On another thread, in response to my statement that Oswald's "Handcuffed Communist Salute" tends to support my theory that Oswald was more fundamentally Marxist-Leninist than Khrushchev, et al., and that he'd decided to "advance The Dialectic" by taking matters into his own hands, John Mytton wrote:
Oswald was well read and I think he was clever in a smart ass kind of way, but not clever enough to have a job beyond low paying menial labour and this pressure of being a failure along with the grim prospect of having to support a growing family lead Oswald to do the unimaginable.
...
John,
I believe what you point out, above, was definitely a contributing factor, but if Oswald was just tired of being a skinny little loser with marital problems, why, then, the "Communist salute" (or whatever it's called)?
The only other "explanation" for this pose I've read is that innocent Oswald, not realizing he'd been set up by the evil, evil, evil CIA, thought he was on some sort of deception mission for The Agency and was trying to stay "in character" by posing like this and, of course, requesting that John "Smith Act" Abt be his lawyer.
... But I find that scenario a bit implausible.
-- MWT ;)
Walter,After his return from the USSR, Oswald said he was a Marxist but insisted that he was not, at that time, a communist or Marxist-Leninist. He said he rejected the Soviet version of Marxism (Marxist-Leninism) as a corrupted version. He wrote that the US and USSR were two "slave" systems that needed to be rejected.
Sure, I suppose that is a possibility.
Maybe they hadn't noticed that.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS Didn't Oswald say something about being a Marxist on a New Orleans radio show?
PPS Didn't Nelson Delgado say Oswald read Das Kapital while he was at El Toro?
Etc, etc, etc ...
Walter,
Sure, I suppose that is a possibility.
Maybe they hadn't noticed that.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS Didn't Oswald say something about being a Marxist on a New Orleans radio show?
PPS Didn't Nelson Delgado say Oswald read Das Kapital while he was at El Toro?
Etc, etc, etc ...
Do you suppose that Lee was merely holding up his hands to graphically show his handler that he had been arrested?........" I do request that someone come to my legal defense"
On another thread, in response to my statement that Oswald's "Handcuffed Communist Salute" tends to support my theory that Oswald was more fundamentally Marxist-Leninist than Khrushchev, et al., and that he'd decided to "advance The Dialectic" by taking matters into his own hands, John Mytton wrote:
Oswald was well read and I think he was clever in a smart ass kind of way, but not clever enough to have a job beyond low paying menial labour and this pressure of being a failure along with the grim prospect of having to support a growing family lead Oswald to do the unimaginable.
...
John,
I believe what you point out, above, was definitely a contributing factor, but if Oswald was just tired of being a skinny little loser with marital problems, why, then, the "Communist salute" (or whatever it's called)?
The only other "explanation" for this pose I've read is that innocent Oswald, not realizing he'd been set up by the evil, evil, evil CIA, thought he was on some sort of deception mission for The Agency and was trying to stay "in character" by posing like this and, of course, requesting that John "Smith Act" Abt be his lawyer.
... But I find that scenario a bit implausible.
-- MWT ;)
... unless that is, in his own sick perverted way he was at peace because he perceived the murders to be morally justified.More psychology...really?
Nah. If the “mud wrassler” sees a “handcuffed communist salute”, then by golly that’s exactly what it is.
More psychology...really?
(http://www.rogerwendell.com/images/friendlyadvice/friendly_advice.jpg)
A strange exchange was when Sergeant Hill gave Oswald the chance to hide his face and I reckon under the circumstances anyone who was innocent would not like to be associated with The Killing of a Cop much less The Killing of the President but Oswald wanted to be seen because he had done "nothing to be ashamed of"?, that doesn't even make sense unless that is, in his own sick perverted way he was at peace because he perceived the murders to be morally justified.
Iacoletti,
Is your vision still impaired from the nightly Ritualistic Onanism in your garden?
Do you still think the three women on the Pergola Patio in Towner might be men wearing Bermuda shorts?
Everything still blobs?
Didn't your mother warn you when you were young?
-- MWT ;)
Are you still beating your wife?
Are you still beating your wife?
John Iacoletti
Naw, she's won the last three games.
-- MWT ;)
One full page of silliness and self-indulgence. What a credit to the forum.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
(https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/938321227217974821/ED52C565837CDBDAB74186DAD988E238506585A6/)
JohnM
Yeah....... put the backyard photo of this sick f**k holding the murder weapon and a copy of the militant alongside the one with his 'little salute', and you've got two-thirds of a holy tryptich. maybe the third one would be him lying in the gurney, trying(?) to give his little stigmatic sign a final go..... sigh+. had he lived, ozz probably would've been 'epsteined'.
Yeah....... put the backyard photo of this sick f**k holding the murder weapon and a copy of the militant alongside the one with his 'little salute', and you've got two-thirds of a holy tryptich. maybe the third one would be him lying in the gurney, trying(?) to give his little stigmatic sign a final go..... sigh+. had he lived, ozz probably would've been 'epsteined'.
