Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Oswald had just assassinated the president and left his rifle at the crime scene and you are quibbling about a small lie that he told to explain why he left?  That's what you find "weird" in this scenario?  Oswald's problem was that he was guilty.  He knew that.  What else was he going to do?  He had no good explanation for fleeing the scene without permission or even pausing to ascertain what was going on.  So he lies.  Let the police figure it out as he stated.  Oswald knew he wasn't getting away with this crime.  He was just making life difficult for the authorities as a lifelong malcontent.   Here's a better question.  Why do you think Oswald would lie about this if he was innocent since we know he didn't talk to Shelley?  If anything, this lie is further proof of guilt rather than innocence or whatever you are implying here.
Oswald HAS to bring Shelley in to explain why he left, why he simply took off work. Otherwise what is his explanation for leaving? Again, according to the FBI report he didn't talk to Shelley or get permission from him to leave. Oswald reportedly said that because of what Shelley was saying about the events that he, Oswald, *thought* (his opinion) that no more work would be done and he could leave. That can't be contradicted by Shelley since, again, it was based on what Oswald thought he meant. But Oswald has a problem (several really): if Shelley is right there Oswald can go up and ask him about leaving work. He doesn't have to guess. "Sir, can we go home?" Furthermore, why was Oswald the *only* worker who left? If Shelley is saying that everyone can go home why didn't others leave?

I don't understand this argument that because Shelley could contradict what Oswald said that Oswald wouldn't make the claim. Oswald can simply say: "Well, he's wrong". Oswald said that Frazier was wrong about the curtain rod story. He knew that Frazier could expose that as a lie. But he made the claim anyway and said that Frazier was wrong. And again: the curtain rod story is so preposterous that one has to be little more than an Oswald apologist to believe it. Curtain rods my fanny.

Oswald made a series of demonstrably provable lies: about the rifle, about the BYPs, about where he lived. This idea that he wouldn't have made statements that he knew could be exposed as falsehoods make no sense. It's what guilty people do.
92


Here's roughly how much the Pergola and stairway up the knoll are off in the Phrase-II Map using one of my aerial overlays to situate those items.

Trying a different rotation and enlargement value (the combinations would reach into the thousands) for the aerial might result in the aerial being a better match to the map. The aerial photo is not perfectly above the Plaza, which may be affecting the comparisons.
93
This claim that Oswald was told by Shelley that it was okay to leave and that's why he did so is simply, for me, not supportable.

Unless there's another source that I'm missing this idea that he left based on Shelley's explicit permission is not supportable.


Who is making this claim that Shelley told Oswald it was okay to leave? Who is saying Shelley gave Oswald "explicit permission"?
I'm not aware of anyone making this claim so I'm not sure why you feel the need to make a big deal out of it.
The point being made is that Oswald told his interrogators that, at some point after his encounter with Baker in the second floor lunchroom, he got together with Bill Shelley and had some kind of conversation with him. Oswald tells his interrogators he decides to go home as a result of this conversation.

Do you agree Oswald told his interrogators that he had some kind of interaction with Bill Shelley before he left the TSBD building?

The question isn't whether this interaction really happened or not. The question is whether or not Oswald told his interrogators he had this interaction with Bill Shelley (and there is plenty of evidence indicating that he did tell them this).
Which is really weird.
It is really weird that Oswald would specifically name Shelley when he didn't have to. Oswald had no need to bring Shelley into his explanation because, if he was lying, he knew that it could be easily checked out. If Oswald is trying to paint himself as this innocent guy who had nothing to do with the assassination why would he bring an element into his story that could instantly show he was lying. Why didn't he just say that he went home without talking to anybody?
To try an explain it by saying Oswald was a liar makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't address the issue in any way.

Oswald was a lot of things but he wasn't stupid.
Although an anti-social mumbling loner to most of his work colleagues, on his TV appearance in New Orleans and, in particular, his radio interviews [which can be found here - https://oswald-on-the-radio.blogspot.com/ ], Oswald comes across as an intelligent and articulate man. I imagine that teaching yourself Russian is no mean feat and requires a certain degree of brain power. So, we can drop the idea that he was so stupid he wouldn't realise that his alibi for leaving the TSBD building would be checked.
We can also drop the idea Oswald was panicking and just blurted out the first thing that came to his mind. In his WC testimony, Fritz makes the point that, to a large extent, Oswald was controlling how the interrogation progressed. It makes such an impression on Fritz that he asks Oswald whether he has had any training in interrogation techniques:

Mr. Fritz: You know I didn't have trouble with him. If we would just talk to him quietly like we are talking right now, we talked all right until I asked him a question that meant something, every time I asked him a question that meant something, that would produce evidence he immediately told me he wouldn't tell me about it and he seemed to anticipate what I was going to ask. In fact, he got so good at it one time, I asked him if he had had any training, if he hadn't been questioned before.
Mr. Dulles: Questioned before?
Mr. Fritz: Questioned before, and he said that he had, he said yes, the FBI questioned him when he came back from Russia for a long time and they tried different methods. He said they tried the buddy boy method and thorough method, and let me see some other method he told me and he said, "I understand that."


