Forum members opinions on the following persons linked with Oswald

[Walt Cakebread]

Pathetic Walt.....simply pathetic. You cannot answer a question for the forum?s members? You are not a researcher looking for answers.  You?re a blatant charlaton spreading lies and misrepresenting actual facts.  History is debated Walt, not argued.  You made an accusation. You are obligated to support that statement with facts. You?ve been challenged to do so as many CT?s have been challenged to do so the past 55 years.  All have failed.  Join the club.

Psssst.... Paulie.... If I had failed, you wouldn't feel compelled to attempt to refute my stance.

[Paul May]

Psssst.... Paulie.... If I had failed, you wouldn't feel compelled to attempt to refute my stance.

So, as the failed conspiracy theorist often does when caught in out right lies and fabrications, you now revert to condescension.  Paulie?  You must think you?re DiEugenio.  That?s his playbook. This is your history Walt. This forum knows that simply by reading this thread. Help society Walt.  Get an education. Perhaps, just perhaps you might learn how to support your utter stupidity. Cya.

[Martin Weidmann]

So, as the failed conspiracy theorist often does when caught in out right lies and fabrications, you now revert to condescension.  Paulie?  You must think you?re DiEugenio.  That?s his playbook. This is your history Walt. This forum knows that simply by reading this thread. Help society Walt.  Get an education. Perhaps, just perhaps you might learn how to support your utter stupidity. Cya.

Get an education. Perhaps, just perhaps you might learn how to support your utter stupidity

You are not making sense, Paul

If he is utterly stupid (as you claim) an education isn't going to help him much, is it now? And if his eduction did help there wouldn't be any stupidity to support, so why would he learn how to support it?

Just saying....

[Walt Cakebread]

So, as the failed conspiracy theorist often does when caught in out right lies and fabrications, you now revert to condescension.  Paulie?  You must think you?re DiEugenio.  That?s his playbook. This is your history Walt. This forum knows that simply by reading this thread. Help society Walt.  Get an education. Perhaps, just perhaps you might learn how to support your utter stupidity. Cya.

Hee, hee,hee,....    What a golden example of a dichotomy ....  Who's reverting to condescension, and insults?   Huh Paulie?

[Walt Cakebread]

So, as the failed conspiracy theorist often does when caught in out right lies and fabrications, you now revert to condescension.  Paulie?  You must think you?re DiEugenio.  That?s his playbook. This is your history Walt. This forum knows that simply by reading this thread. Help society Walt.  Get an education. Perhaps, just perhaps you might learn how to support your utter stupidity. Cya.

Psssst Paulie, Do you see the contradiction in your statement ?......

You must think you?re DiEugenio.  That?s his playbook. This is your history Walt.

On one hand you say that I'm like Di Eugenio because "that's his playbook"  ...but on the other hand you say, "this is YOUR history, Walt"

You seem to be a bit rattled......

[Richard Smith]

No, Mr. Cakebread. She said she found the draft of the letter, made a copy of it, and showed it to her husband, Michael. He dismissed her concerns so she didn't do anything afterwards. She didn't call the FBI about it. She testified that she considered giving it to the FBI the next time agent Hosty came but she didn't.

Here is the relevant portion of her testimony:
Mr. JENNER - What did you do ultimately with your draft of the letter and the original?
Mrs. PAINE - The first appearance of an FBI person on the 23d of November, I gave the original to them. The next day it probably was I said I also had a copy and gave them that. I wanted to be shut of it.
Mr. JENNER - So I take it, Mrs. Paine, you did not deliver either the original or the copy or call attention to the original or the copy with respect to the FBI.
Mrs. PAINE - Prior.
Mr. JENNER - Prior to the 23d did you say?
Mrs. PAINE - That is right.

So again, prior to the assassination she withheld the letter. The rest of her testimony on the matter is here:  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm

Ruth Paine provides very little information that is incriminating to Oswald in the assassination of JFK.  If she were some type of master spy with the assignment of framing Oswald, she would have done obvious things like confirm he stored a rifle in her garage, carried a long bag to work that morning, had some type of grievance against JFK, and was acting strangely on the night before the assassination.  She did none of those things.  So why do CTers obsess on her as a sinister spy?  Because she presents an enormous problem for them.  If she is merely a suburban housewife doing a charitable deed for Oswald and his family, then the entire sequence of events that leads to Oswald's presence in the TSBD becomes a matter of chance that no one is controlling.  It blows the notion of a planned conspiracy narrative out of the water because Oswald's presence at the TSBD on 11.22 would simply be a random event.  As a result, kooks like Walt have to claim she is a spy or FBI informant etc.  It's laughable.  And then he even gets the basic facts wrong. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Ruth Paine provides very little information that is incriminating to Oswald in the assassination of JFK.  If she were some type of master spy with the assignment of framing Oswald, she would have done obvious things like confirm he stored a rifle in her garage, carried a long bag to work that morning, had some type of grievance against JFK, and was acting strangely on the night before the assassination.  She did none of those things.  So why do CTers obsess on her as a sinister spy?  Because she presents an enormous problem for them.  If she is merely a suburban housewife doing a charitable deed for Oswald and his family, then the entire sequence of events that leads to Oswald's presence in the TSBD becomes a matter of chance that no one is controlling.  It blows the notion of a planned conspiracy narrative out of the water because Oswald's presence at the TSBD on 11.22 would simply be a random event.  As a result, kooks like Walt have to claim she is a spy or FBI informant etc.  It's laughable.  And then he even gets the basic facts wrong.

She offers no evidence whatsoever of motive or means for Oswald. None. Neither does Michael Paine.

The two most critical parts of framing Oswald are completely absent from what they revealed: nothing about him hating JFK, nothing about him being distraught, nothing about a rifle, nothing about seeing him with a large package that morning of the assassination, nothing about violence from him...nothing, nothing, nothing.  Heck, if anything they present evidence that Oswald DIDN'T shoot JFK.

Some conspirators they were!