.......Quotehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cheek.htm
...Mr. GRIFFIN. When did the police officer whose name might have been Olson, when did he rent from you?
Mrs. CHEEK. Beachcomber in 1961 or 1960, I believe.
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did he continue to rent from you?
Mrs. CHEEK. I don't think he rented there very long, 3 or 4 months. But this was after. Let's see, no, it wasn't after. That was after the first time I had met him.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, other than Mr. Olson, you don't know of anybody else of your acquaintances or tenants who knew Jack Ruby?
Mrs. CHEEK. No. You know, his name has been in the paper and his advertising; and I am sure a lot of people had heard about him and go to the club, but I had never gone to the club.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now did your husband know Jack Ruby? Mr. Cheek, did he know Jack Ruby?
Mrs. CHEEK. No. I don't know whether he did or not. He may know Jack Ruby because he is a National Cash Register man downtown that fixes all of the cash registers. He might have gone up and worked on a cash register. I really don't know. I haven't asked him.....
....Mrs. CHEEK. The man went through those records at the house. I let them go all through whatever they wanted to when they came out.
Mr. GRIFFIN. The Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mrs. CHEEK. Yes. And I told them what connection I had in connection with Jack Ruby. He asked me to put $6,000 in a nightclub.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I am wondering if I could ask you if you will make those records available again? I think what I would like to do is ask one of the Secret Service agents to go out there and either make some arrangements to photocopy them and then return them to you, or else if it would be more convenient to let me look at them for some short period of time, and then return them to you. I think I would prefer to photocopy them, unless they are voluminous and it would be prohibitive. I think I would only be going back to January 1959.
Mrs. CHEEK. Those two men went through everything I had and looked at it.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you object if I----
Mrs. CHEEK. It is just an awful lot of trouble for me right now because I am very busy and I have illness in my home. If I thought I could help you, and really if there is anything there, I would bring them down myself to you.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I would like to do this in a way that would be least inconvenient.
Mrs. CHEEK. But I don't know Oswald and I just knew Jack Ruby when he asked me to invest $6,000 and I didn't do it. I didn't like the way he wanted me to invest. He wanted to put in $1,000, and me $6,000.
Mr. GRIFFIN. What would be the least inconvenient way to do this? If perhaps all the books are in one place, we could get the books from January 1, 1959, on to the present and photocopy them in a day and then return them to you. Would that be convenient?
Mrs. CHEEK. I have them stored, is the only thing. I have a lot of things in front, and it is difficult in digging it out, you know.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I suppose really--is there going to be anytime in the next week or so that would be more convenient for you than any other time?
Mrs. CHEEK. I really don't know of anything else. My daughter has cancer. She may be well and she may not be, I don't know.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me ask you this. Would you retain these records, and sometime during the next month, let me ask one of the agents to contact you again in connection with getting copies of them for us, and you could work out at that time what would be most convenient to you. If you don't like it that way, then suggest it some other way, because I want to do this some way that would be least inconvenient to you.
Mrs. CHEEK. Well, you are welcome to come to see them again as far as that is concerned, but I don't want to let them go out of my hands. I am not going to let them go from me, because if some of those things are missing, it is my fault. The men can come out there any time and look them over if they want to look them over and take pictures or whatever they may want to do, or copy them all off. They can come out there and just copy every name that I have ever had or ever rented to from the time of 1947, if they would like.
Mr. GRIFFIN. If this were done at your home, that would be the best so far as you are concerned?
Mrs. CHEEK. Yes; I will have to go get them. I never have moved them from Swiss Avenue, and they are in the storage house. I will have to go over and get them and bring them over to Hillcrest.
Mr. GRIFFIN. How many different boxes are we talking about?
Mrs. CHEEK. Everything I have ever owned, I guess is what I was going to give you. That is what I did before. Every record I have, every name that I ever rented to, I give it to the men that was out there and you may have them now.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I am sure we don't want to go back that far. Well, let me see what we can work out, with the Secret Service or the Bureau, and then I will either contact you myself about it or I will ask someone of the agents to
385
do it, and I think it could be done fairly simply. I know in the past that photographers can set the camera on a kitchen table and run these things through. I take it then when Jack Ruby contacted you in connection with buying out a part of the Carousel Club, that he got your name from somebody?....
......Mr. GRIFFIN. Now I will ask you this, too. Do you have any information that you consider to be of any importance in connection with what this Commission is doing, that you haven't provided us so far?
Mrs. CHEEK. I don't think I have any information at all that I could give you. If I had, I had already called someone and told you about it. If I had ever talked to anyone or anyone mentioned anything about this, I just, like my sister, if she got a letter through the mail, I said, "You call the FBI immediately and turn it in." "Turn everything in."
She would get letters through the mail from different people and the people would be coming out interviewing, and I said, "Call immediately and tell them,"
Mr. GRIFFIN. If anything comes to your attention----
Mrs. CHEEK. I will call you and tell you, surely. I will try to be as helpful as I can be, because I don't understand it, like everyone else.