So, Oswald is an intelligent man who is comfortable in an interrogation situation. He had absolutely no intention of appearing guilty in any way. So why introduce this element that could so easily have been checked by simply asking Shelley whether it happened or not. Why would he lie about this if it could easily be discovered that he was lying, which would make him look guilty. Something he was trying to avoid.

hi i would if its ok just like to speak in regard Oswald and his russian . i have taken up learning russian and in main i am doing so alone for a few reasons . one being that the lady i am with is originally from ukraine and speaks both ukranian  and russian . in the main russian .all be it she speaks english reasonably well also , and i want to converse with her to a reasonable degree in her own language if i can . another reason is because i have a keen interest in this case that i wanted to test just how hard or easy it is too learn such a language pretty much on ones own .

firstly the alphabet is crylic and very different to the english alphabet , some look closer to symbols than letters , some letters are similar to the english alphabet .some letters are merely a sound . depending on whether you are speaking with a male or female different words or expressions apply . similarly when it comes to a person you know as opposed to a person you have just met and dont know different things apply .such as merely saying hi as opposed to a proper hello , how are you etc . a stranger could view hi as being not respectful .

but anyway i am learning and studying in a modern age . meaning i have the internet , i have Google translate , Deepl and others at my disposal along with very good online tutorials which make it easier to learn this language .pronunciation is difficult at times but also very important . it is difficult because a natural russian speaker will have had a life time pronouncing these words and sounds , trust me some are not natural to an english speaker and thus difficult . i can ask the woman i am with questions about the language if i am stuck , all be it i try to not do that . Oswald had none of that . well i mean if we accept that he was self thought that is .i think about all that i have now to help me to learn and how difficult it is , all be it i have made reasonable progress and i will continue to learn . when i think about Oswald 60 plus years ago learning this language , and we are told he did so alone with none of the help i have today and that he seemingly learned to speak so proficiently that he was thought to be a natural russian speaker , well if he did what he did alone MY HAT IS OFF TO HIM . he did a very very difficult thing all by himself and came out the other end seemingly sounding like a native .i can tell you that even with as much as i have learned and with as much work as i have put in I CANNOT SAY THE SAME THING .i will say that the more you learn , if you have a head to learn and accept new things , meaning that enjoy learning new things and i have the patience to sit and learn where others will not . but the more you learn this language as with anything we start to learn well you do start to gain an understanding and you do start to grasp things a bit easier . but then you find words you just learned mutate into other similar but different words within similar and also different sentences that have differing meanings . atleast i am talking now about my experiences in learning this language .

i once heard a russian speaking lady say IF YOU THINK LEARNING RUSSIAN IS DIFFICULT TRY CHINESE .but trust me it is a difficult language , and even with all my study and all the time i put in , and with all the help i have from modern technology i can tell you it is not an easy language to learn . so if mr Oswald alone sat in his room in the later 50s and early 60s taught himself to speak seemingly flawless russian sufficient to have native speakers believe he too was a native speaker and he had zero help in doing so well my hat is off to him , i would love to know how he went about it . you need to put thought into it , i mean to have people believe you are a native speaker you have to not only speak fluently but flawlessly and in correct terms according to who you are speaking to .if not your errors will find you out .i would love to know his secret .

what baffles me is the inconsistency of reports regarding Oswald . Demohrenschildt said that Oswald had a "remarkable fluency in Russian" , others said that he would read russian language literature , yet we also hear he supposedly spoke in a relatively poor or broken russian . how can that be ? it smells fishy . but anyway i just wanted to give my 2 cents here in regard Oswalds russian , and so please forgive me for interjecting here into your conversation , it is just that i wanted to give my thoughts on the point you raised regarding his russian and intellect . and i think its an important aspect of this case and into finding the real Oswald if you will .Oswald was not the idiot the various commissions and our LN friends make him out to be , far from it .
94
LN do so love anything that appears to conform their stance , bias or agenda . i guess that is why we so often see threads in main with LN in full agreement patting each other on the backs for a job well done in agreeing with what each other believes . CT in my experience also agree on a lot of things but also they question each others thoughts , position , beliefs and research etc , and i think it is healthy to do so . it means in main that are CT agree and open to admission that they COULD be wrong and are willing to discuss , debate , be corrected and yes admit any error of belief , thought or logic .all be it not every CT is so open but most are .i cant say that in my experience that LN are so open .

there are many reasons to have doubts about these PHOTOS .
1/ marinas contradictory claims about them .
2/ when they were in the possession of authorities
3/ how many were in the possession of authorities
4/ Oswalds missing finger tips
5/ Oswald rings moving from one hand to the other
6/ Oswald himself questioned the legitimacy of these photos
7/ the handwriting " hunter of fascists " was neither matched to Lee or Marina .
95

 
It is really weird that Oswald would specifically name Shelley when he didn't have to. Oswald had no need to bring Shelley into his explanation because, if he was lying, he knew that it could be easily checked out. If Oswald is trying to paint himself as this innocent guy who had nothing to do with the assassination why would he bring an element into his story that could instantly show he was lying. Why didn't he just say that he went home without talking to anybody?
To try an explain it by saying Oswald was a liar makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't address the issue in any way.

