The Backyard Photos Have Insomnia

[Matt Grantham]

 Plenty of evidence for well documented funding for the mechanisms of indoctrination and assimilation. Bernay's perhaps being the most accessible example Some here may scoff at the relationship of materialism and authoritarianism, but what is the need of authoritarian system if it doesn't have something to sell The bastardization of Smith and Ricardo also appear high on the list of the corruption of mainstream authoritarianism. I am not sure what the estimates are for the dollar amounts dedicated to 'marketing' from the beneficent overlord class, but lets say it is a few bucks more than any countervailing efforts

 Interesting that  the previous poster makes no effort at identifying markers of indoctrination and the deterioration of critical thought, instead just a singular narrative of an individually derived proclamation. Hayek, at least, believed the capitalist and/or entrepreneur was the personification of rebellion.

[Jerry Freeman]

In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!"

(In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!)

It is not the government's function to tell people what to believe. It is the governments function to administer and implement  the Constitution of the United States.
Let's get this thread back to the Backyard Photos that can't seem to be put to rest.

[John Iacoletti]

Sorry Iacoletti, wrong again.

Sorry "Mytton", lying again.

Oswald killed a police officer in front of eyewitnesses.

Wrong.  Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing and she (allegedly) identified Oswald in an unfair, rigged, lineup because she looked at his eyes and sort of fell over.

Oswald's shells discarded at the scene were a ballistic match to Oswald's rifle

Wrong.  You haven't demonstrated that it was "Oswald's rifle" or that the shells had anything to do with the assassination.

Oswald was seen by more eyewitnesses fleeing while fumbling with a gun.

Not a crime, and the bogus unfair lineup is still unfair.

Oswald's jacket was recovered between Tippit's murder and where Oswald was arrested.

Also not evidence of anything -- particularly since you can't prove it was Oswald's jacket or that it was connected in any way to a crime.

Oswald resisted arrest.

Wrong.  Not supported by any evidence whatsoever.  Who told him he was being arrested and on what charge?  And why does the arrest report not have the "resisted" box checked?  But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.

Oswald tried to kill more Police at the Texas Theater.

Wrong.  Not supported by any evidence whatsoever.  But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.

How could they use evidence that they never saw? Doh!

Then what is the source of your beloved CE134 that your whole "yellow blob" analysis rests on?  Doh!

[John Iacoletti]

Bill ignored the response the first time he cleverly and methodically and with great effort posted a link to this same video.  Never fear, he will ignore it again and probably just tell the Jim Garrison pearly gates joke one more time.

Great job pasting that Youtube link Bill!  That's some impressive research.

As for the actual video.  That's 6 minutes of life that nobody will ever get back.  Here we see a guy named Steve Shives use the usual LN tactic of argument by appeal to ridicule, without ever actually addressing any reasons for believing the narrative.

His "5 Stupid things":

1. The endless list of potential suspects

This is the usual strawman that says that every CT believes every conjecture that has ever been brought forth.  As an amusing aside he talks here about preferring the "explanation that requires the fewest assumptions" as if the WC explanation isn't absolutely loaded with assumptions.

2.  The equally endless list of possible motives

As opposed to the WC's lack of any motive.

3. The lack of a coherent counter-narrative

As opposed to the WC's lack of a coherent narrative to begin with.

4. They attract people who aren't normally conspiracy theorists

I'm not sure why he considers this "stupid".  But this may have something to do with this case being nothing like conspiracy theories like the moon landing hoax or Bigfoot, despite some LNers' best attempts to paint them with the same brush to avoid actually talking about the evidence.

5. They combine to form the perfect storm of conspiracy theories

Also not about anything stupid.  I think Steve lost his train of thought halfway though the video.  Here he shows a cute graphic with JFK's picture and the quote "Ask not what the evidence says happened.  Ask what sounds good to you".  Which in fact describes perfectly how the WC came to their conclusion.

Nice try, but a giant fail on multiple levels.

[John Mytton]

Sorry "Mytton", lying again.

