JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on July 28, 2026, 07:31:27 AM
-
Question: Why do JFK assassination forums draw so many nut cases?
Answer: Because the anomaly-replete assassination is fertile grounds for KGB-encouraged anti-"Deep State" / anti-"National Security State" / anti-"Administrative State" tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.
-
Question: Why do JFK assassination forums draw all of the nut cases?
Answer: Because the anomaly-replete assassination is fertile grounds for KGB-encouraged anti-"Deep State" / anti-"National Security State" / anti-"Administrative State" tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.
Said the biggest nut case of them all!
-
Said the biggest nut case of them all!
Which is your JFKA bęte noire, Weidmann?
Peter Dale Scott's "Deep State," Jimmy DiEugenio's "National Security State," or Steve Bannon's "Administrative State"?
It doesn't matter which one you choose -- Vladimir Putin loves them all for their nation-rending qualities.
-
The JFKA hobby/industry is fueled by a desire people have to want a more interesting answer than that some little nobody named Lee Harvey Oswald learned the POTUS was going to be riding past his workplace in a slow moving open top car and decided to take advantage of a once in a lifetime opportunity to become somebody famous. For maybe the first time in his life he succeeded.
The fact is that JFK's fondness for appearing in public before adoring crowds riding in a slow moving open top limo made him an inviting target for a malcontent like Oswald. It was JFK's bad luck that his motorcade by random chance got routed right past that malcontent's workplace making it very easy for him. If it hadn't happened in Dallas, it might have been some other little loser in some other city who took advantage of JFK's willingness to expose himself to danger.
For some reason, people don't want to accept the obvious answer, the answer the DPD had come to on day one. I was in 7th grade in Omaha on that day was in math class, our first period after lunch when our principal made the announcement over the loudspeaker that the President and the Governor had been shot in Texas. Our teacher, Sister Gerald, immediately turned on her radio. It seem like just a short time later the announcement was made that JFK had died. Classes were called off for the day and we all went across the street to the church where Father Evans led us all in praying a rosary. We were then dismissed and I went home. I was surprised when a short time after that, I learned the suspect was already in custody. That's when I learned he had also killed a cop. I knew nothing about the details of the assassination but from the moment I saw Oswald on TV, I never had any doubt he was the assassin. Even when I was briefly brought over to the CT side, I never doubted Oswald was the gunman, even when I believed there was a second gunman.
A CBS documentary in 1988 was the first time I learned some of the basic details of the assassination. The layout of Dealey Plaza, the motorcade route through it, and the position of the TSBD. It was the first time I saw the Z-film. That's when I really started to study the JFKA and learned more than just the basics of it. The more I learned, the more I became convinced Oswald was the one and only gunman and that there was no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. I continue to hold that belief almost 40 years later.
-
Said the biggest nut case of them all!
Dadgum it, Martin, you beat me to it. The irony of the questions TG poses is almost beyond belief.
"I am not one of those goofy JFKA conspiracy theorists because the goofy conspiracy I posit subsumes not only the JFKA but pretty much the entire history of the United States for the past 75 years."
Oy. ::)
-
"The conspiracy [that Tom Graves] posits subsumes not only the JFKA, but pretty much the entire history of the United States for the past 75 years [sic]."
Dear Macho Genius Fancy Pants Rants,
Not necessarily the JFK assassination, itself, but a lot of our history ever since the early 1960s when risk-taking General Oleg Gribanov sent GRU Lt. Col. Dmitry Polyakov and KGB Major Aleksey Kulak (J. Edgar Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA) to the FBI's NYC field office to volunteer to spy for it at the U.N., and sent false-defector-in-place Yuri Nosenko to the CIA in Geneva in June 1962 to discredit what a recent true defector, KGB Major Anatoly Golitsyn, was telling father-figure-requiring James Angleton about probable moles in the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies -- which intel Angleton unfortunately shared with his confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior, Bruce Leonard Solie in the Office of Security (look him up).
-- Tom
-
Dear Macho Genius Fancy Pants Rants,
Not necessarily the JFK assassination, itself, but a lot of our history ever since the early 1960s when risk-taking General Oleg Gribanov sent GRU Lt. Col. Dmitry Polyakov and KGB Major Aleksey Kulak (J. Edgar Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA) to the FBI's NYC field office to volunteer to spy for it at the U.N., and sent false-defector-in-place Yuri Nosenko to the CIA in Geneva in June 1962 to discredit what a recent true defector, KGB Major Anatoly Golitsyn, was telling father-figure-requiring James Angleton about probable moles in the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies -- which intel Angleton unfortunately shared with his confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior, Bruce Leonard Solie in the Office of Security (look him up).
-- Tom
Not sure how I got elevated to Macho Genius, but at least you're on the right track.
You omitted "(*Today's FSB/SVR)." Are you slipping?
The original post poses a legitimate question: Why, indeed, are so many nutcases attracted to JFKA forums? The thread has quickly shifted to "Why do people participate on JFKA forums?" - an entirely different question. There are internet forums on topics far more obscure and mundane than the JFKA that are way more active than any JFKA forum. It's a niche interest where even the non-nutcases tend to be fanatics.
But let's get back to the original question: Why ARE so many nutcases attracted to JFKA forums? I won't name names, but on this forum and the Ed Forum are a number of very prominent participants whom I would characterize as actual, bona fide nutcases. People who clearly are not thinking rationally and who assert absolutely preposterous things with complete sincerity. I am constantly agog.
Scroll through the pages of threads here. The silly threads that say nothing and go nowhere get by far the most posts and views. It's almost depressing to a Macho Genius such as myself whose witty, insightful contributions go nowhere, but I perservere because I'm so pleased with myself.
I think the preponderance of nutcases has two primary explanations:
1. Internet forums in general attract extreme personalities and wackos. You can pretend to be anyone you want to be and say anything you want to say. That's why, I believe, they have to be regarded as Monty Python skits and not taken seriously. It's the wackos, of course, who take them most seriously because that's part and parcel of being a wacko. (I'm the irritating and insufferable Minister of Silly Walks of the JFKA, but at least it's a persona I've intentionally adopted and I'm fully aware of what I'm doing.)
2. It's the - yep - conspiracy-prone mindset. Every area of weirdness, including the JFKA, attracts a large number of those who fit this psychological profile, most of whom are not nutcases. But, alas, in a crowd of folks with the conspiracy-prone mindset you are going to have an unusually large lunatic fringe. This is true across all areas of weirdness.
Put 1 and 2 together, and I believe you have your answer.
Let's take this thread to the next level: Who ARE the consensus nutcases here? Should we just start naming names, or would it be better to do a poll?
-
Let's take this thread to the next level: Who ARE the consensus nutcases here? Should we just start naming names, or would it be better to do a poll?
Maybe we should hand out gold, silver, and bronze medals.
-
I aM NoTTT a NUTKASe!!!!!
-
Said the biggest nut case of them all!
Thumb1:
-
Quote from: Tom Graves on July 28, 2026, 07:31:27 AM
Question: Why do JFK assassination forums draw all of the nut cases?
Answer: Because the anomaly-replete assassination is fertile grounds for KGB-encouraged anti-"Deep State" / anti-"National Security State" / anti-"Administrative State" tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.
Said the biggest nut case of them all!
A similar thought occurred to me. I wonder if he realized how odd it would look for him to claim that all JFKA conspiracy theories are "KGB-encouraged" while he decries "tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories."
This guy does little else but drone on and on about the KGB in post after post, claiming that the KGB has been a major force, if not the driving force, behind the rejection of the lone-gunman theory. In addition, he frequently accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being a KGB tool (knowing or unknowing).
And then he gets on here and asks why JFKA forums supposedly draw "all of the nut cases"! Oh, the irony.
I don't think Tom Graves is a nut case, but his obsession with the KGB and his claims about the KGB and the JFK case certainly make him appear to be very odd.
-
Graves did good work on identifying Gloria Calvery...It helped sort out the who is who and what was what on the front steps...
-
Graves did good work on identifying Gloria Calvery...It helped sort out the who is who and what was what on the front steps...
Nobody cares. Nobody on the front steps had anything to do with the assassination. They were all spectators.
-
I don't think Tom Graves is a nut case, but his obsession with the KGB and his claims about the KGB and the JFK case certainly make him appear to be very odd.
Dear Michael,
Do you think Yuri Nosenko was a true defector-in-place in Geneva in June 1962?
Hint: Nosenko's the KGB Major Lt. Col. Captain who recontacted the CIA in late January 1964 and physically defected to the U.S., leaving his beloved-in-1962 wife and two daughters behind to fend for themselves in Moscow and claiming to have read Oswald's KGB file four times -- twice before and twice after the assassination. He implausibly claimed that your and Fancy Pants Rants' beloved KGB had absolutely nothing to do with the former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator during the two-and-a-half years he lived in the USSR.
Question: Does that necessarily mean the KGB killed JFK?
Answer: No, it doesn't.
However, given the fact that Nosenko was eventually hired by the CIA to teach "counterintelligence" to its and the FBI's new recruits, it is an indication of just how penetrated by the KGB they were, and possibly still are.
If you want to learn more about it, you can read Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 book, Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games for free by googling "spy wars" and "archive" simultaneously.
-- Tom
PS In Apri 1964, when the Soviet Russia Division and CIA Counterintelligence had serious doubts about Nosenko's bona fides, probable KGB mole Bruce Leonard Solie (naive James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior in the Office of Security) tried to talk W. David Slawson into allowing Nosenko to testify to the Warren Commission.
Bruce Leonard Solie.
Look him up.
-
Nobody cares. Nobody on the front steps had anything to do with the assassination. They were all spectators.
Shelley had a much more conscious role than you allow...He lied about what time he and Lovelady left the steps and he helped Oswald out the rear exit after Oswald was stopped by an un-named cop...The latter is key to the conspiracy and it was what the investigators covered-up the most desperately...John Simkin poses himself as an intellectual gentleman but truth is he's participatory in directly preventing this from ever coming out on The Education Forum without accounting for it and the damage it does to solving the case...Shelley played a key role in the conspiracy...He later admitted to Dallas reporter Dean Glaze that he was CIA...
Lovelady was Shelley's partner...During HSCA Lovelady lied to Jarman and planted the disinformation that he saw Oswald exit through the front door of the Depository...Lovelady did this because Shelley had played a key role in getting Oswald around police detainment at the front door after Oswald was told to step aside and wait...Shelley assisted Oswald out the rear Loading Dock exit to assist Oswald on his way to his next CIA assignment and to keep him from being held by the police...Shelley ID'd Oswald to the cop who was detaining him and gave him the OK as an employee...Shelley told the un-named cop that he was Oswald's superintendent...The cop remained un-named during the Warren Commission to keep Shelley's obvious knowledge of who Oswald was from being known and to cover-up Shelley's assisting him - which would blow the whole conspiracy and evidence that Shelley knew who Oswald was and helped him escape detection...Lee had accidentally stumbled down the front SE stairs and in to the Lobby when Harvey was at the other end...That is what caused Harvey to panic and try to leave through the front door...The cop saw this desperation and stopped Harvey...Shelley saw what was at stake and intervened...The Commission deliberately avoided investigation of all this or even naming the cop because they understood how dangerous it was towards exposing the conspiracy...Lovelady tried to plant disinformation with Jarman that he saw Oswald exit through the front door in order to cover all this up...The plotters were worried HSCA would uncover all the above so they used Lovelady for yet another lie about the front steps...HSCA never pursued Lovelady to ask him why he never told this before during the original investigation...The reason they didn't pursue Lovelady is because they didn't want to open the Pandora's Box I just detailed above...Two of the most important figures in the conspiracy, Lovelady & Shelley, were on the front steps...Now posing himself as a mortal threat to the conspiracy Lovelady died shortly after...This cracks the case and The Education Forum and its "Moderation Team" (DiEugenio gang) are keeping it off the forum at all costs...
Sarah Stanton was also on the front steps in the Prayer Man position...Sarah had witnessed Oswald say he wasn't going down to the front steps to watch the Presidential Parade but was going back in to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room to eat lunch...The same Lunch Room that Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald alone eating lunch in shortly after...The same Lunch Room that Truly & Baker found Oswald alone in...And the same Lunch Room James Hosty told Nigel Turner that Oswald said he was alone in during the assassination...
So, just the opposite, the front steps held key figures in the assassination with key witnessing...
-
Shelley had a much more conscious role than you allow...He lied about what time he and Lovelady left the steps and he helped Oswald out the rear exit after Oswald was stopped by an un-named cop...The latter is key to the conspiracy and it was what the investigators covered-up the most desperately...John Simkin poses himself as an intellectual gentleman but truth is he's participatory in directly preventing this from ever coming out on The Education Forum without accounting for it and the damage it does to solving the case...Shelley played a key role in the conspiracy...He later admitted to Dallas reporter Dean Glaze that he was CIA...
Lovelady was Shelley's partner...During HSCA Lovelady lied to Jarman and planted the disinformation that he saw Oswald exit through the front door of the Depository...Lovelady did this because Shelley had played a key role in getting Oswald around police detainment at the front door after Oswald was told to step aside and wait...Shelley assisted Oswald out the rear Loading Dock exit to assist Oswald on his way to his next CIA assignment and to keep him from being held by the police...Shelley ID'd Oswald to the cop who was detaining him and gave him the OK as an employee...Shelley told the un-named cop that he was Oswald's superintendent...The cop remained un-named during the Warren Commission to keep Shelley's obvious knowledge of who Oswald was from being known and to cover-up Shelley's assisting him - which would blow the whole conspiracy and evidence that Shelley knew who Oswald was and helped him escape detection...Lee had accidentally stumbled down the front SE stairs and in to the Lobby when Harvey was at the other end...That is what caused Harvey to panic and try to leave through the front door...The cop saw this desperation and stopped Harvey...Shelley saw what was at stake and intervened...The Commission deliberately avoided investigation of all this or even naming the cop because they understood how dangerous it was towards exposing the conspiracy...Lovelady tried to plant disinformation with Jarman that he saw Oswald exit through the front door in order to cover all this up...The plotters were worried HSCA would uncover all the above so they used Lovelady for yet another lie about the front steps...HSCA never pursued Lovelady to ask him why he never told this before during the original investigation...The reason they didn't pursue Lovelady is because they didn't want to open the Pandora's Box I just detailed above...Two of the most important figures in the conspiracy, Lovelady & Shelley, were on the front steps...Now posing himself as a mortal threat to the conspiracy Lovelady died shortly after...This cracks the case and The Education Forum and its "Moderation Team" (DiEugenio gang) are keeping it off the forum at all costs...
