RFK and Jackie Secretly Told Soviets JFK Was Killed by "Right-Wing Conspiracy"

[Michael T. Griffith]

We learn from historian David Talbot’s best-selling book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years (Simon & Schuster, 2008) that on 11/22, the day of the assassination, RFK called Harry Ruiz-Williams, his closest contact among the anti-Castro Cubans, and said, “One of your guys did it” (pp. 262-263).

In 2007, Talbot wrote the following in Time magazine:

The President's brother quickly concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin, had not acted alone. And Bobby immediately suspected the CIA's secret war on Fidel Castro as the source of the plot. At his home that Friday afternoon, Bobby confronted CIA Director John McCone, asking him point-blank whether the agency had killed J.F.K. (McCone denied it.) Later, R.F.K. ordered aides to explore a possible Mafia connection to the crime. And in a revealing phone conversation with Harry Ruiz-Williams, a trusted friend in the anti-Castro movement, Kennedy said bluntly, "One of your guys did it." Though the CIA and the FBI were already working strenuously to portray Oswald as a communist agent, Bobby Kennedy rejected this view. Instead, he concluded Oswald was a member of the shadowy operation that was seeking to overthrow Castro.

Bobby knew that a dark alliance—the CIA, the Mafia and militant Cuban exiles—had formed to assassinate Castro and force a regime change in Havana. That's because President Kennedy had given his brother the Cuban portfolio after the CIA's Bay of Pigs fiasco. But Bobby, who would begin some days by dropping by the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Va., on his way to the Justice Department, never managed to get fully in control of the agency's sprawling, covert war on Castro. Now, he suspected, this underground world—where J.F.K. was despised for betraying the anti-Castro cause—had spawned his brother's assassination.

As Kennedy slowly emerged from his torment over Dallas and resumed an active role in public life—running for U.S. Senator from New York in 1964 and then President in 1968—he secretly investigated his brother's assassination. He traveled to Mexico City, where he gathered information about Oswald's mysterious trip there before Dallas. He met with conspiracy researcher Penn Jones Jr., a crusading Texas newspaperman, in his Senate office. He returned to the Justice Department with his ace investigator Walter Sheridan to paw through old files. He dispatched trusted associates to New Orleans to report to him on prosecutor Jim Garrison's controversial reopening of the case. Kennedy told confidants that he himself would reopen the investigation into the assassination if he won the presidency, believing it would take the full powers of the office to do so. As Kennedy adviser Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once observed, no one of his era knew more than Bobby about "the underground streams through which so much of the actuality of American power darkly coursed: the FBI, CIA, the racketeering unions and the Mob." But when it came to his brother's murder, Bobby never got a chance to prove his case. (“The Kennedy Assassination: Was There a Conspiracy?”, Time, June 21, 2007, http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634964,00.html

So no one should be surprised that about two weeks after the assassination, RFK and Jackie sent Walton to advise the Soviets that they believed JFK had been killed by “a large political conspiracy” engineered by his “domestic opponents.”

[Michael T. Griffith]

A Trump response. Avoid the question and redirect. LN’s, as a group agree with the findings of the WC that Oswald was the shooter. How many LN’s might consider a conspiracy was possible, I have no idea. Robust debate? You’re being kind. Put 50 CT’s in a room and you’ll get 50 different theories many based on the hundreds Of books written each promising the correct solution. The mainstream view of the American people matters not. You surely know this yet you keep repeating it as if that makes it fact. You’re guilty of doing the very thing politicians and conspiracy types routinely do. Repeat something often enough and you hope people believe it. 330 million Americans. 197 million over 21. How many of those 197 million can name even 5 people involved in the assassination or investigations? Ask one of these 197 million people what a carcano is they’ll likely guess an Italian sports car. My point is there is no ongoing research. Any forum, blog, no different than this one. 30-40-50 year old theories and the CT’s go at each other like sharks. NARA has released 99% of all JFK related docs. There no place for CT’s to go.

When you have a simplistic theory that ignores 90% of the evidence, such as the lone-gunman theory, it is easier to reach a rather specific consensus. But when your theory does not ignore most of the evidence regarding a multi-faceted crime that involved several elements, it is not as easy to reach the kind of specific consensus that the simplistic lone-gunman theory allows. Yet, as I've noted, nearly all conspiracy theorists agree with the basic outline that there were two or more shooters who fired at least four shots--in fact, I don't know of a conspiracy theorist who does not agree with that basic scenario. Beyond that point, yes, there is considerable divergence, but that's because the assassination was a complex, multi-element action, not the act of one crazed lone gunman who acted totally alone, and because much of the evidence has been destroyed or "lost."