Mr. GRIFFIN. We certainly appreciate that, and we are trying to get as much as we can.
Mrs. CHEEK. I can't feature Ruby killing Oswald, and I can't feature the President being killed.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, you are not the only one.
Mrs. CHEEK. It shocked me.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Again, I want to thank you for coming down here. It has been a pleasure to meet you......
https://jfkfacts.org/dallas-police-chief-jesse-curry-on-the-origin-of-the-shots/#comment-859206
Tom S. February 23, 2016 at 6:52 am
Curry, November 6, 1969:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IR9sQGSVSHs/VsxHifu8MsI/AAAAAAAAC74/YHFrEHfvvLY/s512-Ic42/Curry110669.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ke8rhgkIvu8/VsxJa71K6GI/AAAAAAAAC8Q/Kx0nF1QNgos/s512-Ic42/Curry110669FullPg.jpg)
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Curry%20Jesse%20Chief%20Dallas%20Police%20Department/Item%2005.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldJesseCurryObitPg2.jpg)
.......
Back then, at junior high school development level, this apt description was not yet a "knee jerk" component of my vocabulary.:Quoteclus·ter·f***
/ˈkləstərˌfək/
Learn to pronounce
noun VULGAR SLANG•US
a disastrously mishandled situation or undertaking.
Mark, they "din't" play it straight with us? I am shocked, flumoxed. Say it ain't so!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTr_fGr4lpDYClCJE0eYEYYYC3lDTX2O6B4GJ0R2ylKHo9UBzv1)
VS Image published in 1969, by Jesse Curry:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldWalkersDriveway1957ChevyCurryBook.jpg)
Also published in former DPD Chief Curry's 1969 book.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldCurryBookJailElevator.jpg)
and:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldAdiosCurryBookPhoto.jpg)
he still killed him. he still killed tippit. he almost killed walker. he almost killed himself (domage !). all the rest is hubris and covering one's ass. this goes back to the 20's !!! but back then, it had nothing to do with kennedy's whack. nor did the 'harvey & lee' fable. you are all just tilting at windmills (get a back brace!). why does this con go on?
And the legacy / epitaph of the DPD & the WC:
https://jfkfacts.org/dallas-police-chief-jesse-curry-on-the-origin-of-the-shots/#comment-859206
Tom S. February 23, 2016 at 6:52 am
Curry, November 6, 1969:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IR9sQGSVSHs/VsxHifu8MsI/AAAAAAAAC74/YHFrEHfvvLY/s512-Ic42/Curry110669.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ke8rhgkIvu8/VsxJa71K6GI/AAAAAAAAC8Q/Kx0nF1QNgos/s512-Ic42/Curry110669FullPg.jpg)
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Curry%20Jesse%20Chief%20Dallas%20Police%20Department/Item%2005.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldJesseCurryObitPg2.jpg)
.......
Back then, at junior high school development level, this apt description was not yet a "knee jerk" component of my vocabulary.:
On another thread, in response to my statement that Oswald's "Handcuffed Communist Salute" tends to support my theory that Oswald was more fundamentally Marxist-Leninist than Khrushchev....
"Communist salute"? You mean this?--------
(https://i2.wp.com/angry.net/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/obama-communist-salute.jpg)
"Communist salute"? You mean this?--------
XXXX obama-communist-salute.jpg
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/05/15/the-frothing-right-prefers-oleg-deripaska-as-an-fbi-asset-to-christopher-steele/
May 15, 2018
If John Solomon were still doing journalism, the lede of this piece would be that the FBI interviewed Oleg Deripaska in September 2016, even as the Russian operation to tamper in the election was ongoing....
...Update: Chuck Ross did a story based on Solomon’s report, and did note that the FBI questioned Deripaska in September 2016. But, fresh off complaining that I had called him out for doing this in another story, turns a story about Manafort and his long-time Russian associate into a story about the dossier (in which Deripaska is not named)....
Hours ago, in another thread, I pointed out to you your choosing to single out and "present" Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) (a video from dailycaller, employer of Trump-Hannity directed John Solomon "clone," Trump-Hannity directed, Chuck Ross,) here you go again. Trump supporters-apologists are the Constitutional crisis level problem, Jerry, not Rep. Waters or President Obama. I am posting this polite (restrained) observation, considering this thread was unrelated to Trump supporters; both of your posts featuring black, democratic politicians are inappropriate, uncalled for....
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/full-text-donald-trump-inauguration-speech-transcript-233907
(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/8431286/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ffb%2F70%2Ff4cdd48f4ec38356b9ff8363c97d%2F20170120-donald-trump-inauguration-getty.jpg)
President Donald Trump pumps his fist afteraddressing("American Carnaging") the crowd during his swearing-in ceremony on January 20 at the Capitol in Washington, DC. | Getty
| (https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/8431286/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ffb%2F70%2Ff4cdd48f4ec38356b9ff8363c97d%2F20170120-donald-trump-inauguration-getty.jpg) | (https://us.hola.com/imagenes/celebrities/2017012019736/barack-michelle-obama-handover-trump-inauguration/0-143-493/featured_5_3-t.jpg) |
| (https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/trump-side-by-side-1-1548153672.jpg) Above: Original image on left; altered image on right. | (https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/317ec60/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fd3%2Fb9%2Fc21fffd84d078673bc61a5b6870d%2F150916-donald-trump-point-up-gty-1160.jpg) Hand and face approximately on same plane (minimizes perspective) |
in another thread your posts.... are inappropriate, uncalled forSo you use this thread to call it out?
