CE 143

[Steve M. Galbraith]

“Was arguing” is not the same as “ridiculing”. In fact, it’s merely an assumption.   

But calling all witnesses against Oswald liars or corrupt and all of the evidence against him tainted and phony and all of the investigations unjust and unfair is, in conspiracy world, an argument. Just dismiss it all with a wave of the hand.

Yes, that's conspiracy logic.

[Martin Weidmann]

But calling all witnesses against Oswald liars or corrupt and all of the evidence against him tainted and phony and all of the investigations unjust and unfair is, in conspiracy world, an argument. Just dismiss it all with a wave of the hand.

Yes, that's conspiracy logic.

calling all witnesses against Oswald liars or corrupt and all of the evidence against him tainted and phony

Who is doing that?

Are you always this paranoid and whiny?

[John Iacoletti]

“Was arguing” is not the same as “ridiculing”. In fact, it’s merely an assumption.   

Appealing to Tippit’s family when lying about Oswald “pulling a gun” in the theater isn’t “ridicule”, but it is ridiculous.

[John Iacoletti]

But calling all witnesses against Oswald liars or corrupt and all of the evidence against him tainted and phony and all of the investigations unjust and unfair is, in conspiracy world, an argument. Just dismiss it all with a wave of the hand.

Except nobody did that.

[Charles Collins]

Appealing to Tippit’s family when lying about Oswald “pulling a gun” in the theater isn’t “ridicule”, but it is ridiculous.

So, specifically who do you think is lying and specifically how do you think that they are they lying?


It doesn’t have to be the Tippit family. Try explaining your nonsensical idea, regarding pulling a weapon versus drawing a weapon, to someone who has risked their life on a daily basis for an extended period of time (ie: experienced major city law enforcement officers) in order to protect others from the bad people). Be sure to put it in the same context as to what was happening in the Texas Theater when LHO was arrested. And let us know what they think that they would have done under those circumstances.

[Jerry Freeman]

Bob K. Carroll is holding the pistol by the cylinder
Bob Carroll said he grabbed the pistol during the subduing of LHO in the theater.

Another convoluted thread. Is it about the pistol...Oswald's hair or Bob Carroll?

Mr. CARROLL. ~~When Lyons and I went in, a lady that was in the theatre - I don't know who she was - she said he was upstairs, and that was all the conversation I heard from her.
Mr. BALL. Do you know who the lady was?
Mr. CARROLL. No, sir; I have no idea.
Mr. BALL. Was it the girl who sells tickets?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir, whether it was or not.

It was Carroll's testimony that when he walked into the theater some gal he didn't even know told him that "he" was upstairs. So upstairs he went-----

Mr. BALL. And where was the lady when you talked to her?
Mr. CARROLL. I didn't actually talk to her, sir, but when we went through the door, she just more or less - she just made a statement that he was upstairs, and as far as having any direct conversation with her, we did not. She said upstairs and we immediately went up to the balcony.

The following statement sounds completely made up---

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and we went into the balcony and we had - or rather I had satisfied myself with the fact that he wasn't in the balcony.
Mr. BALL. Was there anyone in the balcony?
Mr. CARROLL. Well, there were people sitting around there.
Mr. BALL. How did you satisfy yourself that he was in the balcony?
Mr. CARROLL. Well, we went in and had more or less a vague idea - well, the people that I saw up in the balcony were either real young or older people and so we started back down -
Mr. BALL. Had you had a description of the man you were looking for?
Mr. CARROLL. They gave me a vague one on the telephone when I called and checked about the officer.
Mr. BALL. Who are "they"?
Mr. CARROLL. Whoever was on duty at the dispatcher's office - I don't know who it was at that time.
Mr. BALL. What was the description that he gave you?
Mr. CARROLL. He just gave a general height description and age - just generally.
Mr. BALL. Tell me what he said.
Mr. CARROLL. I'm trying to recall now exactly - he gave the height and I can't recall now exactly how he said it - it's been so long ago, and it was all - I know he gave roughly, Just a rough description. It wasn't a detailed description at all, and I'm trying to remember now exactly how he worded it.
Mr. BALL. Can you give me the approximate age - around?
Mr. CARROLL. I believe he said he was between 20 or 25 or something, like that, I'm not quite sure, because everything moved real fast and everything like that.

It was "so long ago"? "Just a rough description"? He had stopped off to use the phone? "Everything moved real fast"?
My next biggest guess is that practically every cop in the theater knew exactly who they were looking for... [not some more or less vague idea]

[Richard Smith]

So, specifically who do you think is lying and specifically how do you think that they are they lying?


It doesn’t have to be the Tippit family. Try explaining your nonsensical idea, regarding pulling a weapon versus drawing a weapon, to someone who has risked their life on a daily basis for an extended period of time (ie: experienced major city law enforcement officers) in order to protect others from the bad people). Be sure to put it in the same context as to what was happening in the Texas Theater when LHO was arrested. And let us know what they think that they would have done under those circumstances.

The contrarian brothers cast doubt on every piece of evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt and then deny that they are claiming the evidence is the product of fakery or that anyone is lying to implicate Oswald.  They make brilliant rebuttals like "Oswald's rifle - LOL."  This is Alice-in-Wonderland contrarian thinking.  They cast doubt on the evidence but then never are willing to accept the implications of their doubt having validity.  The sole objective is to suggest doubt of Oswald's guilt.  The implications of the doubt don't have to make any sense, be supported by any evidence, or even be mutually consistent with any other situations.   It is just so.  Like Inspector Clouseau, they suspect everyone and suspect no one.  A world of endless ambiguity in which no fact that they don't wish to accept can ever be proven.   It is all just "opinions" and "assumptions."