JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on August 26, 2018, 03:02:37 AM
-
Imo Oswald was given a midnight press conference because nobody besides Oswald had anything to hide.
JohnM
-
It's quite obvious that Ruby had Carte Blanche to go anywhere he wanted to go so he could be close to Oswald . Hell , Oswald was calm , cool and collected because he knew he hadn't shot or killed anyone that weekend.
-
Imo Oswald was given a midnight press conference because nobody besides Oswald had anything to hide.
JohnM
Imo Oswald participated in the press conference because he had nothing to hide.
But what makes you even think that the people who arranged the press conference were conspirators?
-
But what makes you even think that the people who arranged the press conference were conspirators?
Interesting, so your conspirators could move Heaven and Earth to kill Kennedy but were unable to stop an unnecessary press conference. Geez this gets better all the time.
JohnM
-
Interesting, so your conspirators could move Heaven and Earth to kill Kennedy but were unable to stop an unnecessary press conference. Geez this gets better all the time.
JohnM
They are not my conspirators?.but your pathetic assumption that conspirators in general would ever be able to control every minor detail of an event and all the people involved is wacky to say the least.
Conspirators after the fact controlling the physical evidence, now that's a different ballgame all together.
But back to my question; what makes you think the people who arranged the press conferences were part of the conspiracy if there was one?
-
They are not my conspirators?.but your pathetic assumption that conspirators in general would ever be able to control every minor detail of an event and all the people involved is wacky to say the least.
Conspirators after the fact controlling the physical evidence, now that's a different ballgame all together.
But back to my question; what makes you think the people who arranged the press conferences were part of the conspiracy if there was one?
So you're going with conspirators who couldn't control something as simple as a press conference yet could control and maintain some massive conspiracy which involved, the FBI, the WC, Dallas Police, planting evidence, forging photos, forging paperwork, forging autopsy photos, xrays, and reports, the HSCA and all their experts and etc etc..
Wow that's some serious paranoia!
JohnM
-
So you're going with conspirators who couldn't control something as simple as a press conference yet could control and maintain some massive conspiracy which involved, the FBI, the WC, Dallas Police, planting evidence, forging photos, forging paperwork, forging autopsy photos, xrays, and reports, the HSCA and all their experts and etc etc..
Wow that's some serious paranoia!
JohnM
Answer the question, fool!
What makes you think the people who arranged the press conferences were part of the conspiracy if there was one?
-
Answer the question, fool!....
Sorry, I couldn't get past your insult. Try again.
JohnM
-
Sorry, I couldn't get past your insult. Try again.
JohnM
Run Johnny, run...
-
Run Johnny, run...
No, whenever you are desperate out come the insults and out come the "pathetic" and so far you are acting just as expected and it's not pretty.
JohnM
-
I think the press conference was held in the interest of transparency.
I believe the entire world was interested in seeing the accused assassin and hearing what he had to say and the conference was done to accomodate that desire.
Overall, I think Saint Oz handled himself very well.
However, Saint Oz's little act of trying to appear surprised that he was being accused of and charged with the murder of JFK and not just that of Tippit, reeks of bullcrap.
It's kind of hard to believe that Saint Oz didn't have an inkling that he was the primary suspect in the assassination.
That being said, the idea of a press conference being held with Saint Oz present is quite bizarre.
-
Because Oswald was in police custody and the only way to get close to him at that point was via a Goon like Jack Ruby
-
I personally believe Oswald isn't completely innocent. I believe he was part of a conspiracy. The Dallas cops, or whoever gave the go ahead for Oswald to publicly speak, they probably wanted to give him enough rope to hang the rest. Or give a clue to his state of mind. Thinking: this was a lone nut or smaller conspiracy to kill.
Jack Ruby murdering Oswald gives me a clue as to who was also involved with Oswald in the conspiracy to kill JFK. As it was JFK, the entire weight of the national security got involved with the case. So those original notions Oswald was small time rogue assassin got swallowed up by ever increasing panic in the LBJ administration to cover up Oswald's obvious ties to various intelligence agencies. Cover up mode.
-
Imo Oswald was given a midnight press conference because nobody besides Oswald had anything to hide.
JohnM
We can add that Oswald was allowed to meet with his family - Marina, Robert, Marguerite - and with Lou Nichols, head of the Dallas Bar Association. And make personal phone calls.
He had numerous opportunities - particularly in this press conference - to expose this alleged conspiracy. Or at the very least to give hints/names of something more.
If one believes in a conspiracy involving powerful elements of the government, then the obvious decision for them would have been to allow selected journalists to meet with him. I've read numerous claims about Operation Mockingbird, about how Hugh Aynesworth (and others) were CIA "assets". So, why not allow those "assets" to meet with Oswald, say he's being treated properly, and eliminate any risk of exposure from him? These "assets" would just report what you told them.
Shorter answer: they wouldn't.
-
Imo Oswald was given a midnight press conference because nobody besides Oswald had anything to hide.
JohnM
I made a thread about this once. There are only 2 things you have to know that shows there was no conspiracy.
1- Oswald was allowed a press conference and was allowed to meet with his family.
2- Oswald and everyone else in the TSBD were allowed to walk freely before and during the assassination.