Oswald was a lot of things but he wasn't stupid.
Although an anti-social mumbling loner to most of his work colleagues, on his TV appearance in New Orleans and, in particular, his radio interviews [which can be found here - https://oswald-on-the-radio.blogspot.com/ ], Oswald comes across as an intelligent and articulate man. I imagine that teaching yourself Russian is no mean feat and requires a certain degree of brain power. So, we can drop the idea that he was so stupid he wouldn't realise that his alibi for leaving the TSBD building would be checked.
We can also drop the idea Oswald was panicking and just blurted out the first thing that came to his mind. In his WC testimony, Fritz makes the point that, to a large extent, Oswald was controlling how the interrogation progressed. It makes such an impression on Fritz that he asks Oswald whether he has had any training in interrogation techniques:



Oswald had just assassinated the president and left his rifle at the crime scene and you are quibbling about a small lie that he told to explain why he left?  That's what you find "weird" in this scenario?  Oswald's problem was that he was guilty.  He knew that.  What else was he going to do?  He had no good explanation for fleeing the scene without permission or even pausing to ascertain what was going on.  So he lies.  Let the police figure it out as he stated.  Oswald knew he wasn't getting away with this crime.  He was just making life difficult for the authorities as a lifelong malcontent.   Here's a better question.  Why do you think Oswald would lie about this if he was innocent since we know he didn't talk to Shelley?  If anything, this lie is further proof of guilt rather than innocence or whatever you are implying here.
96
Jerry, thanks very much for the over-the-top attachments. I thought you probably already established a scale for the Topo map. The uncropped (original?) version indicates a scale of 1”=10ft. I estimate the scale is 10 pixels/foot for the digital copies, based on measuring sidewalks and shelter doorways known to be 6 feet wide. I measured the fence distance from the NS retaining wall parallel to the fence from the Topo map as 31.4'. Laser gave me 9595 mm, or 31.5' (one measurement). So any movement of that fence EW since the Topo (1981) would be only a few inches. One aspect of that Topo map that always bothered me was the, slightly rotated eastward, retaining wall. I never noticed that with the Cutler map. The amazing details found in your linked QOL Phase II plans seem to show the wall without that rotation. But even with the rotation in the Topo map the distance to the fence only varies an inch or two along the length of the wall. Do you know if that QOL document is available with legible measurements?

That scale for the Topo Map makes perfect sense. I would say the Topo Map was scanned at 100%. I can't find any scale for the "Phase II" map. The pergola seems a little out of place in the Topo and Phase II maps as compared to aerial, at least in the overlay variations I have made so far.
97
  Hi James,

   I replied to your Message to me here on the Forum in the "Messages".  I didn't know that you had sent me a private message on the 22nd until yesterday.    My sincere apologies, sir.
No problems. I should be sending some work you are looking for of the pergolas soon.
98
If you mean measure on the Topo Map, it didn't come with a scale. I have seen it mentioned that it was 1 to 40 feet. I don't know if it's one foot-to-forty-feet?

The full un-cropped map scan is here: Link "Topo Map Rev.1981 (As Provided) 6112x3758 PNG"

The width of Elm Street is said to 40 feet ("The width of each concrete roadway through the Plaza is 40 feet." --WCR), which may be a rounded figure. On the Topo Map scan, the width of Elm Street is about 4 1/8". If the scale was 1 foot to 40 feet, then Elm Street should be a foot wide. The original map would be some 13 feet wide.

I can use the Elm Street width as a 40' scale. What part of the retaining wall to what part of the fence?
Jerry, thanks very much for the over-the-top attachments. I thought you probably already established a scale for the Topo map. The uncropped (original?) version indicates a scale of 1”=10ft. I estimate the scale is 10 pixels/foot for the digital copies, based on measuring sidewalks and shelter doorways known to be 6 feet wide. I measured the fence distance from the NS retaining wall parallel to the fence from the Topo map as 31.4'. Laser gave me 9595 mm, or 31.5' (one measurement). So any movement of that fence EW since the Topo (1981) would be only a few inches. One aspect of that Topo map that always bothered me was the, slightly rotated eastward, retaining wall. I never noticed that with the Cutler map. The amazing details found in your linked QOL Phase II plans seem to show the wall without that rotation. But even with the rotation in the Topo map the distance to the fence only varies an inch or two along the length of the wall. Do you know if that QOL document is available with legible measurements?
99
Jerry,
Can you measure the distance from the retaining wall to the stockade fence? I have a laser measurement we can compare.

  Hi James,

   I replied to your Message to me here on the Forum in the "Messages".  I didn't know that you had sent me a private message on the 22nd until yesterday.    My sincere apologies, sir. 
100


The 2011 "Phase II Map". ( Link )



With aerial overlay (Full-size of download: 4690x2820 pixels).

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]