magazine was displayed on Supermarket Newsstands across the county where the gullible pissants were sure to see it.
-
I thought that I had posted a reply to Mr Scully's post.....
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldMarinaFBIsoucreSupportingMuchLaterJimMartinBYPSourceClaim.jpg)
re:..."Mrs Bucknell said that she did not know how any of the other papers obtained a similar photograph. "
Mrs Bucknell was referring to the Detroit Free Press newspaper......
If Mrs Bucknell had had a big gun that she could have put between the eyes of the DFP Editor she might have learned that Hoover's agent Mr Gerald Ford had stolen the BY photo from the Warren Commission and gave it to the editor of the Detroit newspaper.
(Ford was indebted to the editor for his support in getting the dunce Ford elected to the US house).......
In February of 64 Hoover and LBJ were desperate skunks.... The public had smelled a skunk and they were demanding answers to the many unanswered questions about the murder of our 35th President. Hoover being the master deceiver that he was, knew that the BY photo that showed the arch villain, Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald "with the guns that he used to kill JFK and officer JD Tippit "( the caption on the cover of LIFE) would be all that was necessary to dupe the us gullible pissants into believing the tale.
The DFP had published a copy of the BY photo before LIFE published the Feb 21st edition of LIFE magazine. But the picture and caption on the cover of Life was the Keystone in the lie that has endured to this very day. Life published the BY photo like a giant "wanted" poster of the FBI's most wanted that was posted in US Post offices. Life enlarged the photo to cover the entire front cover of the 10" X 14" magazine ..and the magazine was displayed on Supermarket Newsstands across the county where the gullible pissants were sure to see it.
Walt, you are indeed a gift (especially to John Iacoletti) that keeps on giving! Some advice; better to be regarded as a fool,
than to post and remove all doubt.
.................
You (Walt) are reading comprehension challenged! Jim Martin, pre-internet, corroborates the understanding of the source of the BYP print
published by Life Magazine. How is this possible? Do you suppose Jim Martin, by 1992, had been hanging out at Weisberg's Maryland
chicken farm?
.pdf page 19: (from my own research notes, found by my internet searching less than 12 hours ago, after approx. 30 minutes of my effort.:
NOTE 02/26/19, the jfk.hood.edu 55 page .pdf at
this link, on page 19,
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20091/91c.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20091/91c.pdf)
supports via an FBI confidential
supports Jim Martin's "scrapbook" description, WORD for
WORD!
https://newsok.com/article/2413872/a-friend-to-marina-oswald-norman-man-recalls-assassins-widow
A Friend to Marina Oswald Norman Man Recalls Assassin's Widow
DAVID ZIZZO Published: Sun, November 29, 1992
...Martin told the commission Marina seemed to believe her husband alone killed Kennedy.
But his recollection now is, "I don't really think she thought he was guilty. " ....
...While it lasted, being Marina's business manager was a unique experience, Martin said.
He said he sold the photo of Oswald holding a rifle to Life Magazine for $5,000. He said the photo "came directly from her scrapbook" and could not have been altered after the assassination, as some conspiracy theorists allege.
"If it had, it was doctored right after it was taken," Martin said....
http://www.blackopradio.com/Reference_Three.html
Reference Material Section Three:
2,031 links to significant documents
related to Black Op Radio topics
.......
(1964 02/25) FBI Memorandum: C. D. DeLoach to Mr. Mohr (jfk.hood.edu)
Mrs. Bucknell told Wick today that "Life" magazine purchased the
photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald shown with a rifle and a revolver
(which appears on "Life" cover of 2-21-64) from Mrs. Marina Oswald
And a bonus, "chew toy" for you, Walt! You are unaware of details you are apparently unaware of the existence of. Drop your bias
and conduct yourself as a facts seeker.....It is a big internet, anybody can find fact if that is their goal. I am typing this post sitting
on a bed in my folks' basement, an exercise distracting me from worrying about my out of control body weight! How 'bout you, Walt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roberts_(journalist)
Eugene Leslie Roberts, Jr. (born June 15, 1932)[1] is an American journalist and professor of journalism. He has been a national editor of The New York Times, executive editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer from 1972 to 1990, and managing editor of The New York Times from 1994 to 1997. Roberts is most known for presiding over The Inquirer's "Golden Age",[2] a time in which the newspaper was given increased freedom and resources, won 17 Pulitzer Prizes in 18 years,[3] displaced The Philadelphia Bulletin as the city's "paper of record", and was considered to be Knight Ridder's crown jewel as a profitable enterprise and an influential regional paper.[4]
.......Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roberts_(journalist)#Career
Roberts was born in Pikeville[citation needed] in the Goldsboro, North Carolina Metropolitan Area. He grew up in North Carolina and worked for newspapers in Goldsboro, N.C.; Norfolk, Va.; Raleigh, N.C.; and Detroit. He covered the Kennedy Assassination in Dallas for the Detroit Free Press and subsequently covered the Civil Rights Movement as a correspondent for The New York Times, where he also served as Saigon bureau chief in 1968 during the Vietnam War. After serving as national editor at The Times from 1969 to 1972, he was hired by John S. Knight to head The Inquirer. He retired in 1990 and returned to the Times as managing editor from 1994 to 1998.