So you use this thread to call it out?
That entire thread is inappropriate and most of it uncalled for. Were it up to me--I would delete it all.
Mark, they "din't" play it straight with us? I am shocked, flumoxed. Say it ain't so!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTr_fGr4lpDYClCJE0eYEYYYC3lDTX2O6B4GJ0R2ylKHo9UBzv1)
VS Image published in 1969, by Jesse Curry:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldWalkersDriveway1957ChevyCurryBook.jpg)
Also published in former DPD Chief Curry's 1969 book.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldCurryBookJailElevator.jpg)
and:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldAdiosCurryBookPhoto.jpg)
And the legacy / epitaph of the DPD & the WC:
https://jfkfacts.org/dallas-police-chief-jesse-curry-on-the-origin-of-the-shots/#comment-859206
Tom S. February 23, 2016 at 6:52 am
Curry, November 6, 1969:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IR9sQGSVSHs/VsxHifu8MsI/AAAAAAAAC74/YHFrEHfvvLY/s512-Ic42/Curry110669.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ke8rhgkIvu8/VsxJa71K6GI/AAAAAAAAC8Q/Kx0nF1QNgos/s512-Ic42/Curry110669FullPg.jpg)
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Curry%20Jesse%20Chief%20Dallas%20Police%20Department/Item%2005.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldJesseCurryObitPg2.jpg)
.......
Back then, at junior high school development level, this apt description was not yet a "knee jerk" component of my vocabulary.:
On another thread, in response to my statement that Oswald's "Handcuffed Communist Salute" tends to support my theory that Oswald was more fundamentally Marxist-Leninist than Khrushchev, et al.
I cannot help but believe that LHO saw this photo in the news:
Castro was LHO's idol and getting to Cuba was LHO's goal.
I cannot help but believe that LHO saw this photo in the news:
(https://i.vgy.me/JYl01c.jpg)
And imitation is the highest form of flattery:
(https://i.vgy.me/AMoEM2.jpg)
(https://media.tenor.com/images/3bdb903fe48f8e5f7cc4ca7b02a932c0/tenor.gif)
That’s a stretch, even by LN standards.
It’s an associated press photo. Do you think that it wasn’t in the news?
It’s a stretch that the two photos have anything to do with each other.
Castro was LHO's idol and getting to Cuba was LHO's goal.
I cannot help but believe that LHO saw this photo in the news:
(https://i.vgy.me/JYl01c.jpg)
And imitation is the highest form of flattery:
(https://i.vgy.me/AMoEM2.jpg)
Charlie, you're a few french fries short of having a happy meal..... You assume something to be true, based on NOTHING but your imagination and then assume that Lee was imitating Castro.........WEIRD!
Charlie, you're a few french fries short of having a happy meal..... You assume something to be true, based on NOTHING but your imagination and then assume that Lee was imitating Castro.........WEIRD!
Yes, Charlie.
How dare you suggest that Oswald was an avowed Marxist?
The nerve!
-- MWT ;)
The communist salute is the symbol which both LHO and Castro identify with. And Castro's description of himself most definitely describes LHO to a T:
The Cuban leader, in his own words, is "violent, given to tantrums, devious, manipulative, and defiant of all authority."
You're weird, Charlie..... and blinded by your emotions.
That opinion doesn’t surprise me (coming from one who apparently doesn’t think that there is any evidence whatsoever in the assassination case).
The communist salute is the symbol which both LHO and Castro identify with.
I didn’t say that.
However, it doesn’t surprise me that your confirmation bias would interpret a Castro “communist salute” in a picture of a guy showing a reporter his handcuffed hands.
I didn’t say that.
However, it doesn’t surprise me that your confirmation bias would interpret a Castro “communist salute” in a picture of a guy showing a reporter his handcuffed hands.
What is your evidence that Oswald identified with a “communist salute” or even thought there was such a thing?
And while we’re at it, what does any of this have to do with the assassination?
Marxist somehow equals assassin?
From “Malcontent - Lee Harvey Oswald’s Confession by Conduct” by Sean R. DeGrilla:
It has been the official salute of all Communist Parties. It encapsulates connotations of resistance, solidarity, pride and militancy in one simple gesture. To understand the meaning of Oswald’s clenched-fist salute displayed while under arrest in police custody, and as he lay dying on the floor of police headquarters, it is important to understand the gesture’s rich and deep history. “The clenched-fist salute has been used among revolutionaries for many centuries as a symbol of defiance, comradeship, and solidarity. It was employed during the bloody French revolution of 1789, and again during the industrial revolution of 1848. At the formation of the First International in London in 1864… Karl Marx and his followers gave the clenched-fist salute… it had been used by the Paris Communes of 1871, a violent affair which led to the deaths of over 25,000 Parisians. Since the Third International, the Comintern begun in Moscow in 1919, it has been the official salute of all Communist Parties throughout the world.”[ 223] The socialists followed suit with the communists and adopted the clenched-fist salute.