You guys keep ignoring all the scientific developments with the medical evidence in the case because they prove things that destroy your version of the assassination. Are you guys ever going to deal with the optical density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove the x-rays have been altered? Are you ever going to address the fact that the 6.5 mm "fragment" on the x-rays has been proved to be an image that was placed on the skull x-rays (even the HSCA's Larry Sturdivan says it must be an "artifact" because it could not have come from the cross-section of an FMJ missile)? How about the discovery from the x-rays that there is no path from the back wound to the throat without smashing through the spine?

You guys still cite the backyard rifle photos as if the 1992 release of the DPD backyard rifle prints never happened.

Similarly, in this very thread you have claimed that it is 100% certain that Oswald fired three shots, yet the evidence is crystal clear to anyone who is not emotionally committed to rejecting it that one of the shells found in the sniper's nest could not have been fired during the assassination because its lip is too dented and because the marks on it could not have been made during the shooting.

I am sorry that you dislike the fact that a solid majority of the American people still disagree with you. You attribute this to their ignorance, saying that most people in our day know nothing about the case, but that argument fails because the percentage of people who reject the lone-gunman theory was larger in the '70s, '80s, and '90s, back when there were many more people who were alive when the assassination occurred, and back when the JFK case was much more widely discussed by the media than it is today.

And I have to chuckle when I see you describe the lone-gunman theory as cogent and logical. It is, in fact, one of the silliest, most contradictory theories about a crime ever conceived. In your "cogent and logical" theory, Oswald hides "his" rifle between some boxes but leaves his empty shells in plain sight; he discards his jacket after supposedly shooting Tippit, but he fails to get rid of his fake Hidell ID after ordering the murder weapon through the mail using the name Hidell, thus creating a paper trail that leads right back to him, when he could have much more easily simply bought a better rifle at any gun store in Dallas. In your "cogent and logical" theory, Oswald is cool and collected when confronted by a pistol-waving policeman in the second-floor lunchroom no more than 90 seconds after allegedly shooting Kennedy, but a short time later he supposedly panics and suddenly spins around when he sees Tippit's patrol car approaching (never mind that most of the witnesses saw no such event). In your "cogent and logical" theory, Oswald buries his rifle after allegedly firing at General Walker, but it never occurs to him to burn the backyard rifle photos--indeed, not only does he not destroy them, but he tells the police that most of his belongings are in the Paines' garage! In your "cogent and logical" theory, Lt. Day somehow, someway fails to take a single blessed picture of the most important palmprint of the 20th century, even though he takes the time to photograph the partial prints on the trigger guard. And on and on we could go.

[John Mytton]

You guys still cite the backyard rifle photos as if the 1992 release of the DPD backyard rifle prints never happened.

If you are referring to the "cut-out" print, then can you give a reasonable explanation for all the new growth on the bush to Oswald's left and the fact that the new bush to Oswald's right along with the tree in the background having lost all their leaves and how this ties into the original authenticated photos? And while you ponder an answer to the above problem please explain what a full cut-out has to do with your theory of the chin replacement?



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

If you are referring to the "cut-out" print, then can you give a reasonable explanation for all the new growth on the bush to Oswald's left and the fact that the new bush to Oswald's right along with the tree in the background having lost all their leaves and how this ties into the original authenticated photos?

That's easy: they could have taken the doctored figure image and pasted it onto an earlier picture of the backyard, using the same background for each picture but creating small differences via keystoning. The DPD prints give us a glimpse into part of the forgery process, not the entire process. What is your innocent explanation for the DPD prints? 

We must also keep in mind Robert and Patricia Hester's disclosure in 1970 that on the night of 11/22, they saw federal agents with a color transparency of one of the backyard rifle photos and with a backyard rifle photo with a white silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be--this was before the photos were supposedly "found." The Hesters worked at the National Photo Laboratory at the time, and they were helping the DPD process photos taken in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. Of course, the Hesters could not have known that in 1992 we would learn that the DPD had prints that showed a white silhouette in a draft backyard rifle photo.

