egafd.com

>
> > As to the RFK killing, as far as I am aware no-one has put
> > Sirhan Sirhan within the inch of RFK which was where the gun
> > was which shot him four times. If you believe that Sirhan
> acted
> > alone, you must believe that Sandy Serrano was lying about
> the
> > girl in the polka dot dress,
>
Kennedy campaign supporter, Sandra Serrano, told Sergeant Paul Scharaga of the Los Angeles Police Department about the pretty girl in ?polka dot dress? who was seen in the pantry and later leaving the Ambassador shouting, ?We shot him! We shot him!? Pantry eyewitness Vincent DiPierro also supported the story of a polka-dot girl. DiPierro, the son of the Ambassador?s maitre d?hotel, said that he had seen a ?pretty girl? standing next to Sirhan seconds before the shooting. She was ?wearing a polka dot dress?. DiPierro, however, later identified the girl as Valerie Schulte. Schulte had been wearing a bright green dress with yellow polka-dots, was pretty and blonde and, as DiPierro stated, had a ?pug-nose.? Serrano later withdrew her story. On 20 June 1968, she underwent a lie detector test administered by a Sergeant Hernandez. Asked if she sat down on the staircase at the time of the shooting she replied, ?Yeah, I think I did?people messed me up?stupid people?just in all the commotion and everything?I was supposed to know more than I knew?I told [DA staffer John Ambrose] I heard the people say ?We shot him? or ?They shot him? or something. And I remember telling him that I had seen these people on the?on the stairway.? According to the LAPD Summary Report, ?Polygraph examination disclosed that Serrano has never seen Sirhan in person; further, that Miss Serrano fabricated, for some unknown reason, the story about the girl in the polka dot dress. Responses to relevant questions indicate that no one made statements to Miss Serrano telling her that they had shot Kennedy or that she heard any gunshots during the late evening of 4 June or early morning of 5 June 1968. Miss Serrano was informed of the results of the polygraph examination.? She later admitted that her statement was based more on guesswork ??two reasons, so I didn?t look like a fool, which I look like now. Another reason, because everybody figures?you know?I was sitting [in the police station] hearing descriptions and descriptions of these people. Oh God, no, maybe that?s what I?m supposed to see?more than I did. It messed me up, that?s all, and I figured, well, they must know what they?re doing ? I mean, they are police, after all. They have to know what they?re doing.? A fire marshal further swore Serrano was not on the outside stairs at the Ambassador at the time she stated. It should also be remembered that people had been drinking that night and alcohol is notorious for creating false memories.

So is the fire marshal lying as well? Or is he part of the conspiracy?

I think that what escapes you is the sheer number of people needed in almost any conspiracy - look at how much has come out in history because someone can't keep a secret. Bugliosi said that three men can keep a secret, as long as two are dead. You say that Hunt has spoken out about a JFK conspiracy but not about Watergate - how do you know he was telling the truth about the death of the president?

No doubt this will be the next thing to attract the attention of the conspiracy theorists:



As in "it was all done in a studio" and "check out the photo anomalies" ...... !boring! !boring!

- Eric

JamesW wrote:

> s rougier wrote:
>
> > Why does Robches continue to argue about moon photos when the
> > single example of anomalies he's quoted has been fully
> > explained away?
>
>
> Because he's a conspiracy theorist - and to a conspiracy
> theorist a lack of evidence doesn't matter very much - it's all
> about the theory.
>
> The Jack White site he keeps on about has only ever interested
> hardened conspiracy theorists - nobody else has ever taken it
> seriously.
>


I'm afraid the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is the most tired and cliched imaginable. As I have said, conspiracies do exist, that is a fact, the question is whether a specific event is as a result of a conspiracy.

As to Jack White, I have never said his photo analysis is right or wrong, merely that I do not have the expertise to critique it properly, and I have seen nothing from you to suggest that you do either. Despite that, I can imagine that any use of faked photos in the Apollo archive does not in itself mean the Moon landings were faked, merely that some of the actual photos taken were too poor to use.

Essex Lad wrote:


> But the HSCA stated that without the Dictabelt, there was NO
> conspiracy.

Robert Blakey thought that. It was not the opinion of his researchers such as Gaeton Fonzi and Eddie Lopez. They knew they had developed far more evidence of conspiracy involving the CIA, which Blakey would not touch with a barge pole.

>
> But if you appointed all Democrats you would claim that how
> could people who loved JFK come to an unbiased opinion?

Are you seriously arguing that Allen Dulles was the only man they could find for the Warren Commission. Please think about it. He had been Director of Central Intelligence, and JFK sacked him in disgrace after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He hated JFK with a vengeance, and yet he was meant to be an impartial arbiter of the evidence about JFK's assassination?


> You haven't said who "they" are? There is no evidence that
> Oswald was ever involved in any CIA operations. Indeed, even
> his wife says he was utterly unreliable and couldn't be trusted
> to do anything/keep anything secret. Or do you believe that she
> is part of the conspiracy as well?

