Opinions on Roscoe White story?

[Nick Rose]

I agree with Peter that we should bring this discussion back on track.
I also agree that the above suggestions about providing a Forum Liaison for new members, is restrictive, offensive, and rather absurd.

In addition, I thought that sense there has been an absolute lack of good faith in following the forum guidelines, and apparently little or no admonishment from the moderators for such, that it would be appropriate to post the following rule from your own forum stick regarding etiquette:

14. Our fundamental objective is for DPF to be an arena where research can be seriously discussed, and thoroughly refuted if appropriate, without name-calling or member abuse. It is acceptable to be robust and even dismissive of the arguments of other members, if analysis and evidence are provided. It is acceptable to state that a particular argument serves the agenda of the powerful, again if analysis and evidence are provided. However, since DPF is primarily intended as an arena where serious informed research can be developed and debated, it is not acceptable to describe another member as, for instance, an agent provocateur.

I kindly ask that the offending members review the above guideline.
I further ask that the moderators make good on their etiquette sticky and remove and move the offending language off to the Bear Trap (?) and that would include my offensive reply, of course.

I don't see how there can be order or even proper discussion in this forum, if the forum leaders and existing members do not adhere to their own guidelines.

Thankyou.

[Peter Lemkin]

I agree with Peter that we should bring this discussion back on track.
I also agree that the above suggestions about providing a Forum Liaison for new members, is restrictive, offensive, and rather absurd.

In addition, I thought that sense there has been an absolute lack of good faith in following the forum guidelines, and apparently little or no admonishment from the moderators for such, that it would be appropriate to post the following rule from your own forum stick regarding etiquette:

14. Our fundamental objective is for DPF to be an arena where research can be seriously discussed, and thoroughly refuted if appropriate, without name-calling or member abuse. It is acceptable to be robust and even dismissive of the arguments of other members, if analysis and evidence are provided. It is acceptable to state that a particular argument serves the agenda of the powerful, again if analysis and evidence are provided. However, since DPF is primarily intended as an arena where serious informed research can be developed and debated, it is not acceptable to describe another member as, for instance, an agent provocateur.

I kindly ask that the offending members review the above guideline.
I further ask that the moderators make good on their etiquette sticky and remove and move the offending language off to the Bear Trap (?) and that would include my offensive reply, of course.

I don't see how there can be order or even proper discussion in this forum, if the forum leaders and existing members do not adhere to their own guidelines.

Thankyou.

To me, the above makes you more suspect rather than less. You are a new guest here and you act like you want to RUN and discipline the place to your own prescription. I strongly suggest that you make your points on substance, only. Trying to push the 'rules' and rub our noses in it is not going to make any friends and lots of animosity; more and more that seems what you might have come here for. If you don't like it here, the door is on your mouse. Lastly, I'd point out that while LOOKING LIKE you were agreeing with me, you did the OPPOSITE - or you would have posted substantive things here and any grips on a new thread....instead you continued the disruption/sidetracking of the thread UNDER THE GUISE of agreeing that it shouldn't be....and forced me to follow suit. I suggest that this thread and Mr. Rose be monitored closely by a moderator. I think at this point it is Mr. Rose's 'etiquette' and HUBRIS here that is in question, rather than that of those who have been here for years.

[Seamus Coogan]

