Grassy knoll gunman

[NickMarinich]

Hi, new member Nick here. Glad to finally be a part of this forum.I like your opinion on this piece of footage that supposely shows a gunman on the knoll. It's from a 1988 British docu called ''The Day the Dream died''. Do you think it's real or fake?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f3mlbrwXjg

[dankbaar]

Very sloppy research in this film. The record proves that Ferrie was ina courtroom with Carlos Macello at the time of the assassination, hearing him being acquitted. Also that he was in Galveston, not the night before the assassination, but the night OF the assassanation (11/22/1963)So you can ask yourself about the reliability of the gunman "figure"on the knoll.Wim

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

NickMarinich wrote:Hi, new member Nick here. Glad to finally be a part of this forum.I like your opinion on this piece of footage that supposely shows a gunman on the knoll. It's from a 1988 British docu called ''The Day the Dream died''. Do you think it's real or fake?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f3mlbrwXjgI've never seen that figure in any of my research. I've never even seen it presented. I wish that documentary showed where exactly the figure is supposed to be.As for David Ferrie, it seems to me that he was involved with Dr. Mary Sherman, Judith Baker, and (to a certain extent) Oswald in those laboratories where they were messing with cancer-causing viruses and cells. According to Judyth Vary Baker, Oswald brough some of those cells to Mexico to give to "Mr. B" (who is most-likely David Atlee Phillips). Take a look at these links. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/haslam1. ... dyth.htmIt looks like when Jim Garrison stumbled on Oswald's activities, it seems he stumbled upon some of the evidence regarding those laboratories. Ferrie, for example, had lab mice in his apartment because he was supposedly obsessed with finding a CURE for cancer. According to Judyth Baker, they used Ferrie's apartment as kind of a secondary lab or holding place for the mice. As for Guy Bannister and the office where Oswald was seen, it seems that Garrison was on the mark as it appears that guns were being moved out of that office for the anti-Castro Cubans and their operations, and it appears that that's where some of the Oswald sheep-dipping was going on too (Sheep dipping is an intelligence term for basically making someone appear to be something that they're not...as in Oswald was "sheep dipped" to look like a communist and Castro supporter when they had him hand out those pro-Castro leaflets and "defect" to Russia...etc.) Anyway, take a look at the links above, and let me know what you think.

[Frenchy]

Pasquale and Nick read this linkhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Frenchy wrote:Pasquale and Nick read this linkhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htmHere's my analysis of that McAdams page you posted. I'm not even half-way done reading the McAdams page, and it's almost completely disinformation. Read below. The article begins by saying that the idea that the CIA would need to develope a bioweapon to kill Castro is "farfetched" because they already HAD a variety of poisons that would do the job anyway. That doesn't refute the idea that they were experimenting and creating cancer-causing cells. If they already HAD poisons that would work, why did they have so many? See what I mean? That's like saying that the CIA wouldn't use .45 caliber pistols because they already had .22 and .38 pistols for assassinations? See what I mean? The part of the statement where reference is made to various other poisons actually supports the idea that they'd be researching and creating cancer-causing agents to use in assassination because the article references numerous poisons. If the CIA already had poisons, including ones that could do so without making it obvious that he was murdered, why did they have certain poisons that were "regular" and also poisons that would not make it obvious that someone was murdered? That doesn't refute Judyth Baker's statements at all.Then the article tries to refute her claim by saying that PHD-level talent would have been recruited and not carried out by people like Judyth and Ferrie. Yeah, try again. I like how Judyth's references to Dr. Ochsner are conveniently left OUT of that paragraph of the article. Are you smelling the disinformation yet? I'll go on.Here's the information on Judyth Vary Baker for those who want to compare the information to the MISREPRESENTATION of the information on the McAdams page.http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/judyth.htmI'll go on. The article then says that Ferrie did have mice in his apartment, and, for some reason, says that they were gone by 1963 and that Ferrie was also allegedly building a submarine to use against Castro? How does this refute what Judyth Vary Baker said? Again, disinformation. This actually supports what she said about Ferrie's apartment being used to hold some of the mice. I'll go on.Then the article says that "real" CIA research was done in either university labs or in military installations. He, again, is leaving out what she said, and what Ed Haslam said, about the actual work being done at the U.S. Public Health Service building. Again, deception or disinformation. Judyth Baker and Ed Haslam never said that the bulk of the work was done in the apartments of people like Ferrie. Then the article said that it's "a bit odd" that the CIA would be recruiting talent from high school. What does that mean? So, the US military can recruit from high schools, and the writer of the article finds it "odd" that the CIA might recruit from high schools too? That's lame, and, again, it's disinformation. Then the article says that the notion of having a virus knocking out Castro's immune system would have been enough. Again, the writer of the article is trying to refute the information by somehow claiming to know what would be used to assassinate someone. They obviously didn't read the information that Ed Haslam and Judyth Baker gave, or they read it and are just not presenting it properly. The part about knocking someone's immune system down was because they discovered that certain people had robust immune systems that could actually fight off the cancer causing cells. Again, disinformation because the writer of the article is misrepresenting the information presented by Baker and Haslam. I'll go on. The article then says that Judyth Bakers research is slipshod and gives the example that she believed that sodium morphate was used because Ferrie told her. Um...Judyth Baker wasn't researching sodium morphate. Again, it's disinformation. The writer of the article presented no evidence that her research was sloppy at all. I'll go on, but the McAdams page is starting to irritate me. Then the author attacks one of the witnesses who corroborated Judyth Baker's story, Anna Lewis, claiming that Garrison's people rejected DAVID Lewis's claims? When you click on the reference, there's no page there. Then the author says that Anna Lewis doesn't appear in The Men Who Killed Kennedy as some sort of proof that she's not a corroborating witness. Disinformation. Lots of people didn't "appear" in TMWKK. Does that mean they're not good witnesses too? Was TMWKK the be-all end-all of all JFK documentaries making any other witness who DIDN'T appear in it not believeable? LOL Again, I call FOUL!!! Disinformation. Are you seeing a pattern here with that McAdams page? I'll continue the analysis in another posting.