From “Malcontent - Lee Harvey Oswald’s Confession by Conduct” by Sean R. DeGrilla:
It has been the official salute of all Communist Parties. It encapsulates connotations of resistance, solidarity, pride and militancy in one simple gesture. To understand the meaning of Oswald’s clenched-fist salute displayed while under arrest in police custody, and as he lay dying on the floor of police headquarters, it is important to understand the gesture’s rich and deep history. “The clenched-fist salute has been used among revolutionaries for many centuries as a symbol of defiance, comradeship, and solidarity. It was employed during the bloody French revolution of 1789, and again during the industrial revolution of 1848. At the formation of the First International in London in 1864… Karl Marx and his followers gave the clenched-fist salute… it had been used by the Paris Communes of 1871, a violent affair which led to the deaths of over 25,000 Parisians. Since the Third International, the Comintern begun in Moscow in 1919, it has been the official salute of all Communist Parties throughout the world.”[ 223] The socialists followed suit with the communists and adopted the clenched-fist salute.
It encapsulates connotations of resistance,
Yes, and I believe that Lee might have been telling Warren De Brueys and Bannister that he would not reveal that they had been working with him in staging a HOAX attempt on JFK, that was basically the same MO that had been used at Walker's in April.
Interesting history lesson. Any reason to think that Oswald was even aware of any of that, much less was thinking about that when the photo was taken?
More from DeGrilla’s “Malcontent”:
Oswald read the works of Karl Marx, among many others, and admitted that he was a Marxist. Political literature influenced Oswald throughout his life. Oswald undoubtedly ascertained from the communist periodicals and books he read that the clenched-fist salute was a Marxist symbol espousing left-wing beliefs and abhorrence of the right.
Undoubtedly.
::)
Armchair psychoanalysis and speculation can only get one so far.
Has anyone ever proven anything to you? And have you ever provided any alternatives? Or do you just believe that showing your skepticism is enough to dismiss every piece of evidence that exists?
Has anyone ever proven anything to you? And have you ever provided any alternatives? Or do you just believe that showing your skepticism is enough to dismiss every piece of evidence that exists?"skepticism"?... Go to this thread and respond to it-----
"skepticism"?... Go to this thread and respond to it--
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2334.0.html
Or how about this one?---
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1960.0.html
...your thoughts there.
Has anyone ever proven anything to you? And have you ever provided any alternatives? Or do you just believe that showing your skepticism is enough to dismiss every piece of evidence that exists?
Since when are the speculative opinions of a writer evidence?
Has anyone ever proven anything to you?
PS It's interesting that James Hackerott, who has recently viewed the original Darnell film in it's entirety, has stated that the three young women whom Darnell filmed walking across the Pergola Patio and then across the grass, were the same three women who were standing by the Stemmons sign in Zapruder, and that he brazenly identifies them (to Iacoletti's certain chagrin) as Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Jean Holt and Sharron Simmons.
It’s interesting that, like Graves, he gives no evidence for that assertion.
P.S. who the hell is Sharron Simmons?
Nice inane catch!
Says the arrogant hypocrite who’s always correcting everyone’s grammar and spelling.
Since when are the speculative opinions of a writer evidence?
... a picture of a guy showing a reporter his handcuffed hands.
I haven't did a study of human gestures, but it seems to me that it would be natural for a person to close his hand when holding it up .... Raising an open hand indicates that the person wants to ask, or answer, a question......
The evidence is the salute. Here’s a speculative opinion:
Amazing what you call "evidence".
And, pray tell, without using a massive amount of imagination and speculation, what is "the salute" actually "evidence" of?
More evidence from DeGrilla’s “Malcontent”:
(https://i.vgy.me/jxPoQ5.png)
A limited number of authors have elaborated on Oswald’s clenched-fist salute gesture. Anthony Summers published Conspiracy in 1980 and Summers interviewed Detective Combest in August 1978. In the 1978 interview Combest also said that Oswald accompanied his headshaking with ‘a definite clenched-fist salute.’ This cannot be taken as good evidence of a political gesture, given Oswald’s condition at the moment. It may indeed have been an expression of pain. Combest said nothing about the ‘salute’ in his statements on Warren Commission testimony.[ 234]
Summers’ argument can be broken down into several parts. First, the clenched-fist salute is a specific action that involves deliberate physical movement. Oswald was not writhing on the ground in agony on the basement floor, twisting and turning, or convulsing. On the contrary, even though Oswald was indeed in severe pain, he was stationary and supine. Oswald made two deliberate physical movements in response to the pleading of Detective Combest trying to elicit a dying declaration. When asked if there was anything he wanted to say, Oswald deliberately shook his head several times, indicating “no.” Detective Combest persisted. Oswald, as he had previously done in the third-floor hallway, raised his hands in a clenched-fist position. These two actions were intentional, and Oswald made no other movements. Oswald lost consciousness shortly after raising his clenched-fist salute.