Now can you explain how the DPD prints show a man striking a pose that nobody knew existed until 1976?

And while you ponder an answer to the above problem please explain what a full cut-out has to do with your theory of the chin replacement? JohnM

You really need that explained?

Speaking of the Oswald figure's face, the HSCA PEP's Penrose analysis should be mentioned. The Penrose analysis measurements of the Oswald figure did not fall into the same tight groups/clusters that the Penrose measurements for the control photos did. The control photos were undisputed Oswald photos. Their measurements (lines on the graph) fell inside a tight cluster, but the measurements of the Oswald figure did not. Congressman Fithian, who was one of the few committee members who actually paid attention and asked critical questions, noticed this divergence and asked Dr. Snow to explain it, because there should have been no such substantial divergence if the Oswald figure in the backyard photos was the same person shown in the control photos of Oswald. Dr. Snow said the divergence was caused by the poor quality of the backyard photos (4 HSCA 370-384).

But this is a bogus excuse. 133-A-DeM and 133-A-Stovall are both high-quality photos--both are much clearer than 133-A and 133-B. 133-A-DeM is so clear that you can read the print on the newspaper in the figure's hand.

It's too bad no one on the committee knew enough to ask Rose if he would describe 133-A-DeM and 133-A-Stovel were "rather fuzzy" and "blurry":

Mr. GENZMAN. Would you briefly explain the graph marked as JFK exhibit F-558.

Dr. [Clyde] SNOW. Yes, sir. I indicated that we take a number of measurements on the photographs. It is convenient to be able to reduce those, that mass of numbers into some single entities that allow us to compare the overall similarities in shape and size that we see. We have done this. It is a rather involved statistical technique developed by a British biometrician named Penrose back in the 1940's, and it is widely employed in other areas of anthropology.

Essentially what we have done here is, using the measurements of the three Dallas photographs as our base line, quantitatively compared the other sets of Oswald photographs here.

Theoretically, if everything were perfect--which it never is---we would find that two objects or sets of photographs exactly duplicated in every detail in terms of the measurements The Dallas photographs, the points when they are plotted would be down here at the zero point of the graph. You can see that they do cluster very closely to that zero point. This variation reflects differences, we feel, in measurement error and technique.

Mr. FITHIAN. Let me ask you to move that chart about a foot to the right. It is blockout out--we can now see it. I am not sure the panel members on the left-hand side can. . . .

Mr. FITHIAN. Let's turn now to the analysis that you made of the Oswald photographs. On the basis of your measurements and your analysis, can you positively identify or state that the series of Oswald photographs shown on exhibits JFK F-556 and F-557 are indeed those of Oswald?

Dr. SNOW. No, sir; we cannot. We cannot on the basis of the measurements alone positively state that all of those photographs are indeed of Oswald. However, we can say that they are all consistent with the hypothesis that all of the photographs are of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. FITHIAN. Would the staff put back up the chart and graph which I was blocked from seeing at the first part of the questioning.

In your work how do you compensate or adjust for plastic surgery that might be done on an individual?

Dr. SNOW. In the Oswald photographs specifically we saw no evidence of any plastic surgery. But this does not mean that there might not have been some there. . . .

Mr. FITHIAN. Would you direct your attention to the chart. The first three right down where the two lines intersect, or very close to it, all seem very tightly arrayed. But the backyard photo seems to have slipped out of orbit somehow or other.

Dr. SNOW. Yes, sir. It is most divergent from the cluster. However, if you will recall those photographs most were of good quality with fairly crisp images. The backyard photographs differ from the rest of the series in that they are rather fuzzy and also they very in the lighting. They are the only two photographs of the series where the lighting is coming from overhead, and we feel that this introduces measurement errors using our technique and would account for this discrepancy. . . .

Mr. FITHIAN. I have just one more brief line of questioning. Would you put up JFK exhibits F-556 and F-557.

Dr. Snow as I understand it, the two backyard photos, the center and lower right of exhibit--what is that, F-556, for the record? Would you explain again in a sentence or two why those photos would, when you get through measuring, put the spot or the dot outside that very tight cluster on your chart.