Sarah Stanton was also on the front steps in the Prayer Man position...Sarah had witnessed Oswald say he wasn't going down to the front steps to watch the Presidential Parade but was going back in to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room to eat lunch...The same Lunch Room that Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald alone eating lunch in shortly after...The same Lunch Room that Truly & Baker found Oswald alone in...And the same Lunch Room James Hosty told Nigel Turner that Oswald said he was alone in during the assassination...
So, just the opposite, the front steps held key figures in the assassination with key witnessing...
There is zero evidence anybody on the front steps or anywhere else in front of or inside the TSBD had anything to do with the assassination other than the obvious one, Lee Harvey Oswald. Everything else are figments of your imagination. The fact that people like you have to sift through all these trivialities to make a case for a conspiracy is indicative of how pathetically weak that case is.
-
Lovelady was Shelley's partner...During HSCA Lovelady lied to Jarman and planted the disinformation that he saw Oswald exit through the front door of the Depository...Lovelady did this because Shelley had played a key role in getting Oswald around police detainment at the front door after Oswald was told to step aside and wait...Shelley assisted Oswald out the rear Loading Dock exit to assist Oswald on his way to his next CIA assignment and to keep him from being held by the police...Shelley ID'd Oswald to the cop who was detaining him and gave him the OK as an employee...Shelley told the un-named cop that he was Oswald's superintendent...The cop remained un-named during the Warren Commission to keep Shelley's obvious knowledge of who Oswald was from being known and to cover-up Shelley's assisting him - which would blow the whole conspiracy and evidence that Shelley knew who Oswald was and helped him escape detection...Lee had accidentally stumbled down the front SE stairs and in to the Lobby when Harvey was at the other end...That is what caused Harvey to panic and try to leave through the front door...The cop saw this desperation and stopped Harvey...Shelley saw what was at stake and intervened...The Commission deliberately avoided investigation of all this or even naming the cop because they understood how dangerous it was towards exposing the conspiracy...Lovelady tried to plant disinformation with Jarman that he saw Oswald exit through the front door in order to cover all this up...The plotters were worried HSCA would uncover all the above so they used Lovelady for yet another lie about the front steps...HSCA never pursued Lovelady to ask him why he never told this before during the original investigation...The reason they didn't pursue Lovelady is because they didn't want to open the Pandora's Box I just detailed above...Two of the most important figures in the conspiracy, Lovelady & Shelley, were on the front steps...Now posing himself as a mortal threat to the conspiracy Lovelady died shortly after...This cracks the case and The Education Forum and its "Moderation Team" (DiEugenio gang) are keeping it off the forum at all costs...
Geesh, that's quite a fantasy you've manufactured there, Brian. Has anybody purchased the movie rights yet? After all, make-believe wild fantasies like the one you've spun in your above post are sometimes big box-office hits. Good luck.
-
Geesh, that's quite a fantasy you've manufactured there, Brian. Has anybody purchased the movie rights yet? After all, make-believe wild fantasies like the one you've spun in your above post are sometimes big box-office hits. Good luck.
It belongs on The Education Forum because it cracks the conspiracy in the Depository...It is sick that that the reason this cracking of the case is not posted on The Education Forum is because the site is run by persons lying and saying they uphold the strictest academic standards when in fact they are upholding personal relationships and favoritism enforced by friends who happen to have a moderator avatar...
As you can see, although everything written there is trace-able to the known evidence, Mr Von Pein is not able to offer any substantial refutation of any of the main facts...The main researchers had all this in their hands up to now...They just needed to go that one extra step and resolve it the rest of the way...It is pathetic that the reason they didn't do this, and the reason they keep it off The Education forum now, is so they can serve the kook researcher Bart Kamp and therefore prevent a solving of the case...You can literally solve the assassination in front of these people and they will ignore it, keep you banned, and continue to clear a path for a punk hack like Kamp...
Ask Mr Von Pein to answer why no authority pursued Lovelady and grilled him on why he didn't tell of this witnessing of Oswald leaving through the front door to any of the original 1963 investigators?...
-
There is zero evidence anybody on the front steps or anywhere else in front of or inside the TSBD had anything to do with the assassination other than the obvious one, Lee Harvey Oswald. Everything else are figments of your imagination. The fact that people like you have to sift through all these trivialities to make a case for a conspiracy is indicative of how pathetically weak that case is.
It fits like tight brick work and cracks the case...
It isn't the Lone Nutters who prevent this final cracking of the case...It is the DiEugenio Education Forum clique under DiEugenio suck-up Andrew Iler and their hypocritical censorship...The Prayer Man cult of personality and website pecking order...
You guys are beaten...
-
It fits like tight brick work and cracks the case...
Is that a fact. Whom does it implicate and what evidence is there of their involvement in the crime?
It isn't the Lone Nutters who prevent this final cracking of the case...It is the DiEugenio Education Forum clique under DiEugenio suck-up Andrew Iler and their hypocritical censorship...The Prayer Man cult of personality and website pecking order...
You guys are beaten...
If you really think you have evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the assassination of JFK, why are you wasting time talking about it on forums that might have a few dozen active members? Why aren't you taking your case to major media outlets? If your case is as compelling as you claim, surely a few of them would be interested in it?
-
Ask Mr Von Pein to answer why no authority pursued Lovelady and grilled him on why he didn't tell of this witnessing of Oswald leaving through the front door to any of the original 1963 investigators?...
Crickets...
-
But you know, getting back to Sir Graves’ original question………….. I’ve noticed the same phenomenon with those ‘on the spectrum’, like Trump and all the honest folks in his administration. Like attracts like. You recognise those ‘of the tribe’. They are autistic. There. I said it. Especially the faux president. They know it, too. And they’re all on adderal! How reassuring…….. with the worst to come.
-
Mark:
Are you banned from The Education Forum?
-
Mark:
Are you banned from The Education Forum?
No, but I’m banned in boston……….. lol. Hey how you doing’ Brian? I’m ok I guess. Can’t complain, wouldn’t help if I did, right?
-
A member search shows nothing for any Mark O'Blazney at The Education Forum...
-
As you can see, although everything written there (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI00wxu_6pLeKXeqx06ZSEYRX0qlavb4pBMnphJo7uwDTSIaoKKBPVtXmNxHLgvWNLwqiD8vJfKfTuYscVywMd2Ou-O1WYH6sTRjyQ_mRqdFuyYhp3ZC7npU8ktGdrGCOnNJd8gNcpgaH6lJL267PyiBJ1YLPltWTSHDQtsLK3GRnM7T4z5Qj8voqVRdo/s2000/Brian-Doyle-Forum-Post-August-5-2026.png) is traceable to the known evidence, Mr Von Pein is not able to offer any substantial refutation of any of the main facts.
On my webpage linked below, I discuss some of the various errors and misconceptions that some people have concerning Oswald's movements on 11/22/63, including the theory that Oswald was stopped by a policeman in a "storage room on the first floor" (instead of the actual location of the encounter, which was, of course, the second-floor lunchroom). There were even some newspapers reporting the erroneous "storage room" story, such as the Dallas Morning News on 11/23/63 (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRAPU6tmssX-e6q73Z8RgfzvEWk4S-bSxmgvYNn18ibqXYZefq1jmfC5fvhZmO2SlE1JQGvy8GcYf3nIELVCKqqAYvcTRgspIQKa4GoCs5k_kC7tckgsjbY5QzBP40w9DdcUnkxGc_6KY/s1500/DMN-Nov-23-1963-Page-6.JPG):
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRAPU6tmssX-e6q73Z8RgfzvEWk4S-bSxmgvYNn18ibqXYZefq1jmfC5fvhZmO2SlE1JQGvy8GcYf3nIELVCKqqAYvcTRgspIQKa4GoCs5k_kC7tckgsjbY5QzBP40w9DdcUnkxGc_6KY/s930/DMN-Nov-23-1963-Page-6.JPG) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRAPU6tmssX-e6q73Z8RgfzvEWk4S-bSxmgvYNn18ibqXYZefq1jmfC5fvhZmO2SlE1JQGvy8GcYf3nIELVCKqqAYvcTRgspIQKa4GoCs5k_kC7tckgsjbY5QzBP40w9DdcUnkxGc_6KY/s1500/DMN-Nov-23-1963-Page-6.JPG)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2vVi8XLhxoM/XGttajclCZI/AAAAAAABQz8/x8MrWA46KWAZjNsEi3hIyq79vkttBikzQCLcBGAs/s626/Oswalds-Whereabouts-Logo.png) (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html)
-
A member search shows nothing for any Mark O'Blazney at The Education Forum...
Brian, the only time I was ever mentioned at the Education Forum was by the author Nina Burleigh when John Simkin was asking her questions about Mary Pinchot. Heck, she didn’t even use my name as I had asked her not to do so in her book. Respect+
-
On my webpage linked below, I discuss some of the various errors and misconceptions that some people have concerning Oswald's movements on 11/22/63, including the theory that Oswald was stopped by a policeman in a "storage room on the first floor" (instead of the actual location of the encounter, which was, of course, the second-floor lunchroom). There were even some newspapers reporting the erroneous "storage room" story, such as the Dallas Morning News on 11/23/63 (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRAPU6tmssX-e6q73Z8RgfzvEWk4S-bSxmgvYNn18ibqXYZefq1jmfC5fvhZmO2SlE1JQGvy8GcYf3nIELVCKqqAYvcTRgspIQKa4GoCs5k_kC7tckgsjbY5QzBP40w9DdcUnkxGc_6KY/s1500/DMN-Nov-23-1963-Page-6.JPG):
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRAPU6tmssX-e6q73Z8RgfzvEWk4S-bSxmgvYNn18ibqXYZefq1jmfC5fvhZmO2SlE1JQGvy8GcYf3nIELVCKqqAYvcTRgspIQKa4GoCs5k_kC7tckgsjbY5QzBP40w9DdcUnkxGc_6KY/s930/DMN-Nov-23-1963-Page-6.JPG) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRAPU6tmssX-e6q73Z8RgfzvEWk4S-bSxmgvYNn18ibqXYZefq1jmfC5fvhZmO2SlE1JQGvy8GcYf3nIELVCKqqAYvcTRgspIQKa4GoCs5k_kC7tckgsjbY5QzBP40w9DdcUnkxGc_6KY/s1500/DMN-Nov-23-1963-Page-6.JPG)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2vVi8XLhxoM/XGttajclCZI/AAAAAAABQz8/x8MrWA46KWAZjNsEi3hIyq79vkttBikzQCLcBGAs/s626/Oswalds-Whereabouts-Logo.png) (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html)
I've often wondered how so many erroneous stories originate. I know you have a lot of the early TV coverage on your website but I don't want to spend hours going through it all but going from memory, I think at various time, Walter Cronkite reported the rifle was a Winchester, an Enfield, and a Japanese rifle before the rifle had been found. Also, a Secret Service agent had been killed, and a young couple had been arrested. I only took one year of journalism studies in college, but they always stressed it was more important to get the story right than to get it out first. We were told, if your mother says she loves you, get confirmation.
-
Von Pein did not answer the question of why the HSCA did not ask Lovelady why he never mentioned Oswald leaving through the front door back during the original 1963 investigation...
The reason the HSCA or no other authority grilled Lovelady on why he never mentioned this during the original investigation is because they knew Lovelady was lying and knew Lovelady was planting disinformation in order to cover-up his CIA partner Shelley guiding Oswald around the police cordon in the Lobby...The plotters were worried HSCA was going to uncover Shelley's assistance of Oswald so they got Lovelady to lie and say he saw Oswald leave through the front door to head it off...A credible, serious, honest investigating authority would go right to Lovelady and ask him why he never told this to the original 1963 investigation...A thoroughly corrupted government committee that was working to cover up the real story would not...
What I am doing here is discovering some of the best evidence of our generation...The Education Forum is making it its commitment to keep these very important discoveries from its board...
-
Von Pein did not answer the question of why the HSCA did not ask Lovelady why he never mentioned Oswald leaving through the front door back during the original 1963 investigation...
They already knew that.
The reason the HSCA or no other authority grilled Lovelady on why he never mentioned this during the original investigation is because they knew Lovelady was lying and knew Lovelady was planting disinformation in order to cover-up his CIA partner Shelley guiding Oswald around the police cordon in the Lobby...The plotters were worried HSCA was going to uncover Shelley's assistance of Oswald so they got Lovelady to lie and say he saw Oswald leave through the front door to head it off...A credible, serious, honest investigating authority would go right to Lovelady and ask him why he never told this to the original 1963 investigation...A thoroughly corrupted government committee that was working to cover up the real story would not...
What I am doing here is discovering some of the best evidence of our generation...The Education Forum is making it its commitment to keep these very important discoveries from its board...
You take kookiness to a whole new level. I hate to burst your bubble, [not really] but you haven't discovered anything of importance. Nothing you post here will ever see the light of day outside this forum. It's only make believe.
-
I've often wondered how so many erroneous stories originate. I know you have a lot of the early TV coverage on your website but I don't want to spend hours going through it all but going from memory, I think at various times, Walter Cronkite reported the rifle was a Winchester, an Enfield, and a Japanese rifle before the rifle had been found. Also, a Secret Service agent had been killed...
Yes, there were a number of errors made by the news media in the immediate hours following JFK's death (see the video below). But even though many mistakes and erroneous reports did make it to the national airwaves on Nov. 22, I still think that overall the radio and television networks did a very good job during the assassination weekend, which is why I placed the following comment at the very end of my video below:
"In creating the video, it was not my intention to cast a negative light on the people who reported the events associated with JFK's tragic murder. On the contrary, I believe the radio and TV reporters did an outstanding job of broadcasting the news coming out of Dallas during that weekend in 1963. And for the most part, they reported it very accurately. But some mistakes and erroneous initial reports were inevitable. And most of these early errors were even corrected on the air later in the weekend. On the whole, I salute and admire the high level of professional (and accurate) journalism that was exhibited by the many people who had the tough and very unexpected duty of reporting these terrible events to the world in November 1963." -- David Von Pein
FOOTNOTE.....
I also invite you to visit my "Media Errors" webpage (linked below), which includes some discussion about many of the on-the-air mistakes made by the media right after JFK was shot (some of which are downright hilarious):
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/05/jfk-assassination-media-errors.html
-
They already knew that.
You take kookiness to a whole new level. I hate to burst your bubble, [not really] but you haven't discovered anything of importance. Nothing you post here will ever see the light of day outside this forum. It's only make believe.