The R. White story is always a good [soft-spot] place to mount an attack the research community, generally. Not saying this is what Rose is doing....but do keep it in mind - perhaps he's just interested in the topic. IMO, Roscoe White was definitely NOT one of the guards of the 'tramps'.....and doesn't even look like any of them - and NO ONE THERE reported he was. [this is like the driver shot JFK] Who the hell cares what a Mafia boss said as to who did what, when, where? A few of the Mafia were tasked to do some specific things within the context of the assassination, due to their past connections with CIA et al., but none of them gave away anything other than eliminating Roselli so he couldn't 'sing' any more to the HSCA. If Rose is interested in the R. White story, I'd suggest he do some research on it. One place with some current information is in Into the Nightmare by McBride. Also, research the REAL story [and the fake hype] of the Ricky White story about his father. Roscoe White was connected to Mil Intel and was placed in the DPD a bit before the assassination. He was seen by two persons on the Knoll [N. one]. He knew Tippit and Ruby. He did photographic work for the DPD and very likely was involved in front of and/or behind the camera in the making of the BYP - as one of the variations was discovered at his home, plus the work by Jack White on the stance, build and elbow injury. White's death is HIGHLY suspicious after he left the DPD a while after the Assassination. I have a source on R. White who doesn't want me to go into the details they have given me at this time. The source is/was in intelligence, and what they told me only confirms that White was emplaced in the DPD for the upcoming event of the assassination; and that he [White] had a hand in [at the minimum] the BYPs - along with one other man, who's name has not yet come forward. White may also have played further roles re: actions in the Plaza, transport of Oswald, and/or the silencing of Tippit. The story made up and then promoted via otherwise reliable researchers [the Ricky White fairytale] was to cover up R. White's real role in the assassination - which would clearly show conspiracy and point to some of the entities involved. Tackling the Roscoe White story needs a very advanced understanding of how disinformation is used to cover-up real information. The cover-up of the JFK case is as active as it was on the day it happened. ::

Great replies to the topic mate. The issue is Peter after reviewing your replies is that I would like DPF to be a welcoming forum. Despite our differences of opinion I have found you a pretty welcoming guy. Mr Rose' seizing of your initiative and trying to order this forum around is laughable.

In many ways it is, however, as you know we have just had to many people front up rather than ask a question. They then begin pushing an agenda. A good example of someone who turned up at DPF was our own Vas Vazakos. He came in said hello and was respectful. It's the ones who as Lauren has said that push the line and think they know it all. I appreciate what Tracey has said as well, maybe, I should be more patient. The problem is when people breeze through the threads and they see a subject like White and see someone rabbiting on unopposed this forum and its members get tarred with that brush. It was something CD was worried about. He eventually went overboard; nonetheless, a way in which we could be vigilant. Yet allow genuine people to join, learn, and participate is important.

It would be great if we could strike that balance. I think with the caliber of peeps on the forum we can do it. For example we could get rid of the White shooter bollocks, and keep the thread running on the possible manipulation of Oswald by White. Nevertheless, I think Mr Rose has had something of a credibility fail. Lets not forget this thread was started sometime ago and Mr Rose after viewing the disdain for Mr Ortiz decided to ram it home again. What on earth has made the guy think a second time might work here?

[Nick Rose]

What on earth has made the guy think a second time might work here?

ignoring the rest of your drivel, what made me think a second time might work here was:
a. I had ASSUMED that this was an open minded community
b. I noticed that NO ONE had addressed the bump on Roscoe White's wrist (which struck me pretty hard)

Therefore i was seeking further clarification. Had this been addressed? Could anyone come up with information on it?
What about Sam Giancana's mention, had anyone addressed that? THESE were my questions. Not previously addressed, imho.

If you actually go back and read my thread related posts (not the horseshit that blew up after the fact) you will see that I am not really to particularly concerned with whether or not Roscoe was the shooter. I had just come across this information (I believe I first heard of Roscoe White the day before I made that post) and was seeking information on such. I made no hard claims, I did not try and coerce anyone in to believing such. I simply brought it up IN THE MOST APPROPRIATE THREAD I COULD FIND (in other words, there was ONE ... ONE thread on Roscoe White appropriately titled to be found, so it is the one I chose) and i used it appropriately, well within the forum guidelines, for simply bringing up some points of note i had come across (one being that Lee Bowers mentions a 25 year old on the knoll) and seeking the opinions of members of this board.

I was, and remain duly apologetic for any friction this honest inquiry has caused.
I am NOT however apologetic for my attitude in defense of my actions after being summarily lambasted in contradiction to your own forum rules.