Dr. SNOW. Again, I believe when you look at the photographs you see, compared to the rest of the photographs of Mr. Oswald that we analyzed, that these two are much fuzzier and blurrier and to influence the errors that are going to be introduced in our measurements that we take off the photographs. In other words, we simply cannot measure these photographs with the same degree of accuracy that we can in the better quality photographs. (4 HSCA 370-371, 382, 384)

[Michael T. Griffith]

Anti-science and faith-based. It there was a figure there, he couldn't be used in the backyard photos. There probably wasn't a figure there because it looks like a crude tracing of the outline of Oswald in 133-C. There is a photo from the DPD photo session that shows this scene without anyone in it.

There is nothing anti-science about it. A number of photographic experts have noted this. A stage in producing fake Oswald backyard rifle pics could have been to place someone else's figure on a chosen background, which you could do via overlaying it over an existing figure or by placing it in a silhouette. You might read Mr. Mee's comments on how the photos could have been produced, as well as Professor Womack's comments on this.

I asked you nine days ago for more on this. It's a claim from Jim Marrs. Did anyone else track them down and interview them? Were they real people?

You might have asked me about this nine days ago, but I rarely read your replies because of your earlier conduct.

Yes, the Hesters were real people. Robert Hester died in 1978, but his wife Particia survived him by many years. In 1986, Mrs. Hester spoke to a class at the University of Texas (Arlington) and re­peated the same account that she and her husband gave to Jim Marrs in 1970.

The Dallas police had the 133-C photo in their possession, maybe as early as the assassination weekend. Some policemen had copies, including the husband of the woman who handed it over to HSCA in the 70s.

You do not know that the DPD, as a department, had 133-C. Certain elements in the DPD clearly had it, but it is by no means apparent that the DPD as a department had it. But, if they did, why didn't they give it to the WC? Why did 133-C only come to light when Roscoe White's widow turned it over to the HSCA in December 1976? Where's the negative for it? Where's the other missing negative? How does such historic, crucial evidence go "missing"?

What was the DPD doing taking more backyard photos with a stand-in and printing a backyard photo with a white silhouette in it? What is your innocent explanation for all this? What possible valid reason could they have had for doing those things? 

The Select Committee determined that all three photographs were authentic

And their authentication is full of holes.

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm

; and that the existence of a third pose made it even less likely that forgers would have made the photos, since the more poses, the more possibility for forgery detection.

That was curious logic by the HSCA PEP since they were missing two negatives and were quite selective in choosing which photos to analyze in a given way. When it came to the Penrose analysis, they must have chosen the two worst photos and ignored the best ones, or else Dr. Rose simply lied about 133-A-DeM and 133-A-Stovall, both of which are very high-quality photos.

If more poses equals more evidence of authenticity, why in the world did the DPD not hand over 133-C to the WC, assuming the DPD, as a department, had it?

You confuse speculation and innuendo for "explanation".

Professor Womack studied the DPD prints and said they were obviously part of a process to produce fake Oswald backyard rifle photos. Again, what is your innocent explanation for the taking of more backyard photos, for the striking of a pose that the DPD officially knew nothing about (if they did, they didn't tell the FBI or the WC about it), and for producing a print with a white silhouette in it?

Penrose variation. None of the Oswald comparison photos were taken with sunlight above or full-body, meaning that the head measured in the Backyard Photos was defined by a different light source/direction and was a much greater distance from the camera. I believe this would account for the variation.

That won't work: The control photos, as Dr. Snow noted, were clear. His main excuse for the variation--the substantial variation--was that the backyard rifle photos were "rather fuzzy" and "blurry." But this is nonsense. 133-A-DeM and 133-A-Stoval are very clear. 133-A-DeM is so high quality that you can read the print on the newspaper in the figure's hand.

Dr. Rose and Congressman Fithian had the following exchange about the Penrose analysis divergence:

Mr. GENZMAN. Would you briefly explain the graph marked as JFK exhibit F-558.

Dr. [Clyde] SNOW. Yes, sir. I indicated that we take a number of measurements on the photographs. It is convenient to be able to reduce those, that mass of numbers into some single entities that allow us to compare the overall similarities in shape and size that we see. We have done this. It is a rather involved statistical technique developed by a British biometrician named Penrose back in the 1940's, and it is widely employed in other areas of anthropology.

Essentially what we have done here is, using the measurements of the three Dallas photographs as our base line, quantitatively compared the other sets of Oswald photographs here.