The problem with that is the Lobby, at the time of Lovelady's alleged sighting of Oswald leaving through the front door, was full of people 4 or 5 minutes after the shots...Including a cop...So your weak dismissal fails to account for the pressingly obvious and also fails to answer why that cop was never identified and never bore any witnessing of Oswald's alleged leaving through the front door...Your flimsy dismissal strains under the weight of the fact Oswald's alleged leaving through the front door was one of the most important events in the entire FBI and Warren Commission investigation...The Commission would have loved to have a confirmed witnessing of Oswald leaving through the front door from either Lovelady or the un-named cop...Additionally, the cop told Oswald to step aside and wait...So Oswald's disobeying that order and leaving anyway is something the Commission would love to show as matching a fleeing presidential assassin...But, no, that's not what happened and the HSCA and Warren Commission sheepishly avoided those witnesses and did ZERO investigation of Oswald's leaving the Depository...What is left out of your flimsy dismissal is the fact a cop told Oswald to step aside and wait and your version has Oswald defying a police order right under his nose and walking out anyway...Whether you realize it or not I'm cracking the conspiracy here...The reason the FBI and Warren Commission totally avoided Oswald's departure from the Depository is because they didn't want to step on any land mines involving this business in the Lobby and trigger anyone to talk...There was an explosive situation in the Lobby that was one step away from exposing CIA Shelley's leading CIA Oswald around the police cordon and out the back door...Knowing that any look in to the details of this might expose the entire plot they simply avoided it and committed a conspicuous lack of necessary investigation...Even if they assumed Oswald left through the front door it was still against the law for Lovelady to with-hold that kind of witnessing from the FBI in the original investigation...Overlooking that fact is less than honest...
Your flimsy excuse is stressed even further by the fact Buell Frazier, in his CSPAN interview with Gary Mack, told Mack that he saw Oswald exit the rear Loading Dock, walk down Houston Street, and cross over to Elm in the direction of the bus...So not only Lovelady allegedly held back but Frazier too...Gary Mack was one of the best knowledge-able people in assassination research and he was fully aware of the implications of what Frazier was telling him...Did Mack pounce on that admission by Frazier and probe him why he held back...Or review with Frazier the serious significance of what he had just told him?...NO...Mack changed the subject immediately and avoided any necessary follow-through on the consequences of the explosive information Frazier had just told him...Just like the HSCA did with Lovelady and their non-concern...
I've cracked the case here and put the puzzle pieces together in the Lobby...The Education Forum sells itself as THE going thing in academic research and assassination scholarship...It has no interest in this monumental break-through...It does its best to keep it off the board and keep the venue open to kooks and hacks...The new owner, Andrew Iler, locks threads as soon as he makes them so there is no member input...So what is that forum?...Who are its members?...And what is its true purpose?...
-
They can't answer...
Which is why it cracks the case...
- Brian Doyle...
Rock 'n Roll Marshal and fastest gun in the JFK Wild West...
-
Yes, there were a number of errors made by the news media in the immediate hours following JFK's death (see the video below). But even though many mistakes and erroneous reports did make it to the national airwaves on Nov. 22, I still think that overall the radio and television networks did a very good job during the assassination weekend, which is why I placed the following comment at the very end of my video below:
"In creating the video, it was not my intention to cast a negative light on the people who reported the events associated with JFK's tragic murder. On the contrary, I believe the radio and TV reporters did an outstanding job of broadcasting the news coming out of Dallas during that weekend in 1963. And for the most part, they reported it very accurately. But some mistakes and erroneous initial reports were inevitable. And most of these early errors were even corrected on the air later in the weekend. On the whole, I salute and admire the high level of professional (and accurate) journalism that was exhibited by the many people who had the tough and very unexpected duty of reporting these terrible events to the world in November 1963." -- David Von Pein
FOOTNOTE.....
I also invite you to visit my "Media Errors" webpage (linked below), which includes some discussion about many of the on-the-air mistakes made by the media right after JFK was shot (some of which are downright hilarious):
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/05/jfk-assassination-media-errors.html
OMG! It was far worse than I realized. Sorry, but I can't give a passing grade to the news media for their performance that day. They were reporting rumors. IOW, they were guessing.
So many mistakes that were made that day by the media and government officials were the result of abandoning standard tried and true practices.
-
Unfortunately, there are still CIA officials who apparently don't want all the JFKA files released... It is very possible there are agents out there - active or retired - tasked to keep the issues confused with a flood of "this or that," and "he said, she said," along with a boatload of ad hominems to keep the matter from being rationally discussed and settled...
-
Unfortunately, there are still CIA officials who apparently don't want all the JFKA files released... It is very possible there are agents out there - active or retired - tasked to keep the issues confused with a flood of "this or that," and "he said, she said," along with a boatload of ad hominems to keep the matter from being rationally discussed and settled...
Dear Jake "Mr. Magoo" Maxwell,
Have you always been paranoiac?
-- Tom
-
I hate to burst your bubble, [not really] but you haven't discovered anything of importance. Nothing you post here will ever see the light of day outside this forum. It's only make believe.
My discovery of our generation, of Sarah Stanton hearing Oswald say he was going to go back in to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room to eat lunch and not going down to watch the motorcade, was published in Vince Palamara's book around 2018 (Can't remember the title)...
Richard Gilbride also published this discovery in his book "JFK Inside Job"...
In my postings about the assassination on Deep Politics I mentioned the JFK Assassination being like the "Devil's Chessboard"...Shortly after Talbot came out with a book with the same title...
It is pathetic that the reason this discovery is not being accepted and promoted by the JFK research community is so they can cater to the punk researcher Bart Kamp and flatter the ego of Jim DiEugenio - while maintaining the clique's pecking order for whom the replies are now closed...
-
My discovery of our generation, of Sarah Stanton hearing Oswald say he was going to go back in to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room to eat lunch and not going down to watch the motorcade, was published in Vince Palamara's book around 2018 (Can't remember the title)...
Richard Gilbride also published this discovery in his book "JFK Inside Job"...
In my postings about the assassination on Deep Politics I mentioned the JFK Assassination being like the "Devil's Chessboard"...Shortly after Talbot came out with a book with the same title...
It is pathetic that the reason this discovery is not being accepted and promoted by the JFK research community is so they can cater to the punk researcher Bart Kamp and flatter the ego of Jim DiEugenio - while maintaining the clique's pecking order for whom the replies are now closed...
I don't doubt you can find disciples within the kook-sphere. You are preaching to the choir. Nobody outside that realm is ever going to take you seriously. Why the hell would they?
-
I don't doubt you can find disciples within the kook-sphere. You are preaching to the choir. Nobody outside that realm is ever going to take you seriously. Why the hell would they?
Because I left David Von Pein unable to answer why the authorities allowed Lovelady to not answer why he never told the original 1963 investigation he saw Oswald leave through the front door?...The HSCA stayed miles away from that lest they provoke investigation in to it that asked why the authorities avoided identifying the cop who stopped Oswald in the Lobby...You can tell when you've scored good points when the opposition changes the subject from the material and the evidence to yourself and reduces the thread to name-calling...
When Bart Kamp was let back on The Education Forum he did not open with his claim to fame the Prayer Man theory...If the Prayer Man theory were valid it would break the back of the Warren Commission and solve the assassination...So you would think the researcher whose name was connected to it the most would stand behind such an important discovery on his return to the forum...The reason Kamp posted Oswald In Finland as his return to The Education Forum is because he doesn't believe in the Prayer Man theory...He knows I've proven it is BS...This is what the clique does...Under "Replies are closed to further comments" Andrew Iler the membership stays quiet and helps Kamp along with his shedding of the Prayer Man snake skin and using Oswald In Finland as a distraction from Kamp's now infamous self-destruction with a garbage theory...Kamp has the personal servants Iler and DiEugenio to help him along and the membership stays quiet lest it also be punished for challenging these site-dominating bullies...This is how they roll...They quietly drop their embarrassing bogus theory while keeping the vicious censorship and banning of the guy who disproved it...They have warm memories of James Gordon and his intellectual assassination of those who disproved them...
-
...the authorities avoided identifying the cop who stopped Oswald in the Lobby...
They "avoided" it because they knew it never happened. No cop ever "stopped Oswald in the Lobby" of the Depository. Oswald was stopped only one time in the TSBD by a policeman on 11/22, and that was by Marrion Baker, of course, and that occurred in the second-floor lunchroom. That fact was verified for all time by Roy Truly (and by Baker too).
More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html#DMN-11-23-63
-
Because I left David Von Pein unable to answer why the authorities allowed Lovelady to not answer why he never told the original 1963 investigation he saw Oswald leave through the front door?...The HSCA stayed miles away from that lest they provoke investigation in to it that asked why the authorities avoided identifying the cop who stopped Oswald in the Lobby...You can tell when you've scored good points when the opposition changes the subject from the material and the evidence to yourself and reduces the thread to name-calling...
Why would they bother having Lovelady testify to something that was already known. Robert McNeil and an AP report whose name I can't remember off hand both encountered Oswald as they entered the building to find a phone.
When Bart Kamp was let back on The Education Forum he did not open with his claim to fame the Prayer Man theory...If the Prayer Man theory were valid it would break the back of the Warren Commission and solve the assassination...So you would think the researcher whose name was connected to it the most would stand behind such an important discovery on his return to the forum...The reason Kamp posted Oswald In Finland as his return to The Education Forum is because he doesn't believe in the Prayer Man theory...He knows I've proven it is BS...This is what the clique does...Under "Replies are closed to further comments" Andrew Iler the membership stays quiet and helps Kamp along with his shedding of the Prayer Man snake skin and using Oswald In Finland as a distraction from Kamp's now infamous self-destruction with a garbage theory...Kamp has the personal servants Iler and DiEugenio to help him along and the membership stays quiet lest it also be punished for challenging these site-dominating bullies...This is how they roll...They quietly drop their embarrassing bogus theory while keeping the vicious censorship and banning of the guy who disproved it...They have warm memories of James Gordon and his intellectual assassination of those who disproved them...
i don't know, nor do I care, who Prayer Man was. He/she had nothing to do with the assassination. Nobody who watched the motorcade from in front of the TSBD had any involvement. The only thing that puzzles me is why anybody else cares.
-
Dear Jake "Mr. Magoo" Maxwell,
Have you always been paranoiac?
-- Tom
You might be proving my point here....
-
Some of the biggest nuts in the case.
The Harvey and Lee nuts.
Body alteration nuts.
All the evidence was altered nuts
Fred
-
They "avoided" it because they knew it never happened. No cop ever "stopped Oswald in the Lobby" of the Depository. Oswald was stopped only one time in the TSBD by a policeman on 11/22, and that was by Marrion Baker, of course, and that occurred in the second-floor lunchroom. That fact was verified for all time by Roy Truly (and by Baker too).
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes was outside of the orbit of other officials and police officers who were brought under gag orders by the conspirators...Because Holmes witnessed Oswald's interrogation on Sunday morning at the Police Station from that eccentric orbit he wasn't under the same gag order as the others and he gave information he wasn't supposed to...The words Holmes said in his witnessing of Oswald's Sunday interrogation are important...
Holmes said in very certain terms that the stopping of Oswald by the cop was in the Lobby on the 1st Floor by the front door...He added the critical detail that once that cop stopped Oswald from going out he then told Oswald to step aside and wait...
What happened here is Holmes heard talk of both stops by cops...One in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room by Baker and one in the Lobby by the deliberately unmentioned cop...Holmes, in his Warren Commission testimony, because he experienced all this from the unique perspective of Postal Inspector, who avoided the main gag order control experienced by everyone else, spoke freely and unintentionally reported dangerous information that was supposed to be covered-up...Holmes, because of his less direct position, did not comprehend that he was conflating the two stops by cops in the Depository and gave information that revealed it...
This is proven by the fact that Roy Truly's statements show a distinct difference between the Lunch Room Encounter and Holmes' version of the Lobby Encounter...Both Truly and Baker saw Oswald's lunch on the table and a Coca Cola in his hand and knew he was in there eating lunch and was therefore exonerated...That is why Truly distinctly said that when he ID-ed Oswald as an employee Baker said nothing and simply turned and ran up the stairs...Baker knew Oswald was eating lunch and was therefore not a person of interest so there was nothing more to add and he simply took off upstairs...
Proof of a second stop by a cop in the Lobby is seen in Oswald being told to step aside and wait...Since Truly said "Baker said nothing, turned, and ran up the stairs" we know that Oswald being told to step aside and wait wasn't in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...There was no reason to tell Oswald to step aside in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...The front door was the main egress to the Depository and the cop there knew that egress was about to be a busy place so after he stopped a desperate Oswald from leaving through the front door he told him to "step aside and wait" in order to keep that egress clear...We are beyond a doubt now that this is proof of a second stop...We even have a causal reason why Harvey tried to bolt out the front door when Lee, in the white T-shirt, stumbled in to the Lobby down the South East stairs...It fits perfectly and you know it...
The reason Holmes is mixing up parts of both stops and insisting this all happened on the 1st Floor by the front door is because in his Sunday interrogation witnessing he heard both true versions from Oswald's mouth and didn't realize what he was hearing because he hadn't visited the Depository...The conspirators managed to suppress this incriminating second stop by a cop because they knew it exposed the conspiracy and was extremely dangerous...The second stop in the Lobby is the key stone and epicenter of the cover-up, which is why the authorities, who did extensive examination of Marguerite's dental records, did no investigation what so ever of one of Oswald's most important moves in the Depository...The reason the Friday Interrogation notes are so fuzzy on Oswald leaving is directly because of this too...Instead of this genius level cracking of the conspiracy we are forced to listen to Bart Kamp try to force everything in to Prayer Man...And then The Education Forum works for the Commission and seals it from the board...This preventing of the solving of the case is brought to you by Jim DiEugenio and Andrew Iler...
Admit it David...I'm the best you've ever faced...
-
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes was outside of the orbit of other officials and police officers who were brought under gag orders by the conspirators
How do you know about these gag orders? Were you in on it? Who issued the orders? Inquiring minds want to know.
...Because Holmes witnessed Oswald's interrogation on Sunday morning at the Police Station from that eccentric orbit he wasn't under the same gag order as the others and he gave information he wasn't supposed to...The words Holmes said in his witnessing of Oswald's Sunday interrogation are important...
Holmes said in very certain terms that the stopping of Oswald by the cop was in the Lobby on the 1st Floor by the front door...He added the critical detail that once that cop stopped Oswald from going out he then told Oswald to step aside and wait...
Is that what Oswald said? Do you believe Oswald?