Roberts taught journalism from 1991 to 1994 and from 1998 to 2010 at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland.
He is on the board of directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists and served five years as its chairman; he has also served as chairman of the Pulitzer Prize Board, the International Press Institute, and the Board Of Visitors of the School of Communications at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.....
Adam Wilkinson Posted October 7, 2005
I just thought I would share an interview I conducted with Gene Roberts over email.
A March 2, 1964 article in Newsweek Magazine claimed that Gene Roberts had purchased a number of photographs of Oswald on behalf of the Detroit Free Press. The negative of one of these photographs has never been located or analysed, so I asked Gene the following questions:
1. Who sold you these photographs?
2. What photos were included in the purchase?
3. Did the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations ever try to contact you to reacquire these photos?
4. Do you know what became of these photos?
Here is his answer for any researcher who may be interested:
The photographs you asked about came from the files of the district
attorney?s office in Dallas. The DA got them from the FBI. They were the
same photographs that were given to the Warren Commission.
The photographs included the well known photograph of Oswald holding a
rifle in one hand and The Worker, the Communist Party newspaper from New
York, in the other; photocopies of Oswald?s identity cards, some with
aliases and others in his own name; and some family photos, as I recall.
I don?t remember the exact number, but there were possibly as many as 25
or 30. Almost all of the photographs were later made public, but at the
time they were new to the reading public.
No negatives were involved, only copies of photos and documents in the
FBI files. The FBI made them available to the Dallas DA to aid in the
prosecution of the Jack Ruby case. I correctly guessed this might happen
and made every effort to cultivate people in the DA?s office in the hope
that I might get access to the files. One employee of the DA made the
files available to me from 8 p.m. on a Saturday night to 8 a.m. on
Sunday morning, a 12-hour period when the employee did not think anyone
would be in the DA?s office. I hired an experienced photo lab person to
photocopy the file during the 12-hour period. I stayed with him during
the entire copying process and he provided me with two copies of every
photo and document in the file.
I had planned to route each set of copies on different airlines from
Dallas to my newspaper at the time, the Detroit Free Press in Detroit,
Michigan But I was so sleep-deprived that when I arrived at the
Dallas-Fort Worth airport on Sunday at about 9 a.m., I failed to make my
instructions clear and both sets of photographs were routed on the same
flight to Detroit. Because of weather conditions ? or mechanical
problems, I can?t remember which ? the plane was grounded in New Orleans
for several hours.
Panic developed at the Free Press, which wanted the photos in time for
the first edition of the Monday paper, which had a 6 p.m. deadline on
Sunday. We knew that Life magazine had access to some of the photos and
would start appearing at newsstands about noon on Monday. We wanted to
beat them to the punch.
As the deadline approached, editors in Detroit asked me to describe the
pictures and estimate the size of each photo that would be on page one.
With this information, the paper set the type for the front page and
made the page with holes for the pictures.
The plane arrived in Detroit about 30 minutes before deadline on Sunday
at the Detroit airport, which was about 30 minutes by car from the Free
Press building. My editor, Derrick Daniels, had motorcycles waiting on
the tarmac to speed the photos to the newsroom, where he had photo
editors and airbrush artists waiting to expedite the photos into the
paper. In 1964, engraving processes were not as sophisticated as they
later became, and it was commonplace to airbrush photos with white
liquid chalk to heighten the definition between dark and gray areas in
photographs. In the haste to get the photos in the paper, an airbrusher
covered the sniper scope (on the rifle Oswald was holding along with The
Worker paper) with liquid chalk.