Summers’ opinion is that it might not have been a salute. DeGrilla disagrees with Summers’ opinion. You are free to form your own opinion. But the evidence is there.
Amazing what some people call "evidence" nowadays....
Almost as bad as "he left his ring in Irving, which proves he killed Kennedy".....
What's next?
Confirmation bias is a remarkable thing.
Does Charles think these guys are doing a “communist salute” too?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/John_Carlos%2C_Tommie_Smith%2C_Peter_Norman_1968cr.jpg)
It is a matter of context.
Amazing what some people call "evidence" nowadays....
Almost as bad as "he left his ring in Irving, which proves he killed Kennedy".....
What's next?
Oswald leaving his ring behind is notable. I wonder what the little prick was up to.
???
Oswald leaving his ring behind is notable. I wonder what the little prick was up to.
???
He was about to supply hundreds with a meal ticket...and many have been feasting off his narcissitic inspired murder of 2 people ever since.
More notable is that the ring was concealed in a cup instead of just laying out in the open. He apparently didn’t want Marina to see it before he had time to attempt the assassination. This is comparable to leaving the blanket rolled up in the garage to conceal the fact that the rifle was not there.
This is getting better and better.... I haven't laughed as much in months. Keep up the good work Thumb1:
Keep paying attention and you might just learn something worthwhile.
He was about to supply hundreds with a meal ticket...and many have been feasting off his narcissitic inspired murder of 2 people ever since.
Keep paying attention and you might just learn something worthwhile.
Charles,
Yeah, miracles never cease, I guess.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
I'm not sure it's worthwhile, but I have already learned something about you. Thumb1:
Focus on the evidence of the case, grasshopper...
All it takes is a desire for answers and an open mind. Sadly, many people prefer a mystery full of conjecture and innuendo.
And others have a predetermined conclusion and look everywhere for ways to support that conclusion.....
Those guys come up with a ring in a teacup and a blanket that doesn't lose it's shape...
So much for an open mind....
Like you do, oh "wise" one, or like it really should be done?
And others have a predetermined conclusion and look everywhere for ways to support that conclusion.....
Those guys come up with a ring in a teacup and a blanket that doesn't lose it's shape...
So much for an open mind....
And others have a predetermined conclusion and look everywhere for ways to support that conclusion.....
Those guys come up with a ring in a teacup and a blanket that doesn't lose it's shape...
So much for an open mind....
More notable is that the ring was concealed in a cup instead of just laying out in the open. He apparently didn’t want Marina to see it before he had time to attempt the assassination. This is comparable to leaving the blanket rolled up in the garage to conceal the fact that the rifle was not there.
Focus on the case.
That's right.
He probably jus' thought he might get his ring finger stuck in that dang coke-cola (sic) machine, or that it would get in the way of his installin' them curtain rods, later, so he done decided to leave the dag-blasted thang with Marina.
Yep, kinda like your insisting that the three young women identified by James Hackerott and others
on the Pergola Patio in Towner and near the Stemmons sign in Zapruder as, from left to right in both films, Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons, were in reality "uhh ... probably Carol Reed, definitely Gloria Calvery, and definitely me, Karen Westbrook!"
Focus on the case and connect the dots.
He was about to supply hundreds with a meal ticket...and many have been feasting off his narcissitic inspired murder of 2 people ever since.
More notable is that the ring was concealed in a cup instead of just laying out in the open.
He apparently didn’t want Marina to see it before he had time to attempt the assassination.
All it takes is a desire for answers and an open mind. Sadly, many people prefer a mystery full of conjecture and innuendo.
That's what I am trying to do all the time, but then some misguided individual starts to talk about Oswald's alleged "Communist salute" that is supposed to be proof of his guilt and a magical blanket that maintains the shape of a rifle when no rifle is in it etc....
And by “connect the dots”, he means try to read minds and present that as facts.
LHO’s well documented actions following the assassination (including the salute) are indicative of a consciousness of guilt. And are not what an innocent person would be doing under the circumstances.
Anything is indicative of a consciousness of guilt to somebody who has already made up his mind that Oswald's is guilty
That's not connecting the dots, it's making up dots as you go along.
Tommy is like that crazy old raving uncle nobody likes who shows up at Thanksgiving dinner and craps all over the dinner table.
You keep forgetting the “without any evidence” part.
And, boom, yet another thread gets hijacked by you and your blob vendetta.
You can’t get anything right. I’ve never insisted that I know who your Towner blobs are.
Focus on the case grasshopper
I'm trying, but you keep bringing up diversionary idiocracies...
My focus is on the JFK murder case. Your's seems to be on Goofy and Daffy Duck.
