|
|
 January 15, 2012, 02:44:49 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1401
|
Its my belief that the case against Oswald is clear-cut, it's also my belief that Oswald's motive was, at least partially, a desire for fame, a desire to get into the history books, to immortalise his name. Oswald has achieved all he ever wanted. His name is right up there with the worlds most well-known "TOP 20 NAMES" everybody, no matter where they come from, which country they live in, knows exactly who he is, knows what his connection to history is. To many he is an innocent "patsy", to many more he is actually a hero. The CT's have made Oswald a winner, ultimately the only real winner of the assassination. I wonder how many other madmen have been inspired by Oswald's fame, how many other madmen have committed murder, political and otherwise, because Oswald had proven to them that if you want world-wide fame all you need to do is buy a gun and kill someone famous.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 03:11:09 PM by Denis Pointing »
|
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 20, 2012, 06:08:33 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
Because he wanted to star in the trial of the century. The trial would have been shown all over the world. Oswald the showman would possibly have even conducted his own defense. What a marvelous chance for Oswald to show off his superior intelligence, his great political knowledge and debating skills, Oswald would have been in his glory. In his twisted mind he may have even believed the general public would start to see things from his point of view, may even start to appreciate what he had done for them. Then there's the possibility, no matter how slight, that Oswald actually may have got off on some legal technicality. Imagine that, everybody on the planet knowing Oswald did it but unable to prove it. What an ultimate buzz. The prospects of the upcoming trial would have made Oswald the happiest man on Earth. I'm glad Ruby took it from him.
So he denied doing the shooting feat of the century so he could go to trial and represent himself? Is that right? So you condone murder, but it has to be done by someone you admire, like Ruby, right?
-------------------------
-------------------------
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
"Benavides- Saw Oswald kill Tippit, picked him out of a lineup." - Brian "Doesn't Know His Rear From His Back" Walker
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 20, 2012, 06:26:54 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2338
|
Dennis
If a trial happened, how do you think the removal of JFKs body from Texas would have affected the outcome? Remember, assassinating a President was not yet a Federal crime.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"you're the cop, you figure it out"
-Lee H. Oswald to Dallas Police detectives, weekend
of 11-22-63.
"Part of the reason why we avoided talking about this thing, because every time you say something, somebody misinterprets what you say."
-James. J. Humes, excerpt of ARRB statement, 2-13-96
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 20, 2012, 06:31:03 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
Just the act of opening a 201 file does not in and of itself define what the CIA thinks about someone.
It is just a place to put files.
Tony, do keep up. Experts have testified that a 201 is opened on folks who need watching. Folks such as Newman and Douglas have written about this recently and they quote Ann Ergeter's testimony before the HSCA. She said LHO's 201 file was opened because LHO came back from Russia with issues and they did NOT trust him anymore! Egerter said the SIG's pupose was: "We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel who were suspected one way or another." She was furthered asked: "When a 201 file is opened does that mean whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual, or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?" She replied: "Well, in general, that would be correct." She was then asked: "Would there be any other reason for OPENING up a file?" She replied: " No, I can't think of one."
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 20, 2012, 07:35:26 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9052
|
Ik heb een hoop stomme lullen ontmoet in mijn leven, maar jij bent wel een van de ergste.
Je denkt dat je wat weet maar je weet helemaal niets, je bent gewoon de zoveelste domme vuilspuiter met het intellectuele niveau van een drol die zijn zielige ego'tje een beetje op moet poetsen
door hier de bijdehante kwal uit te hangen...
U bent ongetwijfeld een verspilling van Forum ruimte.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"The TRUTH doesn't require anyone's belief." - Dale Myers
"The human mind craves a mystery more than it loves the truth." - Dan Rather
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." - John F. Kennedy
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 20, 2012, 07:41:06 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1627
|
U bent ongetwijfeld een verspilling van Forum ruimte.
yep maybe i am a waste of forum space, but i'm just allergic to bs, and the WCR is one of the biggest piles of BS i've ever seen.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions." Jerry Falwell " I'm not  " T Winky
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 20, 2012, 11:29:59 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1401
|
Dennis
If a trial happened, how do you think the removal of JFKs body from Texas would have affected the outcome? Remember, assassinating a President was not yet a Federal crime.
That's a good question Geoff, I really have no idea what the answer is. If a President hadn't been murdered maybe the prosecution would have played safe and just settled for the Tippit murder but not in this case. I can't imagine it would have stopped the trial going ahead. So I guess the outcome would have been the same. Do you have any idea Geoff?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 21, 2012, 12:57:43 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
Tony, do keep up. Experts have testified that a 201 is opened on folks who need watching. Folks such as Newman and Douglas have written about this recently and they quote Ann Ergeter's testimony before the HSCA.
She said LHO's 201 file was opened because LHO came back from Russia with issues and they did NOT trust him anymore!