Our paper was indeed available several hours ahead of Life. But when
Life appeared on newsstands, its photo of Oswald with The Worker paper
had a sniper scope. The Free Press photo did not. Armchair detectives
around the world found this to be highly suspicious.
But the Life and Free Press photos were both copies of the very same
photograph. Because airbrushers use liquid chalk that can be scratched
away with a fingernail, you could easily determine that the photographs
were the same. The apparent discrepancies of the photos have been
mentioned several times over the years in books and articles, creating a
mystery where none really existed. Had anyone taken the time to visit
the morgues (libraries) of the two publications, they could have seen
that the photos were the same.
-
Walt, you are indeed a gift (especially to John Iacoletti) that keeps on giving! Some advice; better to be regarded as a fool,
than to post and remove all doubt.
And a bonus, "chew toy" for you, Walt! You are unaware of details you are apparently unaware of the existence of. Drop your bias
and conduct yourself as a facts seeker.....It is a big internet, anybody can find fact if that is their goal. I am typing this post sitting
on a bed in my folks' basement, an exercise distracting me from worrying about my out of control body weight! How 'bout you, Walt?
I abhor long winded BS posts...
The Bottom line is J.Edgar Hoover.....
-
Marina said it was Oswald's camera and it was in their possession.
It was? Then how come nobody knew about it before Robert Oswald gave it to the FBI in February, 1964?
-
It was? Then how come nobody knew about it before Robert Oswald gave it to the FBI in February, 1964?
John, since Walt is by no means the only FoS poster on this
forum, would you please consider being an equal opportunity
critic/documenter of other chronic offenders, in a new thread
devoted to that purpose? I see it as a huge
undertaking and I would consider assisting you in emphasizing
the disinfo of posters who refuse to reasonably support their
posted claims. Maybe have a threshold of those only half as often seemingly
inaccurate and/or deliberately misleading. as the benchmark Walt
sets, escalating to levels in the periphery of Walt?s ?neighborhood?
of fantasy?
-
John, since Walt is by no means the only FoS poster on this
forum, would you please consider being an equal opportunity
critic/documenter of other chronic offenders, in a new thread
devoted to that purpose? I see it as a huge
undertaking and I would consider assisting you in emphasizing
the disinfo of posters who refuse to reasonably support their
posted claims. Maybe have a threshold of those only half as often seemingly
inaccurate and/or deliberately misleading. as the benchmark Walt
sets, escalating to levels in the periphery of Walt?s ?neighborhood?
of fantasy?
Wow!, You are desperate aren't you Mr Scully...... And I'm flattered .....
-
John, since Walt is by no means the only FoS poster on this
forum, would you please consider being an equal opportunity
critic/documenter of other chronic offenders, in a new thread
devoted to that purpose? I see it as a huge
undertaking and I would consider assisting you in emphasizing
the disinfo of posters who refuse to reasonably support their
posted claims. Maybe have a threshold of those only half as often seemingly
inaccurate and/or deliberately misleading. as the benchmark Walt
sets, escalating to levels in the periphery of Walt?s ?neighborhood?
of fantasy?
Absolutely!
-
It was? Then how come nobody knew about it before Robert Oswald gave it to the FBI in February, 1964?
Robert Oswald did. He said he picked it up from the Paine garage in December 1963. That would put it in Marina's possession before December 1963. The BY photos were taken in March 1963. There is no evidence it was out of their possession during that period.
-
I abhor long winded BS posts...
Seems like the longer they are...the less they say(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Seems like the longer they are...the less they say(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Yes that's right, Jerry.....Clearly those who post long rambling posts are insecure , and believe that they have to "explain" their point. That's exactly what they did in creating the Warren Report.....
-
Robert Oswald did. He said he picked it up from the Paine garage in December 1963. That would put it in Marina's possession before December 1963. The BY photos were taken in March 1963. There is no evidence it was out of their possession during that period.
There is no evidence that it was IN their possession during that period.
And how is it that the cops missed this camera in the Paine garage when they confiscated other cameras, camera accessories, flashbulbs, cases, slides, and even viewmasters, folk dancing phonograph records and bottles of pills?
-
I abhor long winded BS posts...
The Bottom line is J.Edgar Hoover.....
Walt has posted 2320 posts in the past 14 months since the reregistration of all forum members.
Seems like the longer they are...the less they say(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Jerry has posted 1109 posts in the past 14 months since the reregistration of all forum members.