I'm trying, but you keep bringing up diversionary idiocracies...
My focus is on the JFK murder case. Your's seems to be on Goofy and Daffy Duck.
Weidmann,
What got you interested in the JFK assassination in the first place?
Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement?
Oliver Stone's JFK?
James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio's screeds at the so-called Education Forum?
(LOL)
-- MWT ;)
Actually, it was the Warren Report.
Did Mark Lane help you to understand it?
What makes you think that I needed help?
Not everbody is like you, Graves
Did you read all 26 volumes?
Why do you think no mention was made of Oswald's alleged visit to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City?
Why wasn't Yuri Nosenko called upon to give testimony?
After all, he's the guy who told Tennent H. Bagley and (probable mole) George Kisevalter in Geneva in June 1962 that, having a wonderful wife and daughter in Moscow, he would never defect to the U.S., but then seven weeks after the assassination he defects to the U.S., leaving his wonderful wife and daughter behind and claiming to have been in charge of Oswald's KGB file four times before and after the assassination, and claiming that KGB hadn't even interviewed the former marine radar operator during the two and one-half years he lived in the USSR.
Nosenko must have been telling the truth, huh, and the "fact" that the KGB didn't interview him must mean that they were right in their "suspicions" that Oswald was a "dangle" sent by that evil, evil, evil James Angleton?
(The problem is, intelligence service interview even "defectors" and "double agents" whom they strongly suspect are fake, if only to ascertain whether or not said spy is "turnable".)
Don't you wish Nosenko had testified, and set the American public at ease in knowing that the KGB had had nothing to do with the assassination?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS The answer to my question is that Richard Helms was sceptical of Nonenko's bona fides and shared his concerns about that with Chief Justice Earl Warren, and reason prevailed -- Nosenko wasn't called upon to testify.
PPS Have you mastered the HSCA's investigation into the assassination, too?
Oh, goodie!
Did you read the report plus the twenty-six volumes?
Why do you think no mention was made of Oswald's alleged visit to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City?
Maybe because the Ruskies' WW III Virus, planted in Oswald's CIA file by "Tumbleweed" (Guenter Schulz), Igor Brykin, Valiery Kostikov, Nikolai Leonov (Duran and Azcue's "Blond Oswald in Mexico City") and Ivan Obyedkov (the Soviet embassy "security guard" who "volunteered" to an Oswald Impersonator (Leonov?) Kostikov's radioactive name over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line) had gotten ahold of old egg-on-his-face J. Edgar Hoover?
Why wasn't Yuri Nosenko called upon to give testimony?
After all, he's the guy who told Tennent H. Bagley and (probable mole) George Kisevalter in Geneva in June 1962 that, having a wonderful wife and daughter in Moscow, he would never ever defect to the U.S., but then seven or-so weeks after ever the assassination he up and defects to the U.S., leaving his wonderful wife and daughter behind and claiming to have been in charge of Oswald's KGB file four times before and after the assassination, and claiming that KGB hadn't even interviewed the former marine radar operator during the two and one-half years he lived in the USSR.
How could the CIA refuse to let him in with that tantalizing "information," even though Angleton and Bagley (working in separate divisions) were aware of what true-defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had told CIA and were convinced that Nosenko's strangely point-by-point dovetailing and contradicting "info" from 1962 was fake, and that he had been sent to Bagley (and probable mole) Kisevalter to discredit Golitsyn and throw CIA and FBI off the scent of some moles in said agencies.
Nosenko must have been telling the truth, huh, and the "fact" that the KGB didn't interview him must mean that they were right in their "suspicions" that Oswald was a "dangle" sent by evil, evil, evil James Angleton?
(The problem is, intelligence service interview even "defectors" and "double agents" whom they strongly suspect are fake, if only to ascertain whether or not said spy is "turnable".)
Don't you wish Nosenko had testified, and set the American public at ease in knowing that the KGB had had nothing to do with the assassination?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS The answer to my second question, above, is that wise Richard Helms was sceptical of Nonenko's bona fides and shared those concerns with Chief Justice Earl Warren, and reason prevailed -- Nosenko wasn't called upon to testify!
PPS Have you mastered the HSCA's investigation into the assassination, too?
Oh, goodie!
Off topic.It seems to me that everything you post is off topic.
So much information to share, but so little time!A really fitting epitaph :-\
It seems to me that everything you post is off topic.
A really fitting epitaph :-\
Freeman,
Here it is again in expanded form for Weidmann, you, and maybe even Sandy Larsen to read.
....
[Weidmann,]
Did you read the report plus the twenty-six volumes?
Why do you think no mention was made of Oswald's alleged visit to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City?
Maybe because the Ruskies' WW III Virus, planted in Oswald's CIA file by "Tumbleweed" (Guenter Schulz), Igor Brykin, Valiery Kostikov, Nikolai Leonov (Duran and Azcue's "Blond Oswald in Mexico City") and Ivan Obyedkov (the Soviet embassy "security guard" who "volunteered" to an Oswald Impersonator (Leonov?) Kostikov's radioactive name over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line) had gotten ahold of old egg-on-his-face J. Edgar Hoover?