Really, let's examine your answers Honest John!

Wrong.  Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing and she (allegedly) identified Oswald in an unfair, rigged, lineup because she looked at his eyes and sort of fell over.

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.

Wrong.  You haven't demonstrated that it was "Oswald's rifle" or that the shells had anything to do with the assassination.

Oswald ordered and possessed and was photographed with C2766

Not a crime, and the bogus unfair lineup is still unfair.

Hilarious since your "unfair lineup" approach wasn't working now it's a "bogus unfair lineup", what's next?

Also not evidence of anything -- particularly since you can't prove it was Oswald's jacket or that it was connected in any way to a crime.

Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's...

Then what is the source of your beloved CE134 that your whole "yellow blob" analysis rests on?  Doh!

HSCA ≠ WC Double Doh!


Hmmm, not so honest are you John!



JohnM

[Walt Cakebread]

Sorry "Mytton", lying again.

Wrong.  Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing and she (allegedly) identified Oswald in an unfair, rigged, lineup because she looked at his eyes and sort of fell over.

Wrong.  You haven't demonstrated that it was "Oswald's rifle" or that the shells had anything to do with the assassination.

Not a crime, and the bogus unfair lineup is still unfair.

Also not evidence of anything -- particularly since you can't prove it was Oswald's jacket or that it was connected in any way to a crime.

Wrong.  Not supported by any evidence whatsoever.  Who told him he was being arrested and on what charge?  And why does the arrest report not have the "resisted" box checked?  But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.

Wrong.  Not supported by any evidence whatsoever.  But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.

Then what is the source of your beloved CE134 that your whole "yellow blob" analysis rests on?  Doh!

Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing

Do you actually believe that?

It's exactly what LBJ's cover up committee wanted you to believe....  They painted Markham as a lunatic that couldn't even read a clock, as a slick way of discrediting her very precise statement that she saw Officer Tippit shot to death at 1:06 pm.   

They avoided a much better witness in Domingo Benavides.....He was closer to th scene and he saw the killer eye to eye.

They sure as hell didn't want Benavides telling reporters that  The police arrested the wrong man....Because Lee Oswald was NOT the man he faced eye to eye at the murder scene.   

[John Mytton]

Wrong.  Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing

One of the canards of the conspiracy theorists that they?ve sold to millions is that there was only one eyewitness to Oswald killing Officer Tippit, Helen Markham, and she wasn?t a strong one. But in addition to Jack Tatum also being an eyewitness to the killing, for all intents and purposes there were eight other eyewitnesses. For instance, with the Davis women, can anyone make the argument that although someone else shot Tippit, it was Oswald who was seen running from the Tippit murder scene with a revolver in his hand unloading shells? And when Scoggins saw Oswald approach Tippit?s car and then lost sight of him for a moment, Tippit?s true killer appeared out of nowhere, shot and killed Tippit, then vanished into thin air, whereupon Scoggins then saw Oswald again, running away from Tippit?s car with a pistol in his hand?
RHVB



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Really, let's examine your answers Honest John!

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.

Keep going.....

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
. . .
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
Mr. BALL. When you saw him?
Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just--

Nothing dishonest about anything I said.

Oswald ordered and possessed and was photographed with C2766

That's a claim, not evidence.  Now how about proving that those shells had anything to do with the assassination?

Hilarious since your "unfair lineup" approach wasn't working now it's a "bogus unfair lineup", what's next?

It was bogus and unfair.  "Wasn't working".  LOL.  It's just a fact.  Sorry if the truth hurts.

Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's...

Again, keep going, Mr. Dishonest.

Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

No, Mr. Rankin.  She said "shirt".  Don't lead the witness.

Now "Mytton", how about proving that the old shirt had anything to do with the murder of Tippit?  And about those laundry tags...

HSCA ≠ WC Double Doh!

Where do you suppose the HSCA got CE134?  Hint:  not from the FBI.  Triple-doh!

Hmmm, not so honest are you John!

Yes, I am quite honest.  But you lied by commission or ommission at least 3 times in a single post.