What happened here is Holmes heard talk of both stops by cops...One in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room by Baker and one in the Lobby by the deliberately unmentioned cop...Holmes, in his Warren Commission testimony, because he experienced all this from the unique perspective of Postal Inspector, who avoided the main gag order control experienced by everyone else, spoke freely and unintentionally reported dangerous information that was supposed to be covered-up...Holmes, because of his less direct position, did not comprehend that he was conflating the two stops by cops in the Depository and gave information that revealed it...
Holmes didn't witness any of this. It's what he was told. By Oswald. Great source.
This is proven by the fact that Roy Truly's statements show a distinct difference between the Lunch Room Encounter and Holmes' version of the Lobby Encounter...Both Truly and Baker saw Oswald's lunch on the table and a Coca Cola in his hand and knew he was in there eating lunch and was therefore exonerated...That is why Truly distinctly said that when he ID-ed Oswald as an employee Baker said nothing and simply turned and ran up the stairs...Baker knew Oswald was eating lunch and was therefore not a person of interest so there was nothing more to add and he simply took off upstairs...
Baker and Truly were there. Holmes was not. Baker specifically denied Oswald was holding a Coke when he refused to sign the statement that had been written up by somebody else because it stated Oswald had a Coke in his hand during the encounter. Baker was asked to cross out the reference, initial it, and then sign the prepared statement, which he did. Why do CTs keep repeating the lie that Oswald had a Coke in his hand during the encounter?
Neither Baker nor Truly said they saw a lunch on the table in either their affidavits or WC testimony. Baker used the word "lunch" 24 times in his WC testimony and in all but the last one, it was followed by the word "room". The exception is when he said "luncheon" in reference to the event at the Trade Mart.
What do you hope to prove by telling blatant lies about the evidence?
Proof of a second stop by a cop in the Lobby is seen in Oswald being told to step aside and wait...Since Truly said "Baker said nothing, turned, and ran up the stairs" we know that Oswald being told to step aside and wait wasn't in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...There was no reason to tell Oswald to step aside in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...The front door was the main egress to the Depository and the cop there knew that egress was about to be a busy place so after he stopped a desperate Oswald from leaving through the front door he told him to "step aside and wait" in order to keep that egress clear...We are beyond a doubt now that this is proof of a second stop...We even have a causal reason why Harvey tried to bolt out the front door when Lee, in the white T-shirt, stumbled in to the Lobby down the South East stairs...It fits perfectly and you know it...
Who said Oswald was told by a cop to step aside? I know the answer. I just want you to say it.
The reason Holmes is mixing up parts of both stops and insisting this all happened on the 1st Floor by the front door is because in his Sunday interrogation witnessing he heard both true versions from Oswald's mouth and didn't realize what he was hearing because he hadn't visited the Depository...The conspirators managed to suppress this incriminating second stop by a cop because they knew it exposed the conspiracy and was extremely dangerous...The second stop in the Lobby is the key stone and epicenter of the cover-up, which is why the authorities, who did extensive examination of Marguerite's dental records, did no investigation what so ever of one of Oswald's most important moves in the Depository...The reason the Friday Interrogation notes are so fuzzy on Oswald leaving is directly because of this too...Instead of this genius level cracking of the conspiracy we are forced to listen to Bart Kamp try to force everything in to Prayer Man...And then The Education Forum works for the Commission and seals it from the board...This preventing of the solving of the case is brought to you by Jim DiEugenio and Andrew Iler...
You keep citing Holmes as if he witnesses these events. Everything Holmes related is hearsay. That means he didn't witness any of this. You treat it as though he did.
Admit it David...I'm the best you've ever faced...
It's hilarious that you act as if you are the smartest person on this forum when the reality is you are the dumbest.
-
They "avoided" it because they knew it never happened. No cop ever "stopped Oswald in the Lobby" of the Depository. Oswald was stopped only one time in the TSBD by a policeman on 11/22, and that was by Marrion Baker, of course, and that occurred in the second-floor lunchroom. That fact was verified for all time by Roy Truly (and by Baker too).
More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html#DMN-11-23-63
The record does indeed show that Truly and Baker encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom, although I seem to remember that early on in the case there was some mention of a 3rd floor encounter.
That being said, my question for you, David, is how does anybody really know that something never happened?
I'm really wondering how that works. Did they ask some (or all) officers if they stopped Oswald at the lobby and when nobody answered "yes", did they simply conclude it never happened? Never mind that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, right? And if that's what happened, what would have been the reason for asking those officers in the first place?
I'm also wondering what Oswald was actually doing in the 2nd floor lunchroom, if he wasn't there to get a soda. If, as the WC claimed, he came down the stairs and heard Truly and Baker come up, why did he go to the lunchroom, when he could have turned right and walk down the hall and office space to the building's front door. Had he done that, there would have been nobody who would have seen him anywhere near or on the stairs. I.M.O. The lunchroom visit only makes sense if Oswald had indeed a reason for being there. What's your opinion about this, David?
-
Some of the biggest nuts in the case.
The Harvey and Lee nuts.
Body alteration nuts.
All the evidence was altered nuts
Fred
Unfortunately there are several people right here on this board that believe the above. Kinda amazing, hilarious and sad all at the same time.
-
Unfortunately there are several people right here on this board that believe the above. Kinda amazing, hilarious and sad all at the same time.
I'm sure the people you are talking about (I'm not one of them) think the same about people who dismiss those possibilities.
Both sides have people who think, for some reason that's utterly beyond me, that, despite the fact that they have no first hand information, think that their opinion is the only correct one.
-
It's hilarious that you act as if you are the smartest person on this forum when the reality is you are the dumbest.
No, I get it...
The FBI and Warren Commission did ZERO investigation of one of the most important events in the Depository, in the form of how Oswald left the Depository, because what I wrote above is just completely ridiculous and doesn't give a shockingly tight-fitting reason for it...I get it...
And, even though, in a presidential assassination, Lovelady not telling the authorities in the original 1963 investigation that he saw Oswald exit through the front door is, technically, a with-holding of evidence crime, that HSCA and FBI just decided to not confront Lovelady cause, ah, ehm, they already knew...Yeah, that's the ticket because you know how forgiving those Specter-types are...This is the same FBI that committed Ralph Yates...But, no, I get it...
Still waiting for you to give a credible answer to that...
-
No, I get it...
The FBI and Warren Commission did ZERO investigation of one of the most important events in the Depository, in the form of how Oswald left the Depository, because what I wrote above is just completely ridiculous and doesn't give a shockingly tight-fitting reason for it...I get it...
It is only important to someone who doesn't know how to weigh evidence. It's a real nothing burger.
And, even though, in a presidential assassination, Lovelady not telling the authorities in the original 1963 investigation that he saw Oswald exit through the front door is, technically, a with-holding of evidence crime, that HSCA and FBI just decided to not confront Lovelady cause, ah, ehm, they already knew...Yeah, that's the ticket because you know how forgiving those Specter-types are...This is the same FBI that committed Ralph Yates...But, no, I get it...
Still waiting for you to give a credible answer to that...
Billy Lovelady testified that he heard Oswald in the east elevator as he was breaking for lunch but did not actually see him. When asked if he saw Oswald after that his one word answer was "No". He wouldn't have seen Oswald leave building because after the shooting, Gloria Calvary told him and Bill Shelley that the President had been shot and he and Shelley then headed down the Elm. St. extension toward the railroad tracks. It's amazing how you could dream up your BS story from that.
-
It is only important to someone who doesn't know how to weigh evidence. It's a real nothing burger.
Billy Lovelady testified that he heard Oswald in the east elevator as he was breaking for lunch but did not actually see him. When asked if he saw Oswald after that his one word answer was "No". He wouldn't have seen Oswald leave building because after the shooting, Gloria Calvary told him and Bill Shelley that the President had been shot and he and Shelley then headed down the Elm. St. extension toward the railroad tracks. It's amazing how you could dream up your BS story from that.
It is only important to someone who doesn't know how to weigh evidence.
And you know how to weigh evidence? Really?
-
It is only important to someone who doesn't know how to weigh evidence.
And you know how to weigh evidence? Really?
Yes, I do. That's why I was able to figure out a long time ago that LHO killed JFK and that there is zero evidence he had even a single accomplice. I could be convinced otherwise if somebody could present actual evidence to the contrary but it's been almost 63 years since JFK was killed and the chances of that happening get more remote with each passing year.
-
Yes, I do. That's why I was able to figure out a long time ago that LHO killed JFK and that there is zero evidence he had even a single accomplice. I could be convinced otherwise if somebody could present actual evidence to the contrary but it's been almost 63 years since JFK was killed and the chances of that happening get more remote with each passing year.
You do understand that there is a major difference between you thinking that you know how to weigh evidence and demonstrating that you actually can weigh the evidence, right?
Some people think that whatever they believe in is always correct, when in most cases it isn't.
If you really knew how to weigh evidence, you would have been able to answer questions (which you can't and don't) and you would actually be able to present a persuasive argument instead of constantly complaining about people that don't share your opinion.
-
You do understand that there is a major difference between you thinking that you know how to weigh evidence and demonstrating that you actually can weigh the evidence, right?
Some people think that whatever they believe in is always correct, when in most cases it isn't.
I KNOW with 100% certainty that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK. I am 99.99% certain he had no accomplices.
If you really knew how to weigh evidence, you would have been able to answer questions (which you can't and don't) and you would actually be able to present a persuasive argument instead of constantly complaining about people that don't share your opinion.
It's almost impossible to persuade CT cement heads.
-
I KNOW with 100% certainty that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK. I am 99.99% certain he had no accomplices.
It's almost impossible to persuade CT cement heads.
Hilarious!
I KNOW with 100% certainty that
You can assume, conclude, believe or think something, but there is no way that you can "know with 100% certainty" that something happened unless you witnessed it yourself.
It's almost impossible to persuade CT cement heads.
That's just a pathetic coward's excuse for not answering a question.
But thank you for proving my point! Thumb1:
-
Hilarious!
I KNOW with 100% certainty that
You can assume, conclude, believe or think something, but there no way that you can "know with 100% certainty" that something happened unless you witnessed it yourself.
It's almost impossible to persuade CT cement heads.
That's just a pathetic coward's excuse for not answering a question.
But thank you for proving my point! Thumb1:
That you're a cement head?
-
That you're a cement head?
Are you really so dumb that you don't even understand what point I made you have proven?
-
Are you really so dumb that you don't even understand what point I made you have proven?
You made a point?
-
You made a point?
It's all so obvious, and you still need to ask questions..... Go figure
Oh well, now you've proven two of the points I made. Want to go for three?
-
It's all so obvious, and you still need to ask questions..... Go figure
Oh well, now you've proven two of the points I made. Want to go for three?
I figured out who killed JFK a long time ago. What puzzles me to this day is why so many people have such a hard time with it. It's really not difficult at all. It does seem to have you stumped.
-
I figured out who killed JFK a long time ago. What puzzles me to this day is why so many people have such a hard time with it. It's really not difficult at all. It does seem to have you stumped.
People like Weidmann need to believe that Peter Dale Scott's evil, evil "Deep State," or Jimmy DiEugenio's evil, evil "National Security State," or Steve Bannon's evil, evil "Administrative State" are responsible for all of the evils in the world, including the assassination of JFK . . . but heaven forbid, NOT the world-class humanitarian organization known as the KGB (today's SVR and FSB), or "useful idiots" like LHO who was radicalized at a young age by its "Justice for the Rosenbergs!", etc., etc., etc. propaganda.
-
I figured out who killed JFK a long time ago. What puzzles me to this day is why so many people have such a hard time with it. It's really not difficult at all. It does seem to have you stumped.
I figured out who killed JFK a long time ago.
Of course you did! Just like I figured out that you are clueless about any detail tof case.
What puzzles me to this day is why so many people have such a hard time with it
Could that be because those people just understand something you don't?
-
People like Weidmann need to believe that Peter Dale Scott's evil, evil "Deep State," or Jimmy DiEugenio's evil, evil "National Security State," or Steve Bannon's evil, evil "Administrative State" are responsible for all of the evils in the world, including the assassination of JFK . . . but heaven forbid, NOT the world-class humanitarian organization known as the KGB (today's SVR and FSB), or "useful idiots" like LHO who were radicalized at a young age by its "Justice for the Rosenbergs!", etc., etc., etc. propaganda.
What in the world are you talking about?
-
I figured out who killed JFK a long time ago.
Of course you did! Just like I figured out that you are clueless about any detail tof case.
What puzzles me to this day is why so many people have such a hard time with it
Could that be because those people just understand something you don't?
Weidmann,
How old were you when you first drank the Kool Aide?
-- Tom
-
Weidmann,
How old were you when you first drank the Kool Aide?
-- Tom
120
-
How old were you when you first drank the Kool Aide?
120
I asked you how old you were, not how many cups you had.
-
I asked you how old you were, not how many cups you had.
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer
-
I figured out who killed JFK a long time ago.
Of course you did! Just like I figured out that you are clueless about any detail tof case.
Your problem, like so many of your fellow CTs, is that you know so many things that aren't true.
What puzzles me to this day is why so many people have such a hard time with it
Could that be because those people just understand something you don't?
No, it's because they believe so many myths that I don't.
-
Your problem, like so many of your fellow CTs, is that you know so many things that aren't true.
No, it's because they believe so many myths that I don't.
like so many of your fellow CTs
First of all, I have no fellow CTs, as I don't have a conspiracy theory
you know so many things that aren't true.
BS... You don't know what I know or not know. But I'll play your silly game; name one thing that I know isn't true!
No, it's because they believe so many myths that I don't.
Name one of those myths!
-
It is only important to someone who doesn't know how to weigh evidence. It's a real nothing burger.
Billy Lovelady testified that he heard Oswald in the east elevator as he was breaking for lunch but did not actually see him. When asked if he saw Oswald after that his one word answer was "No". He wouldn't have seen Oswald leave building because after the shooting, Gloria Calvary told him and Bill Shelley that the President had been shot and he and Shelley then headed down the Elm. St. extension toward the railroad tracks. It's amazing how you could dream up your BS story from that.
Besides hand-waving and not answering the point, you only strengthen my point above...
The matter of Jarman saying that Lovelady told him he saw Oswald leave through the front door occurred at the time of HSCA and is on record...Denying it is silly...
If Lovelady said he did not see Oswald after he heard him in the elevator only strengthens my point and leaves you with less of an excuse for not answering why then, having evidence of perjury in their hands in the investigation of a presidential assassination, they did not follow-through with Lovelady and ask him why he held that back during the 1963 investigation?...You would think they would be interested in finding out why Lovelady said he did not see Oswald again and then telling Jarman he saw Oswald leave through the front door...
