Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Martin Weidmann]

But what difference does it really make which door Oswald utilized to leave the building? Whether it be the back door or the front door, there is no doubt whatsoever that Lee Oswald WAS inside the building at circa 12:32 PM and he then got onto a bus (and then a cab) a few minutes later. You surely don't deny the fact that Oswald made it to his roominghouse by about 1:00 PM, do you? Therefore, Oswald definitely DID leave the TSBD building within a very few minutes of the shooting. That fact is beyond all doubt (even amongst CTers).

Also....

When I discussed Oswald's "unusual" actions on 11/21 and 11/22, you need to ADD UP ALL of those actions and movements, instead of isolating just one of them (which is what you did above).

And when ALL of those actions/movements are added together, the result is, IMO, a person named Oswald who certainly was NOT an innocent "patsy" on 11/22/63.

David,

When I discussed Oswald's "unusual" actions on 11/21 and 11/22, you need to ADD UP ALL of those actions and movements,

When I discussed them all together, in an earlier post, you seem to have ignored it. Why is that?

Could it be it's because there is an enormous lack of actual evidence and way too much speculation and assumptions and you know it?

And when ALL of those actions/movements are added together, the result is, IMO, a person named Oswald who certainly was NOT an innocent "patsy" on 11/22/63.

For the reason already explained in my previous post, I don't think there can be something like "innocent patsy". What there can be is somebody who was involved in some sort of scheme at a lower level that was actually set up to be a patsy in the real scheme.

Having said that, when you put all the actions and movements together, you first need to be sure you do so in the right context. As also discussed in my previous reply to you, there are simply too many items in the list you provided that can be explained in more than one way. So, when you start adding it all together with the wrong context you most likely will get the conclusion you want but that may not be the correct one.

[Martin Weidmann]

I see John has just posted in another thread, so his usual "excuse" that he has a life doesn't apply.

A couple of days ago I asked him why I should take a 45 year old memory by Styles more seriously than a contradictory statement she made years earlier and a statement Adams made to the FBI two days after the event?

So predictable and completely boring.

You are confusing having an open mind with being utterly gullible.

But ok, let's be open minded; tell me why I should take a 45 year old memory by Styles more seriously than a contradictory statement she made years earlier and a statement Adams made to the FBI two days after the event?

Go on than, John... tell me

John's reply (so far);

Go figure!

[Steve M. Galbraith]

But what difference does it really make which door Oswald utilized to leave the building? Whether it be the back door or the front door, there is no doubt whatsoever that Lee Oswald WAS inside the building at circa 12:32 PM and he then got onto a bus (and then a cab) a few minutes later. You surely don't deny the fact that Oswald made it to his roominghouse by about 1:00 PM, do you? Therefore, Oswald definitely DID leave the TSBD building within a very few minutes of the shooting. That fact is beyond all doubt (even amongst CTers).

Also....

When I discussed Oswald's "unusual" actions on 11/21 and 11/22, you need to ADD UP ALL of those actions and movements, instead of isolating just one of them (which is what you did above).

And when ALL of those actions/movements are added together, the result is, IMO, a person named Oswald who certainly was NOT an innocent "patsy" on 11/22/63.

Dave, as you well know they think, insist really, that Oswald was framed for the assassination of JFK. And then further framed for the murder of Tippit. And then sort of post-framed for the attempt on Walker (Oswald is dead; why would they need to frame him again? and risk revealing the conspiracy? for what purpose?). And along the way all of these separate lines of evidence in each case, in the assassination, in the shooting of Tippit, in the attempt on Walker, was faked, manufactured, falsified. All of it. Every single piece. The physical, the eyewitness and the circumstantial. Meanwhile, all of Oswald's behavior is innocently explained away and all of the behavior of others implicating him is considered corrupt, e.g., they lied or were ordered to lie or were coached.

Then the multiple investigations into this, by several generations of Americans of various backgrounds over decades both in the government and in the media, covered up what happened. So it was done, then covered up at that time, and then the cover up has itself been covered up over the following decades. By a different group of Americans - Democrats and Republicans can't agree on a single thing; but they agreed on this? Really?. And why? The media, the same one that exposed the crimes of the government have also covered this up. Because Operation Mockingbird or something (so the same media that exposed these other abuses were ordered by the CIA to coverup for the assassination and they did so?).