You may care to consult the report Eddie Lopez compiled for the HSCA about Oswald and Mexico City.

>
> Those who believe that Jack the Ripper was a conspiracy point
> to the destruction of most of Scotland Yard notes as part of
> the cover-up. The notes regarding the foundation of the MCC
> have also been destroyed. The BBC has destroyed most of its
> output from the 50s and 60s because it did not have the space
> to store them including some very important historical
> programmes. If the LAPD believed that the case was closed, then
> they would have seen no reason to keep all the evidence. As I
> said in my first post, most conspiracies are actually cock-ups.

I think your argument makes no sense at all. There is no comparison between a TV programme and evidence from the murder of a major national figure. Sirhan Sirhan is still alive, and new evidence could come to light at any time. The idea that the LAPD could not find the space to store vital physical evidence from the crime scene is unbelievable.


>
> YOu must believe that there was nothing on the
> > photos Scott Enyart took that night, which the LAPD
> > confiscated, kept for 25 years, and which, after they were
> > forced by a court to return them, were "stolen" en route. But
> > you are quite free to believe all this if you wish, it's a
> > free-ish country.
> >
Any thoughts?

Essex Lad wrote:

> I think that what escapes you is the sheer number of people
> needed in almost any conspiracy - look at how much has come out
> in history because someone can't keep a secret. Bugliosi said
> that three men can keep a secret, as long as two are dead. You
> say that Hunt has spoken out about a JFK conspiracy but not
> about Watergate - how do you know he was telling the truth
> about the death of the president?

If you don't believe Hunt was telling the truth, fine, just don't say that no-one has ever admitted knowing about a plot to kil the president.

As to Vince, he has not progressed beyond attacking the HSCA and defending the Warren Commission. He does not use a computer, and keeps all his notes on file cards. The ARRB seems to have passed him by entirely.

You have to bear in mind that Vince, and also Posner, are lawyers, not historians. Their brief was to defend the Warren Commission. Vince in particular is often rude and abusive towards anyone who disagrees with him, he's a tough advocate, but no historian.

Essex Lad wrote:


Serrano later withdrew her story. On
> 20 June 1968, she underwent a lie detector test administered by
> a Sergeant Hernandez.

Sandy Serrano was bullied and forced to retract her statement in an outrageus manner. I take it you have heard the tape of her questioning by the LAPD? They did not treat her like a witness, but as someone whose testimony had to be eradicated at all costs. The fact that after all that she "failed" a polygraph administered by the LAPD itself is hardly a surprise. But if you believe a man who never got closer than a few feet to RFK shot him from a distance of one inch, I suppose anything is possible.

Robches wrote:

> As to Jack White, I have never said his photo analysis is right
> or wrong, merely that I do not have the expertise to critique
> it properly, and I have seen nothing from you to suggest that
> you do either. Despite that, I can imagine that any use of
> faked photos in the Apollo archive does not in itself mean the
> Moon landings were faked, merely that some of the actual photos
> taken were too poor to use.


This has been pointed out to you twice already, but here goes for a third time. You do not need any expertise in anything to critique Jack White's claims. You need the ability to check a few basic facts and you need a reasonable eyesight. I would imagine that a bright 12 year old could accomplish it without any difficulty. It seems fair to ask why you find a simple task so far beyond your abilities?

As for your claim that some of the actual photos taken were too poor to use, that qualifies as a ridiculous statement. All the pictures taken on the moon were published by NASA without any exceptions, including those that were out of focus and those that were too over exposed to show anything clearly. There was never any such thing as a moon photo that was too poor to use (except in our own imagination).

JamesW wrote:


>
>
> This has been pointed out to you twice already, but here goes
> for a third time. You do not need any expertise in anything to
> critique Jack White's claims. You need the ability to check a
> few basic facts and you need a reasonable eyesight. I would
> imagine that a bright 12 year old could accomplish it without
> any difficulty. It seems fair to ask why you find a simple task
> so far beyond your abilities?
>
> As for your claim that some of the actual photos taken were too
> poor to use, that qualifies as a ridiculous statement. All the
> pictures taken on the moon were published by NASA without any
> exceptions, including those that were out of focus and those
> that were too over exposed to show anything clearly. There was
> never any such thing as a moon photo that was too poor to use
> (except in our own imagination).

I'm not a pupil and you are not the form teacher. You can "point out" whatever you like as many times as you like. You are still not an expert in photoanalysis, and neither am I. I am now sick of "pointing out" that to you, and I suggest we drop this subject which is now utterly tedious.

Robches wrote:

> You are still not an expert in photoanalysis, and neither am I.


And neither was Jack White, but that didn't stop him did it?

It's a bit cowardly of you to suggest that you aren't up to the task of assessing his claims, when many children could manage it.