The Education Forum was designed to be a Kennedy Assassination "Debate" board that was specifically designed to discuss and expose this kind of hot evidence issue...Yet when I ask why the board makes sure that this kind of important evidence is kept off the board and intentionally avoided I get no answer and the people who don't answer make it their business to destroy its source and shut down the evidence issue...
Just who or what exactly is in charge of The Education Forum and what is their agenda?...It certainly isn't solving the case...Maybe we can ask "The Moderation Team"?...That forum is more pre-disposed to suppressing the best evidence rather than debating it...As to the matter of reforming the forum and improving its flaws - "Thread closed to further replies"...
-
like so many of your fellow CTs
First of all, I have no fellow CTs, as I don't have a conspiracy theory
Which means your sole purpose here is to be a pein in the Bahookie. IOW, you are troll.
you know so many things that aren't true.
BS... You don't know what I know or not know. But I'll play your silly game; name one thing that I know isn't true!
Perhaps I misjudged you. Are you saying you are a know nothing? That I would believe.
No, it's because they believe so many myths that I don't.
Name one of those myths!
Just one?
How about the SBT is impossible?
Want more?
JFK and JBC reacted to being shot at different times.
JFK was shot from the front.
Oswald couldn't have fired 3 shots in the amount of time he had.
There was a shooter on the GK.
Oswald couldn't have reached the lunchroom before Baker.
There's a lot more where those came from.
-
Jeremy Bojczuk - Education Forum 2019:
" Jarman's remarks were in an interview, unpublished as far as I can tell, given on 25 September 1977 to William Brown and Albert Maxwell. There is a transcript online at https://www.thenewdisease.space/james-jarman-hsca . This is the relevant portion:
Quote
And, after we was inside the building after that, I heard that Oswald had came [sic] down through the office and came down the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that had stopped us and sent us back in the building and Mr. Truddy [sic] told them that that was alright, that he worked here, so then, he proceeded own [sic] out the building and we wondered why he stopped us.
...
Well, there was a billy love lady [sic] standing out there, he was on the steps, see.
...
And, Oswald was coming out the door and he [Lovelady] said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building, billy love lady [sic] said that Mr. Trudy [sic] told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs.
It looks as though Oswald's encounter with a policeman by the front doors took place some time after Marrion Baker's encounter on the third or fourth floor with someone who did not match Oswald's description. As Vanessa points out, the fact that Jarman was quoting Lovelady, who was certainly on the steps during the shooting, adds credence to his account. "
-
Jeremy Bojczuk - Education Forum 2019:
" Jarman's remarks were in an interview, unpublished as far as I can tell, given on 25 September 1977 to William Brown and Albert Maxwell. There is a transcript online at https://www.thenewdisease.space/james-jarman-hsca . This is the relevant portion:
Quote
And, after we was inside the building after that, I heard that Oswald had came [sic] down through the office and came down the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that had stopped us and sent us back in the building and Mr. Truddy [sic] told them that that was alright, that he worked here, so then, he proceeded own [sic] out the building and we wondered why he stopped us.
...
Well, there was a billy love lady [sic] standing out there, he was on the steps, see.
...
And, Oswald was coming out the door and he [Lovelady] said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building, billy love lady [sic] said that Mr. Trudy [sic] told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs.
It looks as though Oswald's encounter with a policeman by the front doors took place some time after Marrion Baker's encounter on the third or fourth floor with someone who did not match Oswald's description. As Vanessa points out, the fact that Jarman was quoting Lovelady, who was certainly on the steps during the shooting, adds credence to his account. "
Delusional as usual.
-
Delusional as usual.
You called for the references...Were given them...And then name-called instead of answering what they showed...
Lovelady committed perjury, by your own evidence, when he said he did not see Oswald after the elevator and then told Jarman he saw Oswald leave through the front door...HSCA showed no interest in Lovelady changing his story and basically admitting he with-held evidence...They showed no interest because they knew it was a powder keg they didn't want to touch...
What you are avoiding answering here, Mr Corbett, is that Lovelady saw Harvey try to leave through the front door and getting stopped by the un-named cop at the front door, and being forced to come back inside to the Lobby...This makes sense because the Martin Film shows Lovelady has separated from Shelley at this point and was on the outside steps...
We know Lovelady was lying and covering for CIA Shelley because Mr Truly was not back down to the Lobby from the upper floors when this occurred...It was actually Shelley who intervened as Oswald's "Superintendent" and OK-ed him, but "Oswald" was then told to step aside and wait by the un-named cop...Shelley then assisted "Oswald" out the rear Loading Dock exit...Lovelady's whole purpose in telling this lie to Jarman is to cover-up Shelley OK-ing Oswald in the Lobby and replace him with Truly...
Jarman then proceeds to do exactly what Holmes did and conflates the "OK-ed by Truly and walked on down the stairs", that happened in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room, with walking out the front door and down the front stairs...This mixing and muddling of the two stops by cops is being done intentionally so they can be conflated in to one stop by a cop during the Lunch Room Encounter in order to lose this dangerous stopping of Oswald by a cop in the Lobby and Shelley's bailing him out...
If you read Bojczuk's final summation at the bottom of the quote he realizes this was a second stop by a second cop in the Lobby...
The Education Forum is trying its hardest to keep this explosive break-through from the board...
-
Which means your sole purpose here is to be a pein in the Bahookie. IOW, you are troll.
Perhaps I misjudged you. Are you saying you are a know nothing? That I would believe.
Just one?
How about the SBT is impossible?
Want more?
JFK and JBC reacted to being shot at different times.
JFK was shot from the front.
Oswald couldn't have fired 3 shots in the amount of time he had.
There was a shooter on the GK.
Oswald couldn't have reached the lunchroom before Baker.
There's a lot more where those came from.
Which means your sole purpose here is to be a pein in the Bahookie. IOW, you are troll.
Why do you constantly insist to show off your complete ignorance?
I'm only a pain in your back because I am asking questions you can't or don't want to answer.
Perhaps I misjudged you. Are you saying you are a know nothing? That I would believe.
I'm not sure how your clearly confused mind came op with this "conclusion", but you are indeed right about one thing. You are indeed misjudging me, but that's a given for someone as clueless as you.
Btw thanks for showing everybody that once again you have made another bogus claim. Your inability to name one thing that I - according to you - know isn't true, speaks volumes!
How about the SBT is impossible?
JFK and JBC reacted to being shot at different times.
JFK was shot from the front.
Oswald couldn't have fired 3 shots in the amount of time he had.
There was a shooter on the GK.
I have never expressed an opinion about any of these. Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions about things I can not verify.
Oswald couldn't have reached the lunchroom before Baker.
This one is just plain silly, because Oswald was in the lunchroom when Baker came in, right?
A far better question would be; what was he doing there?
If - as you claim but can't prove - Oswald was on the run why didn't he simply turn right and go through hall way and office directly to the frontdoor of the building?
There's a lot more where those came from.
I'm sure there are. Your imagination seems to have no limits and what you come up with shows clearly how delusional you are.
-
Jarman said:
"And, after we was inside the building after that, I heard that Oswald had came [sic] down through the office and came down the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that had stopped us and sent us back in the building and Mr. Truddy [sic] told them that that was alright, that he worked here, so then, he proceeded own [sic] out the building and we wondered why he stopped us."
Corbett is having visible trouble answering...
When Jarman details that Oswald had "came down through the office" and "was stopped by the officer that has stopped us" he gives information that is backed by Mrs Reid witnessing Oswald walking through the 2nd Floor Offices before going down the SE staircase...
Corbett has a real dilemma here because the only place the cop who stopped Jarman and the other negro employees could be is in the Lobby by the front door because Truly & Baker never stopped those workers on the 2nd Floor...
The wording also connotes that after Oswald was stopped by that officer that Oswald then walked out the front door and down the front steps and out of the building...There's no doubt that is what Jarman means and he even adds that it made him wonder why the cop stopped him if he had allowed Oswald to leave...The context is clearly referencing being told all this by Lovelady...
So you have a problem here because Jarman makes clear all this happened with a un-named cop at the front door...A cop that had stopped him and his black co-workers...And a cop that then also stopped Oswald but then (allegedly) let him leave...
Not only did the FBI and Warren Commission do zero investigation in to this but the HSCA also unaccountably showed no interest in Lovelady with-holding evidence and committing perjury...
-
Which means your sole purpose here is to be a pein in the Bahookie. IOW, you are troll.
Why do you constantly insist to show off your complete ignorance?
I'm only a pain in your back because I am asking questions you can't or don't want to answer.
There is no question you have asked me that I haven't been ask and answered numerous times over the last 35 years. You recycle the same old I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy that have floating around the CT punch bowl for decades.
Perhaps I misjudged you. Are you saying you are a know nothing? That I would believe.
I'm not sure how your clearly confused mind came op with this "conclusion", but you are indeed right about one thing. You are indeed misjudging me, but that's a given for someone as clueless as you.
This from a guy who admits he's too dumb too have an opinion on the issues of the JFKA.
Btw thanks for showing everybody that once again you have made another bogus claim. Your inability to name one thing that I - according to you - know isn't true, speaks volumes!
How can I name one thing when you lack the guts to tell anybody what you believe.
How about the SBT is impossible?
JFK and JBC reacted to being shot at different times.
JFK was shot from the front.
Oswald couldn't have fired 3 shots in the amount of time he had.
There was a shooter on the GK.
I have never expressed an opinion about any of these. Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions about things I can not verify.
Jump to conclusions? It's been over six decades. Just how long does it take you to figure out such simple concepts. This isn't rocket science. The truth is you're just too Helicopter :) to take a position on any of these matters.
Oswald couldn't have reached the lunchroom before Baker.
This one is just plain silly, because Oswald was in the lunchroom when Baker came in, right?
Now you're just playing your Helicopter :) games with semantics. You know damn well the argument has been that Oswald couldn't have reached the second floor lunchroom before Baker if he had fired the shots from 6th floor. This is just the kind of childish games internet trolls play to get their jollies. Just how pathetic is your life that this is what you do for fun?
A far better question would be; what was he doing there?
If its' such a good question, what is your answer. Do you have the guts to answer it?
If - as you claim but can't prove - Oswald was on the run why didn't he simply turn right and go through hall way and office directly to the frontdoor of the building?
Now you expect me to read Oswald's mind. The fact is he went into the lunchroom seconds before Baker reached the landing. It's not like he had a lot of time to ponder his next move before Baker confronted him.
There's a lot more where those came from.
I'm sure there are. Your imagination seems to have no limits and what you come up with shows clearly how delusional you are.
Neither does your cowardice.
-
There is no question you have asked me that I haven't been ask and answered numerous times over the last 35 years. You recycle the same old I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy that have floating around the CT punch bowl for decades.
This from a guy who admits he's too dumb too have an opinion on the issues of the JFKA.
How can I name one thing when you lack the guts to tell anybody what you believe.
Jump to conclusions? It's been over six decades. Just how long does it take you to figure out such simple concepts. This isn't rocket science. The truth is you're just too Helicopter :) to take a position on any of these matters.
Now you're just your Helicopter :) playing games with semantics. You know damn well the argument has been that Oswald couldn't have reached the second floor lunchroom before Baker if he had fired the shots from 6th floor. This is just the kind of childish games internet trolls play to get their jollies. Just how pathetic is your life that this is what you do for fun?
If its' such a good question, what is your answer. Do you have the guts to answer it?
Now you expect me to read Oswald's mind. The fact is he went into the lunchroom seconds before Baker reached the landing. It's not like he had a lot of time to ponder his next move before Baker confronted him.
Neither does your cowardice.
There is no question you have asked me that I haven't been ask and answered numerous times over the last 35 years. You recycle the same old I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy that have floating around the CT punch bowl for decades.
Evasive! If you have answered a question before, you should be able to simply provide that answer. So, why don't you?
This from a guy who admits he's too dumb too have an opinion on the issues of the JFKA.
With idiots like you around, not having an opinion (which equals an open mind) is probably the best option :D
How can I name one thing when you lack the guts to tell anybody what you believe.
Oh boy.... You claimed that I know so many things that aren't true.
Your problem, like so many of your fellow CTs, is that you know so many things that aren't true.
So, now you admit that you don't even know what I know or not. Keep digging the hole......
Jump to conclusions? It's been over six decades. Just how long does it take you to figure out such simple concepts. This isn't rocket science. The truth is you're just too Helicopter :) to take a position on any of these matters.
The time lapse doesn't matter. You are constantly jumping to the same conclusions as the WC did in 1964.
Now you're just your Helicopter :) playing games with semantics. You know damn well the argument has been that Oswald couldn't have reached the second floor lunchroom before Baker if he had fired the shots from 6th floor. This is just the kind of childish games internet trolls play to get their jollies. Just how pathetic is your life that this is what you do for fun?
No semantics. I just replied to one of your more idiotic comments. Why don't you show me the evidence that proves that Oswald did in fact come down the stairs from the 6th floor. Can you do that?
I seriously doubt it.
If its' such a good question, what is your answer. Do you have the guts to answer it?
He may well have been getting a soda, as he claimed. How's that for an answer?
Now you expect me to read Oswald's mind.
Huh? You've been doing exactly that time after time, so why not now?
The fact is he went into the lunchroom seconds before Baker reached the landing. It's not like he had a lot of time to ponder his next move before Baker confronted him.
Aha, so now it's a fact? Really?... I have actually been in the building and saw the lay out of the 2nd floor. If I had been on the run, there is now way that I would go into a lunchroom and corner myself in, when all I had to do is turn right and walk out of the building.
Neither does your cowardice.
Getting frustrated? :D Thumb1:
You can try to save face by attacking me, but if you want to be taken seriously, you really need to start talking about the case and answer questions. As long as you don't, you'll be never considered to be anything but a loser.
-
There is no question you have asked me that I haven't been ask and answered numerous times over the last 35 years. You recycle the same old I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy that have floating around the CT punch bowl for decades.
Evasive! If you have answered a question before, you should be able to simply provide that answer. So, why don't you?
You aren't a Cowardly Lion. You are a Lyin' Coward. Nobody has to guess what I believe. I have stated my position on the JFKA time and again. I have stated unambiguously that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and that there is zero evidence that he had even a single accomplice. I have stated that he missed with his first shot, hit both JFK and JBC with the second, and blew JFK's brains out with his third. I have stated with specificity when I believe each of these three shots were fired. You on the other hand have NEVER stated what you believe on these fundamental questions. Why don't you grow a pair I tell us what you believe before you go around of accusing others of not answering questions.
This from a guy who admits he's too dumb too have an opinion on the issues of the JFKA.
With idiots like you around, not having an opinion (which equals an open mind) is probably the best option :D
Is that your excuse for being a Helicopter :)
How can I name one thing when you lack the guts to tell anybody what you believe.