This is, frankly, a psychosis, a detachment from reality. It is not possible to do this. The government is a bureaucracy; it's not a monolithic "thing." We know it cannot be done; they think it not only is possible but was done. There is no way to persuade a person with this view that they are wrong. Whatever evidence you present will simply be added to their mountain of conspiracy. It's why when a new "discovery" from the files are found it's simply added to their conspiracy view. If we found 10 more witnesses that he shot Tippit or was seen fleeing then would simply add that 10 to their conspiracy. Another 10 were coached or ordered to identify him.

We can try but, again, as you know it's not going to work. The only way they can get out of this view, this detachment from reality, is by themselves, their own re-discovery, their own realization. Otherwise they simply consider what we say as more lies by fools or by disinformation agents.

[Martin Weidmann]

As you know Dave, they think Oswald was framed for the assassination of JFK. And then framed for the murder of Tippit. And then framed for the attempt on Walker (he's dead; why would they need to frame him again?). And along the way all of these separate lines of evidence in each case, in the assassination, in the shooting of Tippit, in the attempt on Walker, was faked, corrupt, manufactured, falsified. All of it. All of Oswald's behavior is innocently explained; all of the behavior of others implicating him is considered corrupt.

Then the multiple investigations into this, by several generations of Americans of various backgrounds over decades both in the government and in the media, covered up what happened. So it was done, then covered up, and then the cover up has itself been covered up. By a separate group of Americans - Democrats and Republicans can't agree on a single thing; but they agreed on this? Really?. The media, the same one that exposed the crimes of the government have also covered this up. Because Operation Mockingbird or something (so the same media that exposed these other abuses were ordered by the CIA to coverup for the assassination?).

This is, frankly, a psychosis, a detachment from reality. It is not possible to do this. The government is a bureaucracy; it's not a monolithic "thing." We know it cannot be done; they think it not only is possible but was done. There is no way to persuade a person with this view that they are wrong. Whatever evidence you present will simply be added to their mountain of conspiracy. It's why when a new "discovery" from the files are found it's simply added to their conspiracy view. If we found 10 more witnesses that he shot Tippit or was seen fleeing then would simply add that 10 to their conspiracy. Another 10 were coached or ordered to identify him.

We can try but, again, as you know. It's not going to work. The only way they can get out of this view, this detachment, is by themselves. They simply consider what we say as more lies by fools or by disinformation agents.

Instead of constantly complaining about what CTs and skeptics supposedly believe and say, do you ever have anything of substance to add to a discussion?

Who appointed you to be the guardian of the truth? It is a classic mistake to think that just because you believe something it must be true.

If you are so sure that the narrative you believe in is the right one, you should be able to defend and explain it, yet you never do. Not very convincing!

[Fergus O'Brien]

But what difference does it really make which door Oswald utilized to leave the building? Whether it be the back door or the front door, there is no doubt whatsoever that Lee Oswald WAS inside the building at circa 12:32 PM and he then got onto a bus (and then a cab) a few minutes later. You surely don't deny the fact that Oswald made it to his roominghouse by about 1:00 PM, do you? Therefore, Oswald definitely DID leave the TSBD building within a very few minutes of the shooting. That fact is beyond all doubt (even amongst CTers).

Also....

When I discussed Oswald's "unusual" actions on 11/21 and 11/22, you need to ADD UP ALL of those actions and movements, instead of isolating just one of them (which is what you did above).

And when ALL of those actions/movements are added together, the result is, IMO, a person named Oswald who certainly was NOT an innocent "patsy" on 11/22/63.

well the OFFICIAL version of events , the LN version of events has Oswald not only leaving 3 minutes after the shooting but via the front door . so it made a difference to the Warren commission . and it makes a difference to LN . i did not isolate this , you posted several points and i was making a point of my own . the point being that zero proof and zero witnesses exist to prove that Oswald left via the front door 3 minutes after the shooting .yet both of these are claimed to be fact . so how many other things claimed to be fact actually are not fact ? . there is no doubt that Oswald left his work place , which door he left by is not a proven thing by any stretch . and that was my point , even you in essence state something to be fact that actually is not proven fact . in fact had he left via the front door quite a few people would have had to have seen him including a certain mr brennan , none of them saw him leave via the front door . it is actually more likely (all be it equally unproven) that he left via the rear door and the loading bay area . and one witness all be it belatedly said that is what he saw , and it was wes frazier .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Evidence is part of proof.