[tom jeffers]

i have been blessed with what i think is a logical mind that has served me well in the past. if i were aiming a rifle to hit a target i would rest it on the top of the fence for a secure shot rather than hold it in my arms free standing.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

tom jeffers wrote:i have been blessed with what i think is a logical mind that has served me well in the past. if i were aiming a rifle to hit a target i would rest it on the top of the fence for a secure shot rather than hold it in my arms free standing.Hey Tom!I would have thought that aiming a rifle while riding a unicycle would be EASIER! LOLI'm kidding, and I completely agree with you!!!!

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Frenchy wrote:Pasquale and Nick read this linkhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htmMore of the analysis of that BS McAdams page.Then the writer of the article goes into trying to refute her claiming that she went on dates with Oswald. THe end result of that is his statement that it is "unlikely." Um...okay! LOLThen the writer of the article tries to refute Judyth Baker's claim of having Oswald's writing in pencil in the margins of a book. He doesn't refute it all. He just says that the writings are "conveniently" written in pencil that cannot be dated. ??? Disinformation and a slanted analysis. So WHAT if they're written in pencil. Then the author tries to refute Judyth's claims about having a pair of Oswald's shower shoes by asking why Oswald had TWO pair (as one pair is in the National Archives). My girlfriend has more than one pair of flip-flops. Is that odd? LOL Then the author asks why a wife trying to conceal an adulterous affair would keep a pair of her lover's shower shoes? That's rediculous. Lots of people who cheat on their spouses keep things like that. It kind of happens. That's supposed to refute her story? When you go on and actually read the article, Frenchy, you can see that the author is presenting a very SLANTED analysis. That McAdams site in general is like that. I'm curious, have YOU gone through that whole page? What did you think? Have you read Ed Haslams book "Dr. Mary's Monkey?"Here's a link to the information. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/haslam1.htm

[tom jeffers]

of course a true shooter would have used a hand mirror and shot over the shoulder with his back facing the fence so that any pictures taken would have only exposed his bald spot of the back of his head!

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

tom jeffers wrote:of course a true shooter would have used a hand mirror and shot over the shoulder with his back facing the fence so that any pictures taken would have only exposed his bald spot of the back of his head!LOLI should have thought of that one!!!!The image I had was of the shooter wearing a stove pipe hat, ballancing on a unicycle!!! LMAO What bothered me about that link is that it shows a blob that morphs into some dude holding a rifle! They don't even show where this person is exactly on the knoll. They didn't even do that with the supposed "badgeman." At least you can find HIM or where he's supposed to be anyway.