Egerter said the SIG's pupose was:
"We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel who were suspected one way or another."
She was furthered asked: "When a 201 file is opened does that mean whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual, or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?"
She replied: "Well, in general, that would be correct."
She was then asked: "Would there be any other reason for OPENING up a file?"
She replied: "No, I can't think of one."
What kind of a rebuttal is that? All you did was agree with me. Just the act of opening a 201 files does not tell you what they thought about the person. Ann Egerter explained why she opened a 201 file on Oswald. The mere existence of the 201 files does not tell you that.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 21, 2012, 04:47:38 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1401
|
I want you to wrap a well oiled disassembled MC in a paper bag, leave it in there for let's say a couple of hours, then pull it out of the bag, and hand me the bag without an oil stain or a scratch mark on it.
Can you do that Dennis ?
Paul, the well oiled rifle factoid all started from a letter to Rankin from Hoover. But if you read the letter for yourself (below) you will see that Hover was in fact only talking about the firing pin and spring being "well oiled". UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20535
August 20, 1964
By Courier Service
Honorable J. Lee Rankin
General Counsel
The President's Commission
200 Maryland Avenue, Northeast
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Rankin:
On August 13, 1964, Mr. Norman Redlich of your staff, orally requested of Special Agent Robert A. Frazier, FBI Laboratory, certain information concerning the assassination rifle, Commission Number 139. Mr. Redlich requested information with regard to the following questions:
- What is the meaning of the term "plunger"?
- Was the firing pin of the rifle replaced?
- Does the FBI have information concerning the availability of spare parts for rifles such as Commission Number 139?
You are advised that the term "plunger" is a colloquial term applied to the firing pin or striker of a firearm.
The assassination rifle has been examined and nothing was found to indicate that the firing pin had been changed.
In this connection it should be noted that the firing pin of this rifle has been used extensively as shown by wear on the nose or striking portion of the firing pin and, further, the presence of rust on the firing pin and its spring may be an indication that the firing pin had not been recently changed prior to November 22, 1963. This rust would have been disturbed had the firing pin been changed subsequent to the formation of the rust. In this regard, the firing pin and spring of this weapon are well oiled and the rust present necessarily must have been formed prior to the oiling of these parts. [Emphasis added]
No oil has been applied to the weapon by the FBI; however, it is not known whether it was oiled by any other person having this rifle in his possession. It was noted during the examination of the firing pin that numerous shots have been fired with the weapon in its present well-oiled condition as shown by the presence of residues on the interior surfaces of the bolt and on the firing pin.
The Laboratory has no record of any outlet where spare parts, including firing pins, can be obtained for rifles such as Commission Number 139. In accordance with Mr. Redlich's telephonic request and in the absence of any indication that the firing pin of the rifle was changed, no investigative survey was conducted to ascertain whether any such outlets exist in the United States.
Sincerely yours,
(Signature)
J. Edgar Hoover
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 21, 2012, 04:49:47 AM by Denis Pointing »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 21, 2012, 01:15:34 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1627
|
Paul, the well oiled rifle factoid all started from a letter to Rankin from Hoover. But if you read the letter for yourself (below) you will see that Hover was in fact only talking about the firing pin and spring being "well oiled".
Alright, i go with that. Then let me rephrase my question Dennis, : I want you to wrap a badly oiled disassembled MC in a paper bag, leave it in there for let's say a couple of hours, then pull it out of the bag, and hand me the bag without an oil stain or a scratch mark on it. The problem is that "we" can't prove the bag was ever anywhere near the MC, nor was the blanket.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2012, 12:14:38 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
Alright, i go with that.
Then let me rephrase my question Dennis, :
I want you to wrap a badly oiled disassembled MC in a paper bag, leave it in there for let's say a couple of hours, then pull it out of the bag, and hand me the bag without an oil stain or a scratch mark on it.
The problem is that "we" can't prove the bag was ever anywhere near the MC, nor was the blanket.
Guess you've never handled or oiled a rifle yourself.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2012, 06:30:54 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
What kind of a rebuttal is that? All you did was agree with me.
Just the act of opening a 201 files does not tell you what they thought about the person.
Ann Egerter explained why she opened a 201 file on Oswald.
The mere existence of the 201 files does not tell you that.
Does the word "suspected" allude you? What kind of reply is this by you? She said they opened up a 201 file on someone when they had suspicion about their motives and./or actions. You LIED when you said this: "Just the act of opening a 201 file does not in and of itself define what the CIA thinks about someone." -- Tony the LIAR!Again, for the slow ones of the group (i.e. Tony) this is what was asked and answered.
She was furthered asked: "When a 201 file is opened does that mean whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual, or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?"
She replied: "Well, in general, that would be correct."
She was then asked: "Would there be any other reason for OPENING up a file?"
She replied: "No, I can't think of one."
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