Why wasn't Yuri Nosenko called upon to give testimony?
After all, he's the guy who told Tennent H. Bagley and (probable mole) George Kisevalter in Geneva in June 1962 that, having a wonderful wife and daughter in Moscow, he would never ever defect to the U.S., but then seven or-so weeks after ever the assassination he up and defects to the U.S., leaving his wonderful wife and daughter behind and claiming to have been in charge of Oswald's KGB file four times before and after the assassination, and claiming that KGB hadn't even interviewed the former marine radar operator during the two and one-half years he lived in the USSR.
How could the CIA refuse to let him in with that tantalizing "information," even though Angleton and Bagley (working in separate divisions) were aware of what true-defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had told CIA and were convinced that Nosenko's strangely point-by-point dovetailing and contradicting "info" from 1962 was fake, and that he had been sent to Bagley (and probable mole) Kisevalter to discredit Golitsyn and throw CIA and FBI off the scent of some moles in said agencies.
Nosenko must have been telling the truth, huh, and the "fact" that the KGB didn't interview him must mean that they were right in their "suspicions" that Oswald was a "dangle" sent by evil, evil, evil James Angleton?
(The problem is, intelligence service interview even "defectors" and "double agents" whom they strongly suspect are fake, if only to ascertain whether or not said spy is "turnable".)
Don't you wish Nosenko had testified, and set the American public at ease in knowing that the KGB had had nothing to do with the assassination?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS The answer to my second question, above, is that wise Richard Helms was sceptical of Nonenko's bona fides and shared those concerns with Chief Justice Earl Warren, and reason prevailed -- Nosenko wasn't called upon to testify!
PPS Have you mastered the HSCA's investigation into the assassination, too?
Edit: I'll go into that later. You've heard of virtual traitor John L. Hart, right?
-- MWT ;)
I answered your two questions and stopped reading when you really went off topic.Thing is...
So much information to share, but so little time!So much information to share, but so little time!
Why wasn't Yuri Nosenko called upon to give testimony?Who knows? I would have called Allen Dulles [And made him talk]
Why wasn't Nosenko called upon to testify to the Warren Commission?
Who knows? I would have called Allen Dulles [And made him talk]
I answered your two questions and stopped reading when you really went off topic.
Has anyone ever proven anything to you? And have you ever provided any alternatives? Or do you just believe that showing your skepticism is enough to dismiss every piece of evidence that exists?
It's typical circular logic, they start from a position of Oswald being totally innocent therefore any piece of evidence that convicts Oswald can't be real and it doesn't matter who produced the evidence or where it comes from, all these innocent civilians, cops, FBI, CIA, Hoover, LBJ, etc, all wanted Kennedy dead and Oswald crucified.
JohnM
It's typical circular logic, they start from a position of Oswald being totally innocent therefore any piece of evidence that convicts Oswald can't be real and it doesn't matter who produced the evidence or where it comes from, all these innocent civilians, cops, FBI, CIA, Hoover, LBJ, etc, all wanted Kennedy dead and Oswald crucified.
I think that if anyone is ever accused of a crime, they should make sure that Iacoletti is on their jury. Just sayin...
It's typical circular logic, they start from a position of Oswald being totally innocent...Presumption of innocence is an American right by due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments. It was taken from British law.
Presumption of innocence is an American right by due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments. It was taken from British law.
Oswald was pronounced guilty by accusation.
Graves, get a life.Write a book even.
Jack Ruby murdered LHO before he could be tried in court. There are no due process provisions for dead people.Missed the point...as usual.
...Missed the point...as usual.
No I didn’t. Your point is moot. That’s my point.Your point is pointless. I was responding to Mytton's pointlessness.
Presumption of innocence is an American right by due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments. It was taken from British law.
Oswald was pronounced guilty by accusation.
If one is presumed innocent at every stage, how can anyone be charged of a crime to begin with? Is the "presumption of innocence" confined to the trial stage?I understand that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or admits guilt of their own accord. Now if I can understand it.....
If one is presumed innocent at every stage, how can anyone be charged of a crime to begin with?
Is the "presumption of innocence" confined to the trial stage?
As far as I know, this is the second time you've asked this question. You really think you are somehow being clever here, right?
Apparently, you have still not understood that you can be suspected of having committed a crime, and even be arrested and charged for it, while at the same time being considered legally presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.
As far as I know, this is the second time you've asked this question. You really think you are somehow being clever here, right?
Apparently, you have still not understood that you can be suspected of having committed a crime, and even be arrested and charged for it, while at the same time being considered legally presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.
Focus on the case and connect the dots.
Done
(https://i.postimg.cc/vHZSM2M0/dot-head-oswald.png)
Sigmar Polke
Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald
Privatsammlung - © The Estate of Sigmar Polke,
Cologne/VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2016. Photo: Wolfgang Morell
That looks like JFK with the back of his head blown away.....