Compare their posting frequency to mine.
Some advice.... Walt, if your going continue flooding the forum, literally pulling the contents of your
routinely unsupported claims/details out of your butt, at least wash them off (and maybe your hands,
too...) and spritz them with air freshener before you post them and stink up the place.
I endeavor to post original research, well supported by verifiable facts. The "community" in the majority,
offers nothing new that informs and is committed to little more than defending unreliable belief systems.
If you disagree, here is the reaction to verifiable facts the former military liason to the ARRB found disagreeable
but the 'tude he evinced in his rant indicated it was the best he could do, the facts consisting of what they were.
If this "nut" taking such exception to verifiable facts is any indication of what constitutes an open mind; the kind
of approach to Assassination Research expected of a reasonable person, and Walt or Jerry objecting to readiing
presentations of well supported new research for whatever reason (lack of curiousity, or attention to detail) consider
the possibility there is as little NEW to learn from them as there is from Mr. Horne....
Link to Mr. Horne's book review. (426 people found this helpful):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R8NNVIZE9ITM/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928
Horne's reaction to my review of the same book, his reaction to verifiable facts he appears not to want to be made aware
of because they are verifiable but contradict his belief system.
Vs. my review of the same book:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RWKKPDXQXFKPD/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1616087080
11 people (the inconvenient, unwelcome facts included in my review) found this helpful
Mr. Horne's "reaction" to my review is available in the second page of the "13 comments" link directly below my review.:
Link to image of Horne's entire reaction to my review....I include excerpts below the link to the image.:
http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyHorneReacts.jpg
Douglas (https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AEEBN7ABCGS6DBMMJBK24QX72TJQ/ref=cm_cr_getc_d_pdp?ie=UTF8) 6 years ago In reply to an earlier post
If you are a truly "rational voice" you will provide your real name and tell us exactly how you came by your citations. To not do so is cowardly. To continue not to do so will make readers wonder who you really represent, and really work for. Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man? The readers of your book review here will not have forgotten that William L. Mitchell (or someone identifying himself as this person) confessed to author Leo Damore---William L. Mitchell himself told Damore that he was Mary Meyer's murderer. This event is well-documented in Janney's book.
Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer "because Mitchell could not be found," as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer because Mitchell confessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase this fact....
Your citations seem to me like the kind of detailed biographical information that would be maintained by the same "outfit" that would have maintained Mitchell's operational file at the Agency. Who the hell else would know these things? What ordinary reader would have the ability to look up and find the citations you so conveniently found?
.....Did someone lead you to them? Did someone provide them to you? Your postings have the odor to me of a disinformation/spin operation, designed to cast doubt, and to make readers forget the basic fact that a "William L. Mitchell" confessed to murdering Mary Meyer for the CIA, to author Leo Damore. Attorney Jimmy Smith's notes of his phone call with Leo Damore prove that.
BTW, member of this forum, Mark O'Blazney, was Leo Damore's researcher and assisted Horne's friend, Peter Janney, author of the
book, after Leo Damore committed suicide.
Some advice worth considering....if you actually are not FoS, avoid posting as if you are!
Next: A version of this post, just for Walt...
-
........
Next: A version of this post, just for Walt...
I was a forum monitor 3 years and later read every comment submitted to jfkfacts.org, for ten months tasked with
approving every pending comment.
In my experience, most are resistant to verifiable facts they react to as threats to "information" they've already committed to believe.
My posts are detailed and the detail is well supported because the bulk of the community are seeking validation, and not what can be
proven to comparitively closest to the truth. Predictably, farce is embraced over fact.
426 people found Douglas Horne's review of Peter Janney's book, helpful, vs 11 people who found my contrary review, helpful.
My original research triggered a second, revised version of author Janney's sensationalist, facts compromised book.
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1629143162 (https://books.google.com/books?id=-Cv8DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT365&lpg=PT365&dq=mary%27s+mosaic+rational+voice+scully+identified+himself&source=bl&ots=xsN8CyVXWt&sig=ACfU3U1vWptFxzbBvqHA3CCQ6eswnFvTXg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPgezLhN_gAhWCTt8KHSCiAgwQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=mary's%20mosaic%20rational%20voice%20scully%20identified%20himself&f=false)
Peter Janney - 2013 - History
... Amazon only as ?Rational Voice.? Discussing his critical post of Mary's Mosaic in an email to a University of Georgia law professor, Scully identified himself as ...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyHorneRationalVoiceGeorgiaProfessor.jpg)
On 6/9/2013 at 12:24 AM, John Simkin said However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect
Peter Janney enough when his book Mary's .... :.