Theoretically, if everything were perfect--which it never is---we would find that two objects or sets of photographs exactly duplicated in every detail in terms of the measurements The Dallas photographs, the points when they are plotted would be down here at the zero point of the graph. You can see that they do cluster very closely to that zero point. This variation reflects differences, we feel, in measurement error and technique.

Mr. FITHIAN. Let me ask you to move that chart about a foot to the right. It is blockout out--we can now see it. I am not sure the panel members on the left-hand side can. . . .

Mr. FITHIAN. Let's turn now to the analysis that you made of the Oswald photographs. On the basis of your measurements and your analysis, can you positively identify or state that the series of Oswald photographs shown on exhibits JFK F-556 and F-557 are indeed those of Oswald?

Dr. SNOW. No, sir; we cannot. We cannot on the basis of the measurements alone positively state that all of those photographs are indeed of Oswald. However, we can say that they are all consistent with the hypothesis that all of the photographs are of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. FITHIAN. Would the staff put back up the chart and graph which I was blocked from seeing at the first part of the questioning.

In your work how do you compensate or adjust for plastic surgery that might be done on an individual?

Dr. SNOW. In the Oswald photographs specifically we saw no evidence of any plastic surgery. But this does not mean that there might not have been some there. . . .

Mr. FITHIAN. Would you direct your attention to the chart. The first three right down where the two lines intersect, or very close to it, all seem very tightly arrayed. But the backyard photo seems to have slipped out of orbit somehow or other.

Dr. SNOW. Yes, sir. It is most divergent from the cluster. However, if you will recall those photographs most were of good quality with fairly crisp images. The backyard photographs differ from the rest of the series in that they are rather fuzzy and also they very in the lighting. They are the only two photographs of the series where the lighting is coming from overhead, and we feel that this introduces measurement errors using our technique and would account for this discrepancy. . . .

Mr. FITHIAN. I have just one more brief line of questioning. Would you put up JFK exhibits F-556 and F-557.

Dr. Snow as I understand it, the two backyard photos, the center and lower right of exhibit--what is that, F-556, for the record? Would you explain again in a sentence or two why those photos would, when you get through measuring, put the spot or the dot outside that very tight cluster on your chart.

Dr. SNOW. Again, I believe when you look at the photographs you see, compared to the rest of the photographs of Mr. Oswald that we analyzed, that these two are much fuzzier and blurrier and to influence the errors that are going to be introduced in our measurements that we take off the photographs. In other words, we simply cannot measure these photographs with the same degree of accuracy that we can in the better quality photographs. (4 HSCA 370-371, 382, 384)

[John Mytton]

You can''t use a figure standing in an overcast backyard to make a convincing composite for a figure standing in a sunlit backyard.

Thanks Jerry, I was baiting Griffith so he would put his cards on the table and as predicted what he proposes makes absolutely no sense, if you want to put someone into another background then you have to at least make sure the lighting matches but the sun in the cut-out is in a completely different position and because of the weather conditions there is a lot of ambient fill lighting which further illuminates all the objects facing the camera so when you put the Oswald cut-out which was originally photographed with strong sunlight and shadows back into Griffiths template you end up with an image that sticks out like dogs proverbial's and is easily seen as fake.
I grabbed an image that someone else produced from Google and there is no way that the original Oswald fits back into the scene, it's just a CT's wet fantasy.



Another issue is that you just can't use a cut-out with another camera, at a different distance and different film stock and stick it somewhere else without a massive difference in easily detected film grain but the original BY photos have a consistent film grain across the whole image, which was also a match to the appropriate film stock and this further proves their authenticity. But Griffith seems to believe that like some Frankenstein creation, that the existing backyard photos were made up of a background taken many months ago by someone unspecified, a stand in up to the chin taken many months later and yet another photo of the top of Oswald's head all blended seamlessly down to the microscopic film layer and all with perfectly complementary lighting, it just gets more bizarre with every claim.

The silhouette was a clumsy Southern cracker attempt to make a meaningful exhibit. If it's actual purpose was to facilitate a forgery, it's kind of stupid to leave it in a file for 30-some years and not just destroy it. I suppose only a Southern cracker dumber than the original crackers would think it was used for some sinister purpose.