[Dawn Meredith]

Nick your posts are welcomed here. If someone is abusing you on this forum I advise:
reporting such and then ignoring this person or persons.
I for one am sick of all the accusations that go on. Some people see agents in their coffee.
Keep it civil. Let the flamers post where it is encouraged. Not the case here.
Informed argument, or legit questions are welcomed.
Those of us who have been in the JFK assassination trenches since day one have forgotten more
than one can imagine. Memories like Jim DiEugenios are rare.

Dawn

[Nick Rose]

Okay. I am going to FORCE this thread back on track, and I am making no apologies for covering "previously unmentioned" material.
I was not aware (and see no statement in the rules) that original investigative discussion in not allowed here, so if anyone has any on topic related replies, please make them.

DAVID JOSEPHS,
was it not you who stepped up to claim the authorship of the previously sited thread from the Education forum containing a discussion of the police officer at the rear of the Landsdale photograph here.

CAN YOU PLEASE REITERATE HERE YOUR CONCLUSION.
Is it or is it not your opinion that the below pictured police officer IS NOT ACCURATELY ACCOUNTED FOR in the record?
Can you reiterate and rejustify this claim?

If it is so that the below pictured officer is not who the records say he should be,
does it not ON THE FACE OF IT appear that it could be Roscoe White? (this is open to anyone, not just David)
The image of Roscoe in his police uniform (on the right below) bares (to me at least) significantly more than a superficial resemblance.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5661[/ATTACH]

I would like to note that I am making this post IN THE SPIRIT OF GENUINE INQUIRY.
I am specifically asking that unjustified attacks be withheld so that legitimate inquiry can take place.
I am NOT saying this IS Roscoe White ... i am, again, MERELY PRESENTING IT FOR EARNEST DISCUSSION.
If my reading of Mr. Joseph is correct, and IF HE IS TO CONFIRM THIS, then if the above pictured officer is NOT who the records claim,
it must be SOMEONE ELSE. All things considered, it looks to me a LOT like Roscoe White. Hence, I would ask for a discussion on the merits of this claim.

[Peter Lemkin]

If you think no one has addressed the bump on Roscoe White's arm because you must be new to all this. Jack White, long an honored member here [and well known JFK researcher], who died about two years ago now, LONG AGO pointed this out in videos, photo displays, in posts on various JFK-related forum, and was cited in many books on just that. He was sure the model used to paste on the Oswald head was R. White.....for a variety of reasons. Most [not all] here, I would assume, accept that as either a strong possibility or likely so [depending on who] and not needed for discussion again. Please find Jack White's video on the backyard photos on the internet and view it. You are, however, welcome to bring it up again - and have and have been responded to. There are yet other backyard photos out there. The entire story of their provenance has not been fully written; over time new ones kept being found in the strangest of places - the Paine's; R. White house; in a G. de Mohrenscheildt book, in the DPD, and elsewhere. R. White is a touchy subject for some researchers - some lost their lives [apparently] for looking into his life. One excellent researcher quit after his wife begged him to stop research after getting close to the R. White story. Jack White, himself, was stabbed in the neck with an ice pick in what I think was an attempted murder for his JFK photographic work - which covered more than just R. White and the Backyard Photos. My computer was broken into because of a backyard photo, and there are other things connected to that that I don't care to go into further. As mentioned before, there also was a BIG phony story floated about R. White and the diaries/cables et al...that even tripped up and entrapped some good researchers and, I believe, was invented and 'pushed' from Disinformation Central. You'll find a lot on White in the better books on the assassination and on the EF. On the JFK photo websites you can see all the variants of the photo.
I believe R. White was connected to the creation of the backyard photos. He may well have been the 'model'. He also may have been the photographer and the person who made the composite with the Oswald face, and the wrongly sized papers, etc. Marina did not take those photos. The camera obviously was on a tripod. The photos IMO were planted in various locations 'to be found' to incriminate LHO. Others IMO were 'trophies' of setting up the patsy, and found later. As they were fake composites they are interesting - and show yet another way the patsy was set up. I don't personally find any special significance to the one with no person in it. It was taken at the same time as the others. I think most photo analysts believe a photo with a body in that backyard by the steps was used to place the head of Oswald on; not that a body was placed into the blank photo of the backyard...but one can imagine that more difficult photo job...but I don't believe it is supported nor likely. Again, the new book called Into The Nightmare has a lot on R. White, although it is mostly about Tippit.