-
There's an Internet forum called "JFK Debate", created by John Simkin? News to me.
-
Further distillation for Walt.:
Mark O'Blazney posts regularly on this forum.:
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1629143162 (https://books.google.com/books?id=-Cv8DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT310&lpg=PT310&dq=?Part+of+Mitchell%27s+plan,?+o%27blazney&source=bl&ots=xsN8CzOSWx&sig=ACfU3U0NdlpekbfSxMGgueKlgPH3MvyZAw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_i4L2jd_gAhXCY98KHRreDJgQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Peter Janney - 2013 - History
The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their ... ?Part of Mitchell's plan,? O'Blazney remembered Damore saying, ?was maybe ...
When was the last instance you, or any other poster here, directed a question at one of the most knowledgeable members of this
forum, Mark O'Blazney, a man who suffered through proximity of two nuts who professed belief they were presenting earth shattering
conclusions of JFK Assassination conspiracy sponsored by CIA and "assets" they believed that agency dispatched domestically with
orders to kill?
You are what you post, from the POV of your readers.....(shallow, uncurious, inexact, and tribal are not everyone's cup of tea,
merely traits I've experienced, up close and uncomfortably, from the vast majority of posters on JFK Assassination forums, and of
the authors of books on related topics.)
-
I was a forum monitor 3 years and later read every comment submitted to jfkfacts.org, for ten months tasked with
approving every pending comment.
In my experience, most are resistant to verifiable facts they react to as threats to "information" they've already committed to believe.
My posts are detailed and the detail is well supported because the bulk of the community are seeking validation, and not what can be
proven to comparitively closest to the truth. Predictably, farce is embraced over fact.
426 people found Douglas Horne's review of Peter Janney's book, helpful, vs 11 people who found my contrary review, helpful.
My original research triggered a second, revised version of author Janney's sensationalist, facts compromised book.
Tom, We are on different frequencies..... Your transmissions are as garbled to me as mine are to you.....
-
Tom, We are on different frequencies..... Your transmissions are as garbled to me as mine are to you.....
Why are the forum posters and JFK-A book authors who tailor their opinions to coincide with what verifiable facts actually support,
seemingly as rare as northern white rhinos?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_white_rhinoceros
...As of March 19, 2018, there were only two known rhinos of this subspecies left, both of which are female..
Why do so many posters and book authors indicate such enthusiastic preference for shallow BS? Example: JFK, the movie
Yes, he was certainly 'on to something' (and on something?). Sorry, couldn't resist. As Tom previously stated, Big Jim (Garrison)
was playing both sides. Why?
A Friend to Marina Oswald Norman Man Recalls Assassin's ... - NewsOK
https://newsok.com/article/2413872/a-friend-to-marina-oswald-norman-man-recalls-assassins-widow
Nov 29, 1992 - NORMAN - Jim Martin will never forget the day the sheriff and Secret Service ... Marina Oswald and her young girls accepted Martin's invitation for ... He said the photo "came directly from her scrapbook" and could not have .
By 1992, Jim Martin had no discernable justification (motive) to claim the BYP print he negotiated the sale of in 1964 to Life Magazine
for $5,000 was sourced directly from Marina's scrapbook, matching the exact "scrapbook" wording described in an obscure
1964 FBI report of a named confidential source employed in the NY offices of Life Magazine, an FBI report Jim Martin MOST
likely had no knowledge of?
On Page 19.... jfk.hood.edu (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20091/91c.pdf)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldMarinaFBIsoucreSupportingMuchLaterJimMartinBYPSourceClaim.jpg)
http://www.blackopradio.com/Reference_Three.html
Reference Material Section Three:
2,031 links to significant documents
related to Black Op Radio topics
.......
.......
(1964 02/25) FBI Memorandum: C. D. DeLoach to Mr. Mohr (jfk.hood.edu)
Mrs. Bucknell told Wick today that "Life" magazine purchased the
photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald shown with a rifle and a revolver
(which appears on "Life" cover of 2-21-64) from Mrs. Marina Oswald
-
Why are the posters who tailor their opinions to coincide with what verifiable facts actually support, as rare as white rhinos?