Oh boy.... You claimed that I know so many things that aren't true.
You continue to put your cowardice on full display. I have differences with the CTs on this forum but at least they have the guts to take a position and argue for it. You have never done that. You're too Helicopter :)
So, now you admit that you don't even know what I know or not. Keep digging the hole......
How could anybody know what you think when you don't have the guts to tell us.
Jump to conclusions? It's been over six decades. Just how long does it take you to figure out such simple concepts. This isn't rocket science. The truth is you're just too Helicopter :) to take a position on any of these matters.
The time lapse doesn't matter. You are constantly jumping to the same conclusions as the WC did in 1964.
Keep running, coward.
Now you're just your Helicopter :) playing games with semantics. You know damn well the argument has been that Oswald couldn't have reached the second floor lunchroom before Baker if he had fired the shots from 6th floor. This is just the kind of childish games internet trolls play to get their jollies. Just how pathetic is your life that this is what you do for fun?
No semantics. I just replied to one of your more idiotic comments. Why don't you show me the evidence that proves that Oswald did in fact come down the stairs from the 6th floor. Can you do that?
There is ample forensic evidence which establishes Oswald fired the shots and he was seen a short time later entering the lunchroom. The stairs is the most likely way for him to come down. If you want to argue he took the elevator instead, it's up to you to make that case. We both know you lack the guts to take that or any other position.I seriously doubt it.
If its' such a good question, what is your answer. Do you have the guts to answer it?
He may well have been getting a soda, as he claimed. How's that for an answer?
I guess killing a president works up quite a thirst.
Now you expect me to read Oswald's mind.
Huh? You've been doing exactly that time after time, so why not now?
Everyone knows that I have consistently taken the position that we have no way of knowing what Oswald was thinking at any given time and we are left to guess. If you want, I could easily cite a dozen examples of that and I would be more than happy to jam them up your nose.
The fact is he went into the lunchroom seconds before Baker reached the landing. It's not like he had a lot of time to ponder his next move before Baker confronted him.
Aha, so now it's a fact? Really?... I have actually been in the building and saw the lay out of the 2nd floor. If I had been on the run, there is now way that I would go into a lunchroom and corner myself in, when all I had to do is turn right and walk out of the building.
What you would have done is irrelevant. Oswald got to make those decisions.
Neither does your cowardice.
Getting frustrated? :D Thumb1:
You can try to save face by attacking me, but if you want to be taken seriously, you really need to start talking about the case and answer questions. As long as you don't, you'll be never considered to be anything but a loser.
Not frustrated. Just disgusted by a man whose life must be so pathetic that the only jollies he gets is trolling internet discussion groups for the sole purpose of playing childish word games without ever having the courage to actually take a position and defend it.
-
You aren't a Cowardly Lion. You are a Lyin' Coward. Nobody has to guess what I believe. I have stated my position on the JFKA time and again. I have stated unambiguously that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and that there is zero evidence that he had even a single accomplice. I have stated that he missed with his first shot, hit both JFK and JBC with the second, and blew JFK's brains out with his third. I have stated with specificity when I believe each of these three shots were fired. You on the other hand have NEVER stated what you believe on these fundamental questions. Why don't you grow a pair I tell us what you believe before you go around of accusing others of not answering questions.
Is that your excuse for being a Helicopter :)
You continue to put your cowardice on full display. I have differences with the CTs on this forum but at least they have the guts to take a position and argue for it. You have never done that. You're too Helicopter :)
How could anybody know what you think when you don't have the guts to tell us.
Keep running, coward.
I guess killing a president works up quite a thirst.
Everyone knows that I have consistently taken the position that we have no way of knowing what Oswald was thinking at any given time and we are left to guess. If you want, I could easily cite a dozen examples of that and I would be more than happy to jam them up your nose.
What you would have done is irrelevant. Oswald got to make those decisions.
Not frustrated. Just disgusted by a man whose life must be so pathetic that the only jollies he gets is trolling internet discussion groups for the sole purpose of playing childish word games without ever having the courage to actually take a position and defend it.
Wow, the pathetic little man is resorting to insults to cover up the fact that he has nothing of any value to add to any discussion.
is trolling internet discussion groups
What groups would that be? Or is this just one more thing you are making up?
-
Wow, the pathetic little man is resorting to insults to cover up the fact that he has nothing of any value to add to any discussion.
is trolling internet discussion groups
What groups would that be? Or is this just one more thing you are making up?
Maybe an earlier post gives some explanation:
Unfortunately, there are still CIA officials who apparently don't want all the JFKA files released... It is very possible there are agents out there - active or retired - tasked to keep the issues confused with a flood of "this or that," and "he said, she said," along with a boatload of ad hominems to keep the matter from being rationally discussed and settled...
-
You aren't a Cowardly Lion. You are a Lyin' Coward. Nobody has to guess what I believe. I have stated my position on the JFKA time and again. I have stated unambiguously that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and that there is zero evidence that he had even a single accomplice. I have stated that he missed with his first shot, hit both JFK and JBC with the second, and blew JFK's brains out with his third. I have stated with specificity when I believe each of these three shots were fired. You on the other hand have NEVER stated what you believe on these fundamental questions. Why don't you grow a pair I tell us what you believe before you go around of accusing others of not answering questions.
Is that your excuse for being a Helicopter :)
You continue to put your cowardice on full display. I have differences with the CTs on this forum but at least they have the guts to take a position and argue for it. You have never done that. You're too Helicopter :)
How could anybody know what you think when you don't have the guts to tell us.
Keep running, coward.
I guess killing a president works up quite a thirst.
Everyone knows that I have consistently taken the position that we have no way of knowing what Oswald was thinking at any given time and we are left to guess. If you want, I could easily cite a dozen examples of that and I would be more than happy to jam them up your nose.
What you would have done is irrelevant. Oswald got to make those decisions.
Not frustrated. Just disgusted by a man whose life must be so pathetic that the only jollies he gets is trolling internet discussion groups for the sole purpose of playing childish word games without ever having the courage to actually take a position and defend it.
You are a fake.
-
You are a fake.
You must be a Wiedman sock puppet.
-
You must be a Wiedman sock puppet.
He's dead right about Trump, but dead wrong about the JFKA.
You, on the other hand, are dead right about the JFKA (except for the exact timing of LHO's early, missing-everything, shot), and dead wrong about Trump.
Me?
I'm dead right about both.
-
You are a fake.
Get in, Coward! We’re going Cowarding ! lol. nut cases abound !
-
You must be a Wiedman sock puppet.
Here we go again. When a Mytton clone gets stuck they bring up this crap.
It's a clear sign the loser knows he has lost.
-
Here we go again. When a Mytton clone gets stuck they bring up this crap.
It's a clear sign the loser knows he has lost.
It is pointless is engaging with a man who is too gutless to take a position on any issue.
Go away troll, and take your sock puppet with you.
-
It is pointless is engaging with a man who is too gutless to take a position on any issue.
Go away troll, and take your sock puppet with you.
:D
-
It is pointless is engaging with a man who is too gutless to take a position on any issue.
Go away troll, and take your sock puppet with you.
Why do you insist on using words like "engaging" which you clearly do not understand?
-
Why do you insist on using words like "engaging" which you clearly do not understand?
Troll
-
Troll
A nice example of J.C. "engaging" :D
-
Get in, Coward! We’re going Cowarding ! lol. nut cases abound !
Where are we going?
Do you want to get down in the dirt on the criticisms of the case?
Or hand wave everything away as "No such thing as conspiracy"?
-
There seems to be some thread-sliding going on in here and Corbett appears to be having trouble answering Jarman's quote:
Jarman said:
"And, after we was inside the building after that, I heard that Oswald had came [sic] down through the office and came down the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that had stopped us and sent us back in the building and Mr. Truddy [sic] told them that that was alright, that he worked here, so then, he proceeded own [sic] out the building and we wondered why he stopped us."
1) Jarman heard all this from Lovelady and Jarman was repeating it at his HSCA interview...The context is Jarman relating what Lovelady told him...
2) This description reflects the Oswald in the white T-shirt seen by Mrs Reid walking through the Second Floor Offices with a Coke...
3) What Lovelady told Jarman clearly describes an un-named cop at the front door in the Lobby and confirms that was where Oswald was stopped...The wording that Oswald was allowed to leave the building after that stop also confirms this happened at the front door after "coming down the front stairs"...After hearing this story from Lovelady Jarman wonders why Oswald was allowed to leave when the black workers were not...
4) Jarman makes the same mistake Holmes did and conflates the Lunch Room Encounter on the 2nd Floor, where Truly OK-ed Oswald as an employee, with this second stop by a cop in the Lobby...We know there was a cop in the Lobby because Truly & Baker never stopped the black workers on the 2nd Floor...The wording all connotes a cop stopping both Oswald and the black workers at the front door...
Jarman said:
" And, Oswald was coming out the door and he [Lovelady] said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building, billy love lady [sic] said that Mr. Trudy [sic] told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs. "
Lovelady, outside on the front steps, saw Harvey try to escape out the front door when Harvey saw Lee in the white T-shirt stumble in to the other side of the Lobby from the SE staircase...Lovelady witnessed the un-named cop stop Harvey and order him back inside...Lovelady then planted the deliberate mis-information with Jarman that Truly was there and OK-ed Harvey as an employee...Lovelady did this because he was trying to cover-up the fact his partner Shelley was the one who OK-ed Harvey and helped him around the police detention and out the Loading Dock...This is the whole purpose of Lovelady telling the lie that he saw Oswald leave through the front door...It is to avoid the dangerously exposing evidence of Shelley assisting Oswald...
Corbett is asking us to believe that both the Warren Commission, FBI, and HSCA all had this information in their possession on how Oswald left the building...And they also had evidence of Lovelady committing perjury and with-holding evidence, and they decided to do nothing...And they left the cop unidentified and did no investigation of how Oswald left the building...Holmes let this second stop information leak because he was in a separate orbit because he was Postal Inspector...Jarman leaked this critical information because he was in a separate orbit as a black worker...Just like Sarah Stanton, he told his story years later when he realized it hadn't gotten the necessary attention it deserved...
-
There seems to be some thread-sliding going on in here and Corbett appears to be having trouble answering Jarman's quote:
Jarman said:
"And, after we was inside the building after that, I heard that Oswald had came [sic] down through the office and came down the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that had stopped us and sent us back in the building and Mr. Truddy [sic] told them that that was alright, that he worked here, so then, he proceeded own [sic] out the building and we wondered why he stopped us."
1) Jarman heard all this from Lovelady and Jarman was repeating it at his HSCA interview...The context is Jarman relating what Lovelady told him...
2) This description reflects the Oswald in the white T-shirt seen by Mrs Reid walking through the Second Floor Offices with a Coke...
3) What Lovelady told Jarman clearly describes an un-named cop at the front door in the Lobby and confirms that was where Oswald was stopped...The wording that Oswald was allowed to leave the building after that stop also confirms this happened at the front door after "coming down the front stairs"...After hearing this story from Lovelady Jarman wonders why Oswald was allowed to leave when the black workers were not...
4) Jarman makes the same mistake Holmes did and conflates the Lunch Room Encounter on the 2nd Floor, where Truly OK-ed Oswald as an employee, with this second stop by a cop in the Lobby...We know there was a cop in the Lobby because Truly & Baker never stopped the black workers on the 2nd Floor...The wording all connotes a cop stopping both Oswald and the black workers at the front door...
Jarman said:
" And, Oswald was coming out the door and he [Lovelady] said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building, billy love lady [sic] said that Mr. Trudy [sic] told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs. "
Lovelady, outside on the front steps, saw Harvey try to escape out the front door when Harvey saw Lee in the white T-shirt stumble in to the other side of the Lobby from the SE staircase...Lovelady witnessed the un-named cop stop Harvey and order him back inside...Lovelady then planted the deliberate mis-information with Jarman that Truly was there and OK-ed Harvey as an employee...Lovelady did this because he was trying to cover-up the fact his partner Shelley was the one who OK-ed Harvey and helped him around the police detention and out the Loading Dock...This is the whole purpose of Lovelady telling the lie that he saw Oswald leave through the front door...It is to avoid the dangerously exposing evidence of Shelley assisting Oswald...
Corbett is asking us to believe that both the Warren Commission, FBI, and HSCA all had this information in their possession on how Oswald left the building...And they also had evidence of Lovelady committing perjury and with-holding evidence, and they decided to do nothing...And they left the cop unidentified and did no investigation of how Oswald left the building...Holmes let this second stop information leak because he was in a separate orbit because he was Postal Inspector...Jarman leaked this critical information because he was in a separate orbit as a black worker...Just like Sarah Stanton, he told his story years later when he realized it hadn't gotten the necessary attention it deserved...
This is hilarious. You are presenting Jarman's hearsay account of Lovelady's hearsay account of Oswald being stopped by a cop near the front door of the TSBD. And this is your idea of a blockbuster, game-changing revelation. Then you wonder why neither the WC, FBI, nor HSCA bothered to chase down this "lead". I guess they just weren't as silly as you.
There neither Jarman, nor Lovelady, nor anyone else said they SAW Oswald being stopped by a cop in front of the TSBD, but you don't care. Somebody said they heard that somebody said that this happened and that's good enough for you.
-
No...
The fact the authorities never followed-through to ask Jarman, Lovelady, or name the un-named cop and interrogate that cop, is the stronger evidence here and evidence of a cover-up you have failed to credibly answer...You are in denial of the fact that the 1963 investigation should have been very enthusiastic to get someone to confirm they saw Oswald leave through the front door...Especially after being told to step aside and wait by a cop...But that's not what happened and every investigative authority that touched this did the opposite and buried it...This should have been explosive when Jarman told it in 1977 but the exact opposite happened and shortly after Lovelady dies...Hmmm...Conspiracy research would be really great if it wasn't for Conspiracy researchers...
You're hand-waving Corbett and you are badly failing to answer the question of why Lovelady did not tell this to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1963?...The reason why Lovelady held this back in 1963 is because his partner Shelley led Oswald out the Loading Dock after Oswald was told to step aside and wait by a cop at the front door...This was expository of the conspiracy and evidenced Shelley's knowledge of who Oswald was and therefore exposed the conspiracy...It is also the reason why they with-held the name of the cop at the front door and never investigated Oswald's departure from the Depository...Things you unaccountably have no curiosity over except for weak excuse-making...
For the Conspiracy community to ignore this is a crime against their own practice...
-
No...