Evidence vs circumstantial evidence can also be compared to alibi vs airtight alibi. There is actual circumstantial evidence but not only does LHO not have an airtight alibi he does not even have an alibi at all at the time of the assassination. 

In the absence of an alibi, when does LHO actions indicate fleeing the scene of the crime. When he attempts to shoot a cop in a movie theater? When he was caught sneaking into a dark movie theater? Ditching his jacket? Leaving the scene of a shooting of an officer? Arriving at his rental to stay long enough to get a jacket and a pistol? Having the cab drop him not at his rental but several blocks away? Get on a bus to just get off of it within a few blocks? Leave his place of employment unnoticed within minutes of the crime and not be noticed by anyone? No alibi at the time of the shooting or in his own words came down the stairs to see what the “commotion” was about? Finally, a Marine who does not know what gunfire sounds like? Instead confused by the shots or “commotion” as he states.

Oswald offered no alibi , he said he ate alone . but again we have a person claiming things to be proven FACT when that simply is not the case .Brewer in testimony stated that he asked postal if she saw a man who he described to her go in ,according to brewer she said she did not see any such man sneak in . postal in her testimony not only said she saw the man sneak in but that she watched him walk along jeffferson and turn right and sneak in . that is quite a contradiction . who was right ? who was wrong ? , did one lie ? .in addition theater witnesses placed oswald in the theater quite a time before the brewer sighting . some 30 minutes prior .

i am not aware of any iron clad proof that the light color jacket found was oswalds . it was the wrong size , it was laundered when Marina did all Oswalds washing . it is difficult to place any stock in claims  by marina when we know there was atleast by inference a threat to deport her if she did not co operate . this is supported by Robert Oswald an LN witness .

did every single witness within the building hear shots ? .

Mr. BELIN - Did you hear any shots fired?
Mr. WEST - I didn't hear a one. Didn't hear a one.

so why then would you infer that Oswald would have had to naturally hear shots ? .

i believe from memory when you talk about Oswald and a "COMMOTION" that you talking about what is in the harry holmes notes , notes that very clearly do not relay certain events in the order they happened or not at the times they happened . in the notes holmes has Oswald saying he was still on the 6th floor at the time of the shots , something the BUG tried to use to his advantage . we know oswald never placed himself on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Dave, as you well know they think, insist really, that Oswald was framed for the assassination of JFK. And then further framed for the murder of Tippit. And then sort of post-framed for the attempt on Walker (Oswald is dead; why would they need to frame him again? and risk revealing the conspiracy? for what purpose?). And along the way all of these separate lines of evidence in each case, in the assassination, in the shooting of Tippit, in the attempt on Walker, was faked, manufactured, falsified. All of it. Every single piece. The physical, the eyewitness and the circumstantial. Meanwhile, all of Oswald's behavior is innocently explained away and all of the behavior of others implicating him is considered corrupt, e.g., they lied or were ordered to lie or were coached.

Then the multiple investigations into this, by several generations of Americans of various backgrounds over decades both in the government and in the media, covered up what happened. So it was done, then covered up at that time, and then the cover up has itself been covered up over the following decades. By a different group of Americans - Democrats and Republicans can't agree on a single thing; but they agreed on this? Really?. And why? The media, the same one that exposed the crimes of the government have also covered this up. Because Operation Mockingbird or something (so the same media that exposed these other abuses were ordered by the CIA to coverup for the assassination and they did so?).

This is, frankly, a psychosis, a detachment from reality. It is not possible to do this. The government is a bureaucracy; it's not a monolithic "thing." We know it cannot be done; they think it not only is possible but was done. There is no way to persuade a person with this view that they are wrong. Whatever evidence you present will simply be added to their mountain of conspiracy. It's why when a new "discovery" from the files are found it's simply added to their conspiracy view. If we found 10 more witnesses that he shot Tippit or was seen fleeing then would simply add that 10 to their conspiracy. Another 10 were coached or ordered to identify him.

We can try but, again, as you know it's not going to work. The only way they can get out of this view, this detachment from reality, is by themselves, their own re-discovery, their own realization. Otherwise they simply consider what we say as more lies by fools or by disinformation agents.

that is quite a theory you got there , you sure you are not C T ? lol .