Marina's Camera....The Backyard Pictures Revisited

[Tom Scully]

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?

[Walt Cakebread]

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 Iacoletti]

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!

[Andrew Mason]

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.

[Jerry Freeman]

I abhor long winded BS posts...

Seems like the longer they are...the less they say

 
 

[Walt Cakebread]

Seems like the longer they are...the less they say

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.....

[John Iacoletti]

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?

[Tom Scully]

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

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  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...