Tweet
Tempus - are you insinuating that the murderer, diarist had the power to direct how the PHOTOS were taken - or to ensure their survival?
If the pics had been taken from almost any other angle what you insist are deliberate clues left by the killer would either be invisible or obscure. How - if the "other" MJK pic had been the only one to survive - would anyone today have seen the "initials" etc? They would not.
The logical assumption is that diarist saw the usual MJK on bed pic, scoured it, found something he could use and bob's your uncle. end of story. The initials etc are entirely a perceptual thing, never noticed until someone LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE found those particular makes useful.
NOTE WELL - the police were in that room from the start, the body was autosied, yet NOT A SINGLE MENTION IS MADE BY ANY POLICEMAN of what you say is so obvious. So the deduction is they were not seen - probably because from any angle but that of the camera, they were not there in the form you insist on - it is a mirage, a trick of the angle.
Like the so-called "sphinx on Mars" remember that - a lot of foolish people weaved whole theories of civilisations, connections with earth, ancient astronauts, and millenial doom. When NASA photographed the same point again from a different angle it all dissolved into geologivcal rock formations and tricks of light. THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING THERE.
The mention of these non-existent "bloody graffiti" shows that the diary forger had seen the pic. This was not widely known of until (I think) Don Rumbleow found it in the 60s and had not been seen before. So to mention these marks, which only make sense in the context of the pic - proves the forgery to me.
Nuff said, case closed, bye.
Phil H
If the pics had been taken from almost any other angle what you insist are deliberate clues left by the killer would either be invisible or obscure. How - if the "other" MJK pic had been the only one to survive - would anyone today have seen the "initials" etc? They would not.
The logical assumption is that diarist saw the usual MJK on bed pic, scoured it, found something he could use and bob's your uncle. end of story. The initials etc are entirely a perceptual thing, never noticed until someone LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE found those particular makes useful.
NOTE WELL - the police were in that room from the start, the body was autosied, yet NOT A SINGLE MENTION IS MADE BY ANY POLICEMAN of what you say is so obvious. So the deduction is they were not seen - probably because from any angle but that of the camera, they were not there in the form you insist on - it is a mirage, a trick of the angle.
Like the so-called "sphinx on Mars" remember that - a lot of foolish people weaved whole theories of civilisations, connections with earth, ancient astronauts, and millenial doom. When NASA photographed the same point again from a different angle it all dissolved into geologivcal rock formations and tricks of light. THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING THERE.
The mention of these non-existent "bloody graffiti" shows that the diary forger had seen the pic. This was not widely known of until (I think) Don Rumbleow found it in the 60s and had not been seen before. So to mention these marks, which only make sense in the context of the pic - proves the forgery to me.
Nuff said, case closed, bye.
Phil H
Comment