Why do so many posters and book authors indicate such enthusiastic preference for shallow BS?By 1992, Jim Martin had no discernable justification to claim the BYP print he negotiated the sale of in 1964 to Life Magazine
for $5,000 was sourced directly from Marina's scrapbook, matching the exact "scrapbook" wording described in an obscure
1964 FBI report of a named confidential source employed in the NY offices of Life Magazine, an FBI report Jim Martin MOST
likely had no knowledge of?
Try omitting all of the extraneous BS ..... By 1992 Jim Martin had no good reason to claim that the copy of the Back Yard photo that he had sold to LIFE magazine could be traced to a scrapbook that belonged to Marina. The photo was traced to Marina's scrapbook by by some wording that was obscure and known only because it had been recorded in a FBI report that Martin probably was unaware of.
IOW..LIFE wanted verification from Martin that the photo was authentic.....Martin claimed that the photo had come from Marina's "scrapbook" and he was found to be telling the truth because there was wording in the scrapbook that verified Martin's claim.
Is that what you're attempting to say Mr Scully?
-
Try omitting all of the extraneous BS ..... By 1992 Jim Martin had no good reason to claim that the copy of the Back Yard photo that he had sold to LIFE magazine could be traced to a scrapbook that belonged to Marina. The photo was traced to Marina's scrapbook by by some wording that was obscure and known only because it had been recorded in a FBI report that Martin probably was unaware of.
IOW..LIFE wanted verification from Martin that the photo was authentic.....Martin claimed that the photo had come from Marina's "scrapbook" and he was found to be telling the truth because there was wording in the scrapbook that verified Martin's claim.
Is that what you're attempting to say Mr Scully?
"Attempting"? There is the record of testimony and of well supported details, vs. your belief system.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/09/15/more-oswald-photo-evidence-said-to-be-found/39265ee1-14b7-498a-921f-fb3416d07f46/?utm_term=.341218375c6c
More Oswald Photo Evidence Said to Be Found
By George Lardner Jr. September 15, 1978
....Porter told the committee that she snapped the photos of Oswald with his rifle, and a holstered pistol, at his insistence in the spring of 1963 in the back yard of their Neely street home in Dallas. She said she couldn't remember how many pictures she took, whether two or three, and only vaguely recalled his saying something about sending a copy to the Militant.
After the assassination, she burned two prints she found in her daughter June's baby book. She told the committee it never occured to her to look around for the negatives....
-
"Attempting"? There is the record of testimony and of well supported details, vs. your belief system.
Yes, "attempting" to say....... I simply can't understand your prose.... You'll have to "dumb it down" for me.....
BTW.....How far back have you traced some of the suspects in the plot?.... Wasn't Robert E Lee connected to the plot?
-
Yes, "attempting" to say....... I simply can't understand your prose.... You'll have to "dumb it down" for me.....
BTW.....How far back have you traced some of the suspects in the plot?.... Wasn't Robert E Lee connected to the plot?
Walt, who are you attempting to influence, outside of your own self contained contemplations? Is this simply a form
of mental masturbation? I constantly remind myself I am presenting a record of veifiable evidence to reasonable readers.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objectiv
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81&search=porter_and+burned#relPageId=248&tab=page
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/A_IXPBGnPpAs8aXe8YWqfhBOo4IhdLUu4uVysbq663-UOgMb-tCxrIL1aYp4qmI5VPW1h8coAmcKs4Xq9gZevoJ4cHDIf6no-XPI31hWJ1ZqpeswyUnnzV2h2Vz_xI3_Oek8KE1EbayZLJntLnvAcqDlzkEHKh2UsvaIDTK0JKOBbtHNsolJOEnU1LbEn0ZIrVmGxWsQiFpw_ImA7WRx7yDvB3q53H1hBKqRVY5hXMs5-yLPRW9TF14lBWwOW8u69tjLrSJl8KzReizMz9OrGIowxyAu3nx0B6L2cv8i9TruSbO_u4lcoK0xzYdcBruqyb-a7U6EbAV_5vH2abDDr6nFx1c31UY2ZkCVhCn32KTTIVbFjaPF37T-f3_wQW5Z-pDo3YQbB0aXzGus6RX1iXaKoFFJ_9uZsSflOvzpEyRFcw7SGVU6wl03wYynbGwGIMcvikRY6jpppG4Hfo7Xugf16lL9i_BLWQYKYlRpcmqiSNx-Z1Rl14uATobAeVGd8VoUhjcl0uRRe3DikrSsK3xccswKiwduFj9wv4CQ0Cja95KHD2ZM3qBCrx-c8sqMi_pIvujcXv_2sSjuuVXy3CrHiMBd-59VGtSb5Sv5MHefx0rzqofM1fJjnphBC-cCq9uDdLUnaYKolo-0poMA-qZl9x4cqCA=s250-k-no)
Only the 1964 FBI report and the interview in 1992 of Jim Martin include the word scrapbook.....