[Nick Rose]

You think no one has addressed the bump on Roscoe White's arm because you must be new to all this or young or both. Jack White, long an honored member here [and well known JFK researcher], who died about two years ago now LONG AGO pointed this out in videos, photo displays, in posts on various JFK-related forum, and was cited in many books on just that. He was sure the model used to paste on the Oswald head was R. White.....for a variety of reasons. Most [not all] here, I would assume, accept that as either a strong possibility or likely so [depending on who] and not needed for discussion again. Please find Jack White's video on the backyard photos on the internet and view it. You are, however, welcome to bring it up again - and have and have been responded to. There are yet other backyard photos out there. The entire story of their provenance has not been fully written; over time new ones kept being found in the strangest of places - the Paine's; R. White house; in a G. de Mohrenscheildt book, in the DPD, and elsewhere. R. White is a touchy subject for some researchers - some lost their lives [apparently] for looking into his life. One excellent researcher quit after his wife begged him to stop research after getting close to the R. White story. Jack White, himself, was stabbed in the neck with an ice pick in what I think was an attempted murder for his JFK photographic work - which covered more than just R. White and the Backyard Photos. My computer was broken into because of a backyard photo, and there are other things connected to that that I don't care to go into further. As mentioned before, there also was a BIG phony story floated about R. White and the diaries/cables et al...that even tripped up and entrapped some good researchers and, I believe, was invented and 'pushed' from Disinformation Central. You'll find a lot on White in the better books on the assassination and on the EF. On the JFK photo websites you can see all the variants of the photo.
I believe R. White was connected to the creation of the backyard photos. He may well have been the 'model'. He also may have been the photographer and the person who made the composite with the Oswald face, and the wrongly sized papers, etc. Marina did not take those photos. The camera obviously was on a tripod. The photos IMO were planted in various locations 'to be found' to incriminate LHO. Others IMO were 'trophies' of setting up the patsy, and found later. As they were fake composites they are interesting - and show yet another way the patsy was set up. I don't personally find any special significance to the one with no person in it. It was taken at the same time as the others. I think most photo analysts believe a photo with a body in that backyard by the steps was used to place the head of Oswald on; not that a body was placed into the blank photo of the backyard...but one can imagine that more difficult photo job...but I don't believe it is supported nor likely. Again, the new book called Into The Nightmare has a lot on R. White, although it is mostly about Tippit.

I am aware of the existence of the other photos (likely planted).
I was aware of the RW story in general (and as I say I only recently discovered it).
I suppose I was superficially aware via forum results of Jack White's discussion.
However, given that the only real mentions I saw of the RW story were on a website or two of arguable merit,
I was seeking the opinions of the community here in general.


I really wish that something like the post you have just provided was the type of response I was originally given. Much would have thus been avoided.


I understand your comment that the use of a blank back yard photo as the template for inserting an entire body in to, and then inserting another head on top of is certainly a harder task than simply taking a picture of a man in a back yard and then inserting a photo on his head.


However, I again have to address your attention to the FACT that NOTHING in that blank photo is different from the extant photos with the man in them. Even assuming that the blank photograph was taken mere seconds before the man jumped in to the frame and posed (not likely anyhow) it still does not account for the fact that NOTHING is different in that photo. As I previously stated - not a single leaf on a tree. Not a single shadow of a tree branch, NOR A SINGLE BLADE OF GRASS is in even a SLIGHTLY different position. They are *identical*. Absolutely identical. The ONLY thing that is different, and I walked through the process of WHY it would be done is that the empty backyard photo was "burned in" to be much darker (and I even pointed to absolute evidence of that in a "shadow" jumping forward) so that the man who was inserted did not appear to have an abnormally high contrast relative to the background he was placed in.