Those conspirators were absolutely brilliant except for the times when they were unbelievably stupid but watching the CT's dig holes that they then try to escape with even sillier suggestions is really great entertainment. I bet Griffith rues the day that he decided to join up and push his CT BS only to be confronted with a wall of scholarly WC defenders who have humiliated every one of his  daft proposals.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

You can''t use a figure standing in an overcast backyard to make a convincing composite for a figure standing in a sunlit backyard.

That is a silly strawman argument. Obviously, for the final products, they chose to use a figure standing in a sunlit backyard, but, as everyone can see, they were unable to get all the shadows to match--the HSCA PEP could not duplicate the variant nose shadows without tilting the model's head into an irrelevant position.

As I discuss in "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos," when McCamy showed the committee the picture of the model that supposedly demonstrated "just how it can happen that the head can be tilted and the shadow tilt with it," Congressman Fithian noticed that the angle and tilt of the model's head were nothing like the angle and tilt of the Oswald figure's head. In fact, not only was the model's head tilted and rotated so that the model was no longer looking at the camera, but the camera itself was then shifted just to reacquire a frontal view of the face! When Fithian pointed this out to McCamy, McCamy admitted that "there would be a number of assumptions necessary . . . to interpret the Oswald photograph from this demonstration of this effect." LOL! Yeah, that's putting it mildly.

You've never had people question your intelligence?

I usually deal with people who exhibit decorum, people who have enough class to be able to express disagreement without being disagreeable and rude. Anyway, judging from your writing and arguments, I have nothing to worry about if you are the comparison standard for intelligence.

How much more vague can you CTs make these "startling" witnesses?

"Vague"? Let's see: We have their place of employment at the time in question. We have their first and last names. We have the wife speaking to a class on a university campus in 1986 and confirming the account that she and her husband gave in a for-the-record interview in 1970. What exactly is "vague" about them?

You're going to end up doing what WC apologists do to all witnesses whose accounts you can't accommodate and can't credibly explain, and when they "he was just mistaken" claim is just too ludicrous even by your standards: call them crazy and/or liars.

The two better-quality poses made it. What's your problem? You think Southern police departments were infallible? They probably had a lot of low-brow crackers who planted the Confederate flag on their lawn.

Umm, is this supposed to be your explanation for why the DPD did not turn over 133-C to the WC? You are ducking the issue. If the DPD had 133-C, then you folks need to explain why they did not inform the WC, why they withheld crucial and historic evidence from a presidential commission. Making a yo-yo comment about the two "better" poses making it explains nothing. By the way, why are those two poses "better"? What makes them "better"?

The Secret Service made the request. The silhouette was a clumsy Southern cracker attempt to make a meaningful exhibit. If it's actual purpose was to facilitate a forgery, it's kind of stupid to leave it in a file for 30-some years and not just destroy it. I suppose only a Southern cracker dumber than the original crackers would think it was used for some sinister purpose.

That is a joke of an explanation. What innocent reason would the Secret Service have had for making such a request? That makes no sense. An "attempt to make a meaningful exhibit"?! "A meaningful exhibit" for what? A "meaningful exhibit" showing a pose that the DPD officially knew nothing about at the time?

We're talking logic and Southern crackers.

Well, that's nice, but I'm pretty sure that at least some of the Secret Service guys who attended the backyard photo session were not Southerners.

This Womack isn't from the South, per chance?

Seriously? Is this supposed to be another example of your intelligence? Anyway, Womack earned his bachelor's degree in photography from Sam Houston University, earned his master's degree in photography from the IIT Institute of Design in Chicago, and was a professor of photography at Texas Tech University (he's now retired and runs a photography business). When the Houston Post was preparing its article on the DPD prints, they thought enough of Professor Womack's expertise to consult him about the prints. And, again, when he examined the prints, he concluded they represented a phase of an attempt to produce fake Oswald backyard rifle photos.

[Two sets of photos snipped.]  One of the control photos. Head detail sharp.

Is this supposed to be your response to the points about the marked divergence between the control photos and the backyard rifle photos?