Marina and Lee: The Tormented Love and Fatal Obsession Behind Lee ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1586422170 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Marina_and_Lee/Af0lAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marina+and+lee+alone+in+her+bedroom+june%27s+baby+book+two+copies+wearing+his+guns&pg=PA543&printsec=frontcover)
Priscilla Johnson McMillan - 2013
FOUND INSIDE - PAGE 543
Alone in the bedroom she found June's baby book, which, by some miracle of oversight, the policemen had left behind. In it were the two small photographs of Lee dressed in black and wearing his guns. He had given them to her to keep for ...More
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/2_10_64_AM.htm
TESTIMONY OF MRS. MARGUERITE OSWALD
The President's Commission met at 10 a.m. on February 10, 1964,
....I sensed we were alone. And there I was with a Russian girl. And I didn't want anybody to know who we were, because I knew my son had been picked up.
So this is where the picture comes in.
While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with hits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it.
Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely.
Mr. RANKIN. Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture."
And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture.
She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet.
Mr. RANKIN. And what time was this?
Mrs. OSWALD. This--now, just a minute, gentlemen, because this I know is very important to me and to you, too.
We had been in the jail. This was an evening. Well, this, then, would be approximately 5:30 or 6 in the evening.
Mr. RANKIN. What day?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Saturday, November 23. Now, I flushed the torn bits and the half-burned thing down the commode. And nothing was said. There was nothing said.
Mr. RANKIN. That was at the Executive Inn?
Mrs. OSWALD. At the Executive Inn. ...
-
Walt, who are you attempting to influence, outside of your own self contained contemplations? Is this simply a form
of mental masturbation? I constantly remind myself I am presenting a record of veifiable evidence to reasonable readers.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81&search=porter_and+burned#relPageId=248&tab=page
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/A_IXPBGnPpAs8aXe8YWqfhBOo4IhdLUu4uVysbq663-UOgMb-tCxrIL1aYp4qmI5VPW1h8coAmcKs4Xq9gZevoJ4cHDIf6no-XPI31hWJ1ZqpeswyUnnzV2h2Vz_xI3_Oek8KE1EbayZLJntLnvAcqDlzkEHKh2UsvaIDTK0JKOBbtHNsolJOEnU1LbEn0ZIrVmGxWsQiFpw_ImA7WRx7yDvB3q53H1hBKqRVY5hXMs5-yLPRW9TF14lBWwOW8u69tjLrSJl8KzReizMz9OrGIowxyAu3nx0B6L2cv8i9TruSbO_u4lcoK0xzYdcBruqyb-a7U6EbAV_5vH2abDDr6nFx1c31UY2ZkCVhCn32KTTIVbFjaPF37T-f3_wQW5Z-pDo3YQbB0aXzGus6RX1iXaKoFFJ_9uZsSflOvzpEyRFcw7SGVU6wl03wYynbGwGIMcvikRY6jpppG4Hfo7Xugf16lL9i_BLWQYKYlRpcmqiSNx-Z1Rl14uATobAeVGd8VoUhjcl0uRRe3DikrSsK3xccswKiwduFj9wv4CQ0Cja95KHD2ZM3qBCrx-c8sqMi_pIvujcXv_2sSjuuVXy3CrHiMBd-59VGtSb5Sv5MHefx0rzqofM1fJjnphBC-cCq9uDdLUnaYKolo-0poMA-qZl9x4cqCA=s250-k-no)
Only the 1964 FBI report and the interview in 1992 of Jim Martin include the word scrapbook.....
Walt, who are you attempting to influence, outside of your own self contained contemplations?
English is spoken here...... Please use that language......
-
"I have been told I burned it". LOL.
-
"I have been told I burned it". LOL.
Who said Marina wasn't honest?..... I'll bet she was told that she burned a BY photo....I suspect that It was made from the same negative that George De M 's print was made from....
And I'll bet that Marina also had the photo of Walker's house folded up in her shoe also.....