I can not claim to know exactly how or why the man was inserted, or if in fact this is actually what happened, i am merely saying that the fact that the empty photo is 100% identical (as that animated GIF shows) is *strongly* suggestive of this fact.

I SUCK at image editing, so along with my poor edit of the animated gif intended only to show you the two areas i mention,
i will include below it the full original which is not "screwed up" with dithering or whatever those awful artifacts are (interlace fail?)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5665[/ATTACH]

NOW LOOK AT THOSE TWO CIRCLED AREAS IN THE IMAGE BELOW:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5666[/ATTACH]

The area I had circled on the left side STRONGLY indicates that the entire figure was placed on top of the existing image.
The area I had circled on the right is STRONGLY indicative that the original empty photo was "burned in" or overexposed to match the contrast of the foreground subject.

Again, note how NOT EVEN THE GRASS UNDER THE MANS FOOT MOVES.
HOW CAN THAT BE?

[David Josephs]

Okay. I am going to FORCE this thread back on track, and I am making no apologies for covering "previously unmentioned" material.
I was not aware (and see no statement in the rules) that original investigative discussion in not allowed here, so if anyone has any on topic related replies, please make them.

DAVID JOSEPHS,
was it not you who stepped up to claim the authorship of the previously sited thread from the Education forum containing a discussion of the police officer at the rear of the Landsdale photograph here.

CAN YOU PLEASE REITERATE HERE YOUR CONCLUSION.
Is it or is it not your opinion that the below pictured police officer IS NOT ACCURATELY ACCOUNTED FOR in the record?
Can you reiterate and rejustify this claim?

If it is so that the below pictured officer is not who the records say he should be,
does it not ON THE FACE OF IT appear that it could be Roscoe White? (this is open to anyone, not just David)
The image of Roscoe in his police uniform (on the right below) bares (to me at least) significantly more than a superficial resemblance.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5661[/ATTACH]

I would like to note that I am making this post IN THE SPIRIT OF GENUINE INQUIRY.
I am specifically asking that unjustified attacks be withheld so that legitimate inquiry can take place.
I am NOT saying this IS Roscoe White ... i am, again, MERELY PRESENTING IT FOR EARNEST DISCUSSION.
If my reading of Mr. Joseph is correct, and IF HE IS TO CONFIRM THIS, then if the above pictured officer is NOT who the records claim,
it must be SOMEONE ELSE. All things considered, it looks to me a LOT like Roscoe White. Hence, I would ask for a discussion on the merits of this claim.

Hey there Nick... I'm with you here and will continue to focus on discussion of the evidence and the topics of your interest... All you can do is stay on your own course... the truth of the situaiton will shake out.


Wasn't actually "claimed"... I started/authored the thread and presented my understanding as to why there were two sets of tramps... those in these photos and those who were arrested and spent a few days in jail to be let out 11/26.

MARVIN WISE identifies himself as the policeman in the back of the Lansdale photo... yet he does seem to disappear as they get to Houston... in the Allen photos....
http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/fbi_124-10273-10440 According to Wise we have Bass, Harkness, Middleton and Vaughn...
Middleton claims to have been home that day and not involved at all http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/fbi_124-10273-10392
Harkness says there were others taken from THE TRAIN (below)
Vaughn does not have a statement related to the RR yard, tramps or any of it - only the Oswald murder


In answer to your question - if the man in the photos is Wise, then I think these two men are both Wise... if it is someone else, then they are both this person... and they are not Roscoe White... imo.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]5668[/ATTACH]





[ATTACH=CONFIG]5664[/ATTACH]

[Nick Rose]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5668[/ATTACH]

thank you.
THAT is what i was looking for. (i mean not literally the image, which is great. just the reply. )
and now I can defer back to Mr. Lemkin in agreement - not RW.


cheers