The fact the authorities never followed-through to ask Jarman, Lovelady, or name the un-named cop and interrogate that cop, is the stronger evidence here and evidence of a cover-up you have failed to credibly answer
How do you interrogate and unnamed cop?
...You are in denial of the fact that the 1963 investigation should have been very enthusiastic to get someone to confirm they saw Oswald leave through the front door...Especially after being told to step aside and wait by a cop...
Who saw that happen?
But that's not what happened and every investigative authority that touched this did the opposite and buried it...This should have been explosive when Jarman told it in 1977 but the exact opposite happened and shortly after Lovelady dies...Hmmm...Conspiracy research would be really great if it wasn't for Conspiracy researchers...
What was there to bury? An unconfirmed hearsay rumor?
You're hand-waving Corbett and you are badly failing to answer the question of why Lovelady did not tell this to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1963?...The reason why Lovelady held this back in 1963 is because his partner Shelley led Oswald out the Loading Dock after Oswald was told to step aside and wait by a cop at the front door...
Who witnessed that?
This was expository of the conspiracy and evidenced Shelley's knowledge of who Oswald was and therefore exposed the conspiracy...]
How does Shelley knowing who Oswald was expose a conspiracy. You've got a few holes to fill there, Columbo.
It is also the reason why they with-held the name of the cop at the front door and never investigated Oswald's departure from the Depository...
Who named the cop that nobody saw stop Oswald?
Things you unaccountably have no curiosity over except for weak excuse-making...
Well, you've got me there. I have no interest in rumors based on third hand accounts of an event nobody witnesses.
For the Conspiracy community to ignore this is a crime against their own practice...
This is one time I will side with the "Conspiracy community".
-
Both Holmes and Lovelady spoke of a cop who stopped Oswald at the front door...
There was a conspicuous effort to avoid investigating how Oswald left the Depository...
You are avoiding giving an honest answer to the fact that the reason that cop was never identified and interviewed was because they were avoiding having to answer how and why Oswald left the Depository if a cop told him to step aside and wait...
-
Both Holmes and Lovelady spoke of a cop who stopped Oswald at the front door...
Neither if them witnessed that. They were repeating hearsay,
There was a conspicuous effort to avoid investigating how Oswald left the Depository...
They knew Oswald left the front of the building end headed east on Elm St. where he boarded a bus. Do you think chasing down rumors based on hearsay would change that fact? [quote
]
You are avoiding giving an honest answer to the fact that the reason that cop was never identified and interviewed was because they were avoiding having to answer how and why Oswald left the Depository if a cop told him to step aside and wait...
[/quote]
If? There was zero evidence a cop stopped him outside the TSBD. Do you think rumors constitute evidence?
Why do you treat rumors as if they are compelling evidence?
-
Neither if them witnessed that. They were repeating hearsay,
They knew Oswald left the front of the building end headed east on Elm St. where he boarded a bus. Do you think chasing down rumors based on hearsay would change that fact?
\
Why do you treat rumors as if they are compelling evidence?
That's not a credible reply...
Lovelady told Jarman he saw the cop at the front door stop Oswald and make him go back inside the Lobby...
Your answer isn't believable because they spent so much time and investigation on everything else...
No...The reason why they made no effort to investigate Oswald's leaving the Depository is because they did not want to open up the Pandora's Box of Lee stumbling in to the SE stairs side of the Lobby at the same time Harvey was at the front door...Harvey panicked and tried to leave through the front door...Lovelady then saw the un-named cop stop Harvey and pull him back in to the Lobby...Lee pulled a U-Turn at the base of the SE stairs and hid in the Utility closet where he was later seen by Campbell...Lovelady planted this lie with Jarman because he was trying to cover-up the fact Shelley saw what was going on and intervened as Oswald's "Superintendent"...Shelley then led Harvey out the Loading Dock and around the police detention...This is what Stone and DiEugenio should have presented to Luna, not the already-refuted Prayer Man theory...
Holmes heard it from Oswald's own mouth at the Police Station on Sunday...Your calling it hearsay is just your desperation to deny the obvious...
If? There was zero evidence a cop stopped him outside the TSBD. Do you think rumors constitute evidence?
The reason there was zero evidence is because the investigating authorities covered it up...Covering-up and disappearing information allows nay-sayers to come back later and declare there's no evidence...It wasn't outside the Depository...It was at the front door when Harvey panicked and tried to bolt out right under the nose of the cop because Lee blundered in to the other side of the Lobby...(I'm solving the puzzle in the Depository here)...People are ignoring it under the excuse that my reputation precedes me...
-
That's not a credible reply...
Lovelady told Jarman he saw the cop at the front door stop Oswald and make him go back inside the Lobby...
Your answer isn't believable because they spent so much time and investigation on everything else...
No...The reason why they made no effort to investigate Oswald's leaving the Depository is because they did not want to open up the Pandora's Box of Lee stumbling in to the SE stairs side of the Lobby at the same time Harvey was at the front door...Harvey panicked and tried to leave through the front door...Lovelady then saw the un-named cop stop Harvey and pull him back in to the Lobby...Lee pulled a U-Turn at the base of the SE stairs and hid in the Utility closet where he was later seen by Campbell...Lovelady planted this lie with Jarman because he was trying to cover-up the fact Shelley saw what was going on and intervened as Oswald's "Superintendent"...Shelley then led Harvey out the Loading Dock and around the police detention...This is what Stone and DiEugenio should have presented to Luna, not the already-refuted Prayer Man theory...
Holmes heard it from Oswald's own mouth at the Police Station on Sunday...Your calling it hearsay is just your desperation to deny the obvious...
The reason there was zero evidence is because the investigating authorities covered it up...Covering-up and disappearing information allows nay-sayers to come back later and declare there's no evidence...It wasn't outside the Depository...It was at the front door when Harvey panicked and tried to bolt out right under the nose of the cop because Lee blundered in to the other side of the Lobby...(I'm solving the puzzle in the Depository here)...People are ignoring it under the excuse that my reputation precedes me...
Unless you have record of Lovelady saying he saw that happen, it is hearsay. IOW a rumor.
The fact that you think Harvey and Lee were two different people reveals just how nutty you are.
-
Unless you have record of Lovelady saying he saw that happen, it is hearsay. IOW a rumor.
The fact that you think Harvey and Lee were two different people reveals just how nutty you are.
It escapes cheap dismissals as hearsay once you realize it exists at the center of the most intense efforts to neutralize it and make it disappear by the authorities...
You think you can just ignore that but the truth is you haven't come up with any credible excuse why the authorities conspicuously avoided investigating it...
Lovelady admits he criminally with-held evidence and HSCA does nothing...You might think you're getting away with that but you are not...
Lovelady dies of "heart trouble" shortly after...
-
It escapes cheap dismissals as hearsay once you realize it exists at the center of the most intense efforts to neutralize it and make it disappear by the authorities...
Why would anyone need to make a rumor go away.
You think you can just ignore that but the truth is you haven't come up with any credible excuse why the authorities conspicuously avoided investigating it...
I just gave you the reason. It was nothing more than a rumor, unsupported by credible evidence.
Lovelady admits he criminally with-held evidence and HSCA does nothing...You might think you're getting away with that but you are not...
I don't suppose you have a quote by Lovelady admitting criminal conduct.
Lovelady dies of "heart trouble" shortly after...
People with bad tickers often do check out early.
-
You're not answering the point...There's no doubt what so ever that one of the most concentrated areas of trying to make an issue go away was the concerted lack of investigation in to how, where, and when Oswald left the Depository...This unexplainable void was repeated with Jarman and Lovelady when no follow-through was given to Lovelady with-holding important witnessing...This vacuum of non investigation was almost as intense as the avoiding of the Prayer Man evidence by the JFK research clique...Andrew Iler is taking over with firm new rules however he's not answering any questions about how The Education Forum handled the Prayer Man evidence...
Asking for evidence that was intentionally suppressed by the investigators is not an honest question...
Buell Frazier also with-held his seeing Oswald exit the Loading Dock and walk down Houston St...Gary Mack knew this was explosive, however, when Frazier divulged this in his CSPAN interview Mack switched the subject and did damage control on the follow-through details...Frazier also with-held being told there was a party-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table after the assassination...Ever since Frazier said that the recording was deleted from the radio station archive he said it on and there was ZERO follow-through in the media and on JFK Assassination websites...No interest from DiEugenio and Iler...
-
You're not answering the point...There's no doubt what so ever that one of the most concentrated areas of trying to make an issue go away was the concerted lack of investigation in to how, where, and when Oswald left the Depository...This unexplainable void was repeated with Jarman and Lovelady when no follow-through was given to Lovelady with-holding important witnessing...This vacuum of non investigation was almost as intense as the avoiding of the Prayer Man evidence by the JFK research clique...Andrew Iler is taking over with firm new rules however he's not answering any questions about how The Education Forum handled the Prayer Man evidence...
Asking for evidence that was intentionally suppressed by the investigators is not an honest question...
Buell Frazier also with-held his seeing Oswald exit the Loading Dock and walk down Houston St...Gary Mack knew this was explosive, however, when Frazier divulged this in his CSPAN interview Mack switched the subject and did damage control on the follow-through details...Frazier also with-held being told there was a party-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table after the assassination...Ever since Frazier said that the recording was deleted from the radio station archive he said it on and there was ZERO follow-through in the media and on JFK Assassination websites...No interest from DiEugenio and Iler...
You just can't figure out that of the 8 billion+ people on this earth, you are the only one who thinks any of this is important. Why would the HSCA ask either Lovelady or Jarman to testify to an incident neither witnessed. They spoke of rumors they heard, not something they saw. There is zero evidence a cop stopped Oswald outside the TSBD. If you don't understand that, you just have no concept of what constitutes evidence. Hint: rumors are not evidence. That's all the help I am going to give you.
Nobody except you thinks any of this is "explosive". It is just you trying to pretend you have discovered something important. You haven't. Your efforts are insignificant and you seem unable to deal with that harsh reality. My advice to you would be to quit this silly hobby and try collecting stamps. It will be a lot less stressful for you.
-
shake the hand that shook the hand o’ tar baby, brer ! hey bigdawg, you need to stop your serious dialogue with The Brian, his tar is sticking to you ! you have fought the good fight like McAdams+ stars in your Crown, Henry !
Dear Bláznivý Hipster Oblazney,
I can tell you've been hanging out too much at my old stomping ground there on Rue de la Bűcherie, and that the ghosts of Jack, Allen, Neal, Gregory, William, and Lawrence (who said he liked my poem in '68) have commandeered you, unfortunately.
Next time you're there, ask Sylvia if she still has the mandatory "autobiography" I wrote for her dad back in '93, and make sure to take some toilet paper with you if you use the squat toilet between the main floor and the so-called "Tumbleweed Hotel."
Either that, or do as I did, and tear a couple of pages out of some book from the stack that's stored in there (or at least used to be).
-- Tom
-
Dear Bláznivý Hipster Oblazney,
I can tell you've been hanging out too much at my old stomping ground there on Rue de la Bűcherie, and that the ghosts of Jack, Allen, Neal, Gregory, William, and Lawrence (who said he liked my poem in '68) have commandeered you, unfortunately.
Next time you're there, ask Sylvia if she still has the mandatory "autobiography" I wrote for her dad back in '93, and make sure to take some toilet paper with you if you use the squat toilet between the main floor and the so-called "Tumbleweed Hotel."
Either that, or do as I did, and tear a couple of pages out of some book from the stack that's stored in there (or at least used to be).
-- Tom
dang, my dude…………. yer a-startin’ ta’ be soundin’ like me, see ? well, as bill Burroughs said,”always room for one more”. hey, guess you knew George back in the day, huh?
-
dang, my dude…………. yer a-startin’ ta’ be soundin’ like me, see ? well, as bill Burroughs said, ”always room for one more” te-hee. hey, guess you knew George back in the day, huh?
Yes.
One day he had me take a box of used books downstairs to the very dimly lit 17th Century vaulted-ceiling monetary that was associated with Hotel Dieu.
But that was thirty-three years ago, so I suppose Sylvia (whom I never met) has turned it into a cafe or some-such thing by now.
Have you ever been down there?
From her website:
The bookshop was founded [in 1951] by American George Whitman at 37 rue de la Bűcherie, Kilometer Zero, the point at which all French roads begin. Constructed in the early 17th century, the building was originally a monastery, La Maison du Mustier. George liked to pretend he was the sole surviving monk, saying, “In the Middle Ages, each monastery had a frčre lampier, a monk whose duty was to light the lamps at nightfall. I’m the frčre lampier here now. It’s the modest role I play.”
-
Yes.
One day he had me take a box of used books downstairs to the very dimly lit 17th Century vaulted-ceiling monetary that was associated with Hotel Dieu.
But that was thirty-three years ago, so I suppose Sylvia (whom I never met) has turned it into a cafe or some-such thing by now.
Have you ever been down there?
From her website:
The bookshop was founded [in 1951] by American George Whitman at 37 rue de la Bűcherie, Kilometer Zero, the point at which all French roads begin. Constructed in the early 17th century, the building was originally a monastery, La Maison du Mustier. George liked to pretend he was the sole surviving monk, saying, “In the Middle Ages, each monastery had a frčre lampier, a monk whose duty was to light the lamps at nightfall. I’m the frčre lampier here now. It’s the modest role I play.”
yeah, Syl & me are very similar, you see, she being ‘frčre lampier’ there, with me, like Diogenes, here with a lamp looking for one honest man.
-
You just can't figure out that of the 8 billion+ people on this earth, you are the only one who thinks any of this is important. Why would the HSCA ask either Lovelady or Jarman to testify to an incident neither witnessed. They spoke of rumors they heard, not something they saw. There is zero evidence a cop stopped Oswald outside the TSBD. If you don't understand that, you just have no concept of what constitutes evidence. Hint: rumors are not evidence. That's all the help I am going to give you
You are entering false information there because Jarman was very clear that Lovelady had told him he saw Oswald exit through the front door and get stopped by a cop and ordered back in to the Lobby...Jarman was quite clear that Lovelady told him he had witnessed this...Lovelady seeing this makes sense because films of the front steps after the assassination show Lovelady standing out there...What Lovelady saw was what Holmes heard and related...Lovelady saw Harvey being spooked out the front door by Lee who had stumbled in to the other end of the Lobby down the SE stairs...
What you are conspicuously avoiding answering is the fact that Lovelady lied and told Jarman that he then saw Oswald exit through the front doors anyway and leave the Depository...The reason the authorities covered this up in 1963 and at the HSCA is because they knew they could not answer why Oswald would be allowed to walk right out anyway right under the nose of a cop who detained him and told him to step aside and wait...The 1963 investigation wanted to avoid exposing Shelley's assisting Oswald around police detention and out the Loading Dock...The HSCA wanted to avoid Lovelady trying to plant a false story with Jarman in order to cover up Shelley's intervention...