Look at the graph that Snow showed to the committee, the same graph that you included in your previous reply. Look at the degree of divergence: The Dallas Arrest control photos are virtually dead on at 0 for both shape distance and size distance, as they should be. The Marine control photos are at 0.5 for shape distance and 0.025/0.03 for size distance, pretty close to the Dallas Arrest control photos and certainly close enough to posit correspondence. But the backyard photos are at 1.75/1.8 for shape distance and 0.26/0.27 for size distance, a staggering divergence, a divergence of well over 200% in both cases, a divergence so obvious that even a layman such as Congressman Fithian noticed it.

Why do you suppose the PEP omitted the Penrose measurements for the Oswald figure's nose length, ear lobe length, and chin width (6 HSCA 279, Table III)? Why did they omit just those three measurements? Perhaps because the divergence between the backyard figure and the control photos would have been even more drastic if they had included them?

This was another case where the HSCA PEP stared right at clear evidence of fraud in the backyard rifle photos but instead decided to see the emperor's new clothes, just as they did when they found only microscopic differences in the distances between background objects in the photos (an abject impossibility if the photos were taken in the manner alleged), just as the HSCA FPP did with the clear evidence, confirmed for them by Angel and McDonnel, that the autopsy skull x-rays show frontal bone missing.

And what "print" can anyone read in 133-A-DeM? You can barely make out the newspaper's nameplate.

Really? Well, I can't speak for what you say you can and cannot see. I hope you understand that when I say that the newspaper print on 133-A-DeM is readable, I do not mean it is readable without enlarging the photo. In any case, anyone can look at 133-A-DeM and see that it has markedly better detail and much higher resolution than 133-A and 133-B. The HSCA PEP concluded that 133-A-DeM was made in a "high quality enlarger with a high quality lens," whereas 133-A and 133-B were very cheaply produced (they were almost certainly developed at a drugstore).

On review of 133A-de Mohrenschildt (see figs. IV-20 and IV-21, JFK exhibits F-382 (front) and F-383 (reverse) ), the panel noted that it had been probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens. (6 HSCA 147)

The PEP called 133-A and 133-B "drugstore prints":

As most drugstore prints, these were apparently cropped slightly for aesthetic purposes by placing a white border around their periphery. (6 H 147)

And, again, why wasn't 133-A-DeM cropped, whereas all the others were? Why was 133-A-DeM's entire negative area printed, and why was the unexposed border area beyond the aperture reproduced as black on the print? This is nothing like the other photos that Oswald supposedly got developed. The HSCA PEP admitted that this was an "unusual way" to process a photo:

As a result, the entire negative area is printed and the unexposed border area outside the full camera aperture has been recorded as black on the print. Because people normally like to have white borders on their pictures, this is an unusual way of presenting a photograph. (6 H 147)

.

[Bill Chapman]

It appears to have been verbal. However, Bolshakov wrote a memorandum of record of his conversation with Walton after he spoke with him that day, 12/9/63, and Fursenko and Naftali interviewed Bolshakov in January 1989 to confirm the memo's contents (One Hell of a Gamble, p. 476 notes 20, 22).

Douglass omitted some juicy additional information. Walton said, "Dallas was the ideal location for such a crime. . . . Perhaps there was only one assassin, but he did not act alone," and "The Kennedy clan considered the selection of Johnson a dreadful mistake" (pp. 406-407).

I should add that Walton would not have been one to twist Bobby and Jackie's words. Walton was a close, longtime friend of the family. During the 1960 election, Walton worked full time for JFK and Bobby. JFK and Jackie watched the 1960 election returns with only one person: Walton. JFK stayed in Walton's home in DC during the final transition weeks until he moved into the White House. Walton frequently spent long hours with the Kennedys in the White House. So it is no surprise that Bobby and Jackie chose him to convey their views on the assassination to the Soviet leadership. 

The "mainstream" view of the American people is that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. That was also the conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the last government body to formally investigate the case. And there are plenty of historians who reject the lone-gunman theory.

That's a hoot. Lone-gunman theorists are all over the map among themselves about the Tague wounding, the autopsy evidence, when Kennedy was first hit, the cause of Kennedy's backward headsnap, the 6.5 mm fragment, the additional fragment that McDonnell identified on the rear of the skull in the autopsy x-rays, etc., etc. etc. 

There is wide agreement among conspiracy theorists about the basic outline of the assassination plot. The fact that there is robust debate about some aspects of the plot is a sign of vitality, analysis, and ongoing research.

There is wide agreement amongst me, myself and I that CTers are silly and worthy only of mockery.