Frazier's CSPAN admission that he saw Oswald exit the Loading Dock and walk down Houston St was deliberately avoided by Gary Mack, the media, and the authorities...Like with Lovelady, there was no inquiry why Frazier waited 40 years to reveal that...His admission that there was a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table after the assassination was deleted from the radio station archive he said that on and was also unaccountably not pursued in this false nation of America...I see you ignored it too...
The cop who stopped Harvey was not outside the Depository...He was inside guarding the front door...He wasn't named because FBI and the Commission did not want any of the above to come out...
-
You are entering false information there because Jarman was very clear that Lovelady had told him he saw Oswald exit through the front door and get stopped by a cop and ordered back in to the Lobby...Jarman was quite clear that Lovelady told him he had witnessed this...Lovelady seeing this makes sense because films of the front steps after the assassination show Lovelady standing out there...What Lovelady saw was what Holmes heard and related...Lovelady saw Harvey being spooked out the front door by Lee who had stumbled in to the other end of the Lobby down the SE stairs...
What you are conspicuously avoiding answering is the fact that Lovelady lied and told Jarman that he then saw Oswald exit through the front doors anyway and leave the Depository...The reason the authorities covered this up in 1963 and at the HSCA is because they knew they could not answer why Oswald would be allowed to walk right out anyway right under the nose of a cop who detained him and told him to step aside and wait...The 1963 investigation wanted to avoid exposing Shelley's assisting Oswald around police detention and out the Loading Dock...The HSCA wanted to avoid Lovelady trying to plant a false story with Jarman in order to cover up Shelley's intervention...
Frazier's CSPAN admission that he saw Oswald exit the Loading Dock and walk down Houston St was deliberately avoided by Gary Mack, the media, and the authorities...Like with Lovelady, there was no inquiry why Frazier waited 40 years to reveal that...His admission that there was a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table after the assassination was deleted from the radio station archive he said that on and was also unaccountably not pursued in this false nation of America...I see you ignored it too...
The cop who stopped Harvey was not outside the Depository...He was inside guarding the front door...He wasn't named because FBI and the Commission did not want any of the above to come out...
"Jarman was very clear that Lovelady had told him he saw Oswald exit through the front door and get stopped by a cop". That's it in a nutshell. Jarman was speaking about something he heard, not something he saw. That is the very definition of hearsay. And where is the record of Lovelady saying he saw a cop stop Oswald? Nowhere. There is no record of that.
Everything else apparently came from the voices in your head. That too is hearsay.
-
"Jarman was very clear that Lovelady had told him he saw Oswald exit through the front door and get stopped by a cop". That's it in a nutshell. Jarman was speaking about something he heard, not something he saw. That is the very definition of hearsay. And where is the record of Lovelady saying he saw a cop stop Oswald? Nowhere. There is no record of that.
Just the opposite, we know Lovelady telling Jarman that he saw Oswald being stopped by a cop at the front door is NOT hearsay because it is accompanied by an unaccountable, suspicious lack of interest by the authorities that can't be explained in any other way accept avoidance of guilt...Hearsay is evidence that only relies on the spoken word...We have just the opposite here and there is no way an honestly-investigating FBI and HSCA would NOT inquire of Lovelady why he with-held that witnessing back in 1963...You need to come up with some other response than trying to dismiss everything with claims of hearsay when what is really going on here is you are badly failing to give an adequate response to what is being shown...You are pretending that unaccountable void of non-investigation isn't there when in fact it is the most visible thing involved in all this that, once unexplained by yourself, becomes the reason why it isn't hearsay...You have badly lost this debate...
No kidding?...The reason I'm typing this is exactly because there is no record of Lovelady ever bringing this explosive witnessing before the FBI or Commission...All you are doing is showing in a backwards way that Lovelady held back his seeing Oswald stopped by a cop at the front door...Not having any curiosity over this displays a lack of credibility on your behalf in my opinion...The only failure here is your persistent inability to explain why Lovelady never spoke of it in 1963...
Another thing that proves this isn't hearsay is the fact Holmes heard of Oswald being stopped by a cop from Oswald's own mouth on Sunday at the Police Station...While you are fishing for excuses to deny this, credible researchers would realize, once it was corroborated by Oswald and confirmed, that the fact this too had no follow-through done on it gives it a quality that makes it just the opposite of hearsay and makes it hot, incriminating evidence that exposes the most dangerous aspects of the conspiracy...While you are shouting "hearsay" to everything you see, what is the most outstanding thing here is your abject failure to respond to and recognize the complete lack of interest by the authorities to these highly revelatory statements...
Again, you are badly losing this debate...Every time I mention how Frazier's seeing Oswald exit the Loading Dock affects this you ignore it and hide behind your hearsay excuse...
The Education Forum prefers to keep this cracking of the case off its website so we can be bored by the regular space hogs...
-
Just the opposite, we know Lovelady telling Jarman that he saw Oswald being stopped by a cop at the front door is NOT hearsay because it is accompanied by an unaccountable, suspicious lack of interest by the authorities that can't be explained in any other way accept avoidance of guilt...
The above is a perfect example of how illogically your mind works. You arbitrarily claim "that can't be explained in any other way accept avoidance of guilt..." when there are any number of plausible explanations, the most likely being that the investigators were not interested in chasing rumors unsupported by actual evidence.
Hearsay is evidence that only relies on the spoken word...We have just the opposite here and there is no way an honestly-investigating FBI and HSCA would NOT inquire of Lovelady why he with-held that witnessing back in 1963...
]
Your argument relies ENTIRELY on the spoken word of Jarman. There is no corroboration that Lovelady ever said that to Jarman.
]You need to come up with some other response than trying to dismiss everything with claims of hearsay when what is really going on here is you are badly failing to give an adequate response to what is being shown...You are pretending that unaccountable void of non-investigation isn't there when in fact it is the most visible thing involved in all this that, once unexplained by yourself, becomes the reason why it isn't hearsay...You have badly lost this debate...
I need to do no such thing. I don't have any burden to refute your unsubstantiated claims.
No kidding?...The reason I'm typing this is exactly because there is no record of Lovelady ever bringing this explosive witnessing before the FBI or Commission...
Which means it is hearsay from Jarman.
All you are doing is showing in a backwards way that Lovelady held back his seeing Oswald stopped by a cop at the front door...Not having any curiosity over this displays a lack of credibility on your behalf in my opinion...The only failure here is your persistent inability to explain why Lovelady never spoke of it in 1963...
There is no proof that Lovelady ever said what Jarman claimed he had said. Jarman was not even under oath when he supposedly made this statement. Using my AI app, the only reference to Jarman having said such a thing is from the Ed Forum which indicates it is probably something you dreamed up and posted there. If you have a more credible source for Jarman's supposed statement, please provide your cite for this claim.
Another thing that proves this isn't hearsay is the fact Holmes heard of Oswald being stopped by a cop from Oswald's own mouth on Sunday at the Police Station...
So you think Oswald is a credible source. Damn, you are gullible.
While you are fishing for excuses to deny this, credible researchers would realize, once it was corroborated by Oswald and confirmed, that the fact this too had no follow-through done on it gives it a quality that makes it just the opposite of hearsay and makes it hot, incriminating evidence that exposes the most dangerous aspects of the conspiracy...While you are shouting "hearsay" to everything you see, what is the most outstanding thing here is your abject failure to respond to and recognize the complete lack of interest by the authorities to these highly revelatory statements...
The investigators had figured out Oswald was lying his a** off because they had caught him in so many lies. Oswald's statements don't corroborate anything.
Again, you are badly losing this debate...
As I have already noted, you're good for at least one good laugh a day and this one is hilarious. You are so clueless, you don't even know how clueless you are. .
Every time I mention how Frazier's seeing Oswald exit the Loading Dock affects this you ignore it and hide behind your hearsay excuse...
I ignore it because I know it is not true.
The Education Forum prefers to keep this cracking of the case off its website so we can be bored by the regular space hogs...
The only cracking appears to be in your skull.
-
I think I've succeeded in showing you can't answer the unaccountable lack of interest by the authorities in both Lovelady's and Frazier's with-holding of important witnessing...No credible investigation would leave both of those witnessings unpursued and would not fail to demand why they were not revealed in 1963...
I therefore do not feel like chasing you wiggling your white bunny tail and trying to get me to chase you down yet another rabbit hole of disingenuous semantic-parsing that doesn't answer the better arguments...
I think I've won this one...
-
I think I've succeeded in showing you can't answer the unaccountable lack of interest by the authorities in both Lovelady's and Frazier's with-holding of important witnessing...No credible investigation would leave both of those witnessings unpursued and would not fail to demand why they were not revealed in 1963...
I therefore do not feel like chasing you wiggling your white bunny tail and trying to get me to chase you down yet another rabbit hole of disingenuous semantic-parsing that doesn't answer the better arguments...
I think I've won this one...
you may rest on your laurels now, Claudius. nothing escapes you.
-
I think I've succeeded in showing you can't answer the unaccountable lack of interest by the authorities in both Lovelady's and Frazier's with-holding of important witnessing...No credible investigation would leave both of those witnessings unpursued and would not fail to demand why they were not revealed in 1963...
I gave you an answer. You aren't entitled to an answer you like.
I therefore do not feel like chasing you wiggling your white bunny tail and trying to get me to chase you down yet another rabbit hole of disingenuous semantic-parsing that doesn't answer the better arguments...
I take this as your admission that there is no record of Lovelady saying he saw Oswald stopped by a cop outside of the TSBD. We only have Jarman's hearsay account and you seem unable to provide a source even for that.
I think I've won this one...
You think a lot of silly things. This is one thing both LNs and CTs can agree on.
You seem ready to take your ball and go home.
-
We only have Jarman's hearsay account and you seem unable to provide a source even for that.
The fact Holmes independently verified from Oswald's own mouth that a cop stopped Oswald at the front door refutes every cheap excuse you wrote...What Lovelady told Jarman matches what Holmes described independently and without knowledge of each other...
Your version requires a black man in Texas to decide to go to the most powerful people in America and make up a crazy tale about Lovelady telling him he saw Oswald stopped by a cop at the front door just for the fun of it...
I've won this because you still have no believe-able excuse for why the authorities did no follow-through...I understand you are trying to say Marguerite's dental records were more important than how and where Oswald left the Depository...And while we are at it why should they even take notes at the interrogation of a suspected presidential assassin?...
-
The fact Holmes independently verified from Oswald's own mouth that a cop stopped Oswald at the front door refutes every cheap excuse you wrote...What Lovelady told Jarman matches what Holmes described independently and without knowledge of each other...
Holmes only told us what he heard Oswald say, not to anything Holmes actually knew. Oswald told one lie after another so why would you take his word for it that a cop had stopped him?
Your version requires a black man in Texas to decide to go to the most powerful people in America and make up a crazy tale about Lovelady telling him he saw Oswald stopped by a cop at the front door just for the fun of it...
You've never provided a transcript of that Jarman said in his HSCA statement. You only give us your spin as to what he said.
I've won this
<chuckle. Just what is it you think you've won?
because you still have no believe-able excuse for why the authorities did no follow-through...I understand you are trying to say Marguerite's dental records were more important than how and where Oswald left the Depository...And while we are at it why should they even take notes at the interrogation of a suspected presidential assassin?...
You've never provided any credible evidence that Oswald was stopped by a cop outside the TSBD. All you have is Oswald's claim and a rumor Jarman heard.
-
Oswald included details that only a person who was there would know...Like the cop telling him to step aside and wait...We know Baker never told Oswald to step aside and wait because there was no reason to tell him that in the Lunch Room...Truly said after he ID-ed Oswald that Baker said nothing and ran up the stairs...The reason Baker said nothing is because he saw Oswald's lunch on the table...The front door was a main egress that was about to get busy and had a reason to be kept clear...This happened at the front door as Holmes confirmed...Holmes repeated exactly the same description of Oswald being stopped as Lovelady did to Jarman - only Lovelady lied and had Oswald leaving through the front door...These witnessings happened completely independently of each other, yet were described identically...They were then covered-up - which only stands as proof of their danger to the conspiracy...
You're just doing trollish, nit-picking nay-saying Corbett...My case is overwhelmingly the better offering and is winning this debate handily compared to your obnoxious gotcha points...This is what happened and it cracks the conspiracy, despite your gratuitous doubt...
-
Oswald included details that only a person who was there would know...Like the cop telling him to step aside and wait...
That's circular logic. You use Oswald's statement as evidence the a cop stopped him and the cop stopping him as evidence he was telling the truth. IOW, A proves B, and B proves A. The reality is that neither A nor B is true. A cop did not stop Oswald outside the TSBD and Oswald was not telling the truth.
We know Baker never told Oswald to step aside and wait because there was no reason to tell him that in the Lunch Room...Truly said after he ID-ed Oswald that Baker said nothing and ran up the stairs...The reason Baker said nothing is because he saw Oswald's lunch on the table...
Baker never said he saw a lunch on the table. That is something you have assumed.
The front door was a main egress that was about to get busy and had a reason to be kept clear...This happened at the front door as Holmes confirmed...[/quote[
How the hell could Holmes confirm something he never saw. He only heard Oswald say that happened which isn't proof at all.
Holmes repeated exactly the same description of Oswald being stopped as Lovelady did to Jarman
There is no record of Lovelady saying that to Jarman. We only have Jarman mentioning that 15 years later.
- only Lovelady lied and had Oswald leaving through the front door...These witnessings happened completely independently of each other, yet were described identically...They were then covered-up - which only stands as proof of their danger to the conspiracy...
You simply assume Lovelady lied without considering the real possibility that Jarman's 15 year old recollection of the event could have been less than accurate. There is no other indication that Lovelady ever told Jarman he saw Oswald get stopped by a cop.
You're just doing trollish, nit-picking nay-saying Corbett...My case is overwhelmingly the better offering and is winning this debate handily compared to your obnoxious gotcha points...This is what happened and it cracks the conspiracy, despite your gratuitous doubt...
Your case is FUBAR which is why nobody takes you seriously. Not on this forum. Not on the Ed Forum. Not on McAdams forum when you were posting this same nonsense there. If you had a real case, you would be able to present it to some news organization who would be more than eager to break such a blockbuster news story. As bad as the modern mainstream media is, they would gladly run with this story if you had a credible story to present to them. You don't. Give it up. You will never escape the obscurity of online discussion groups. Very few people know or care what goes on in these forums.