-
It's quite obvious that Ruby had Carte Blanche to go anywhere he wanted to go so he could be close to Oswald . Hell , Oswald was calm , cool and collected because he knew he hadn't shot or killed anyone that weekend.
fals
So you think the fact that he was calm was a sign that he was falsely being accused of murder, Huh
-
Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
A rhetorical question....If the cops didn't bring Oswald out to show the press then they must have been hiding something. Also, it was not much of a "press conference" -there was no sustained interview anyway...it was hurry up and show him and then take him back to his cell.
In spite of an earlier post...someone had something to hide, Oswald was exterminated.
-
He had numerous opportunities - particularly in this press conference - to expose this alleged conspiracy. Or at the very least to give hints/names of something more.
Why would he expose the conspiracy?
A Conspiracy doesn't exonerate Oswald unless he was framed.
If he was framed, then he likely would have no knowledge of the Conspiracy or Conspirators.
If he was part of a Conspiracy then he'd be admitting that he too is Guilty by revealing the Conspiracy.
Oswald's hint was the infamous "I'm just a Patsy" statement...
-
Imo Oswald was given a midnight press conference because nobody besides Oswald had anything to hide.
JohnM
Imo Oswald participated in the press conference because he had nothing to hide.
But what makes you even think that the people who arranged the press conference were conspirators?
I don?t think the Dallas police was part of the conspiracy. I don?t think anyone besides Oswald was involved. But I thought the standard CT story was that the Dallas Police was involved in the conspiracy, because they must have coordinated the movement of Oswald with Ruby?s visit to the Western Union office and still reach the police basement garage four minutes later with almost perfect timing.
Do you hold that the Dallas police were not part of the conspiracy on Friday night so they saw no need to keep Oswald silent? But by 36 hours later, they were now part of the conspiracy, so they helped with the timing so Oswald would be silent forever.
Is this what you wish to imply?
-
I don?t think the Dallas police was part of the conspiracy. I don?t think anyone besides Oswald was involved. But I thought the standard CT story was that the Dallas Police was involved in the conspiracy, because they must have coordinated the movement of Oswald with Ruby?s visit to the Western Union office and still reach the police basement garage four minutes later with almost perfect timing.
Do you hold that the Dallas police were not part of the conspiracy on Friday night so they saw no need to keep Oswald silent? But by 36 hours later, they were now part of the conspiracy, so they helped with the timing so Oswald would be silent forever.
Is this what you wish to imply?
But I thought the standard CT story was that the Dallas Police was involved in the conspiracy
What makes you think that there even is a "standard CT story"?
Do you hold that the Dallas police were not part of the conspiracy
I seriously doubt that in any kind of conspiracy (if there was one) an entire police department could or would be involved.
But by 36 hours later, they were now part of the conspiracy
I have no idea who you mean by "they"
-
Sorry, I couldn't get past your insult. Try again.
JohnM
These are the same folks who just complained about civil discourse on the forum. LOL. It's interesting that CTers argue that the evidence against Oswald is suspect but then here argue the DPD - who found and controlled that evidence - are not the folks they are suggesting were involved in the conspiracy. So I guess they agree the bag was discovered on the 6th floor, Oswald's prints were on the rifle etc since that is all that evidence was obtained by the DPD who controlled Oswald's movements while under arrest and had the discretion not to allow him to speak to the press. Good to know.
-
Imo Oswald was given a midnight press conference because nobody besides Oswald had anything to hide.
JohnM
Or...because the press demanded to speak with him, and to deny this would have looked suspicious to them and the American people.
-
These are the same folks who just complained about civil discourse on the forum. LOL. It's interesting that CTers argue that the evidence against Oswald is suspect but then here argue the DPD - who found and controlled that evidence - are not the folks they are suggesting were involved in the conspiracy. So I guess they agree the bag was discovered on the 6th floor, Oswald's prints were on the rifle etc since that is all that evidence was obtained by the DPD who controlled Oswald's movements while under arrest and had the discretion not to allow him to speak to the press. Good to know.
And here is Richard, completely going of the rails as usual.
He fully understands that it is insane to argue that an entire police department is part of a conspiracy, but it seems he needs to exaggerate and paint with a wide brush to somehow make a point.
And thus Richard's entire argument is (as usual) a strawman and his "conclusions" are just as pathetic as his "reasoning".
-
Or...because the press demanded to speak with him, and to deny this would have looked suspicious to them and the American people.
Seriously?, The press demand a lot of things and always have and always will, but that doesn't mean that they should have been allowed a press conference and let's be frank they shouldn't have been in the corridors where Oswald was being transported in the first place. The Dallas Police who according to legend has the most to hide but the fact that they didn't give a sh*t about what Oswald said speaks volumes.
Over the years there have been a lot of people arrested for famous crimes and for someone who was supposed to be a patsy giving this murderer this much exposure at this point in proceedings is unheard of in my experiences.
JohnM
-
It was the only way to parade LHO around so that someone would kill him and as J. Edgar Hoover would say . We got our man and that should close this case ! Not so fast there , J. Edgar !!!!!!
-
And here is Richard, completely going of the rails as usual.
He fully understands that it is insane to argue that an entire police department is part of a conspiracy, but it seems he needs to exaggerate and paint with a wide brush to somehow make a point.
And thus Richard's entire argument is (as usual) a strawman and his "conclusions" are just as pathetic as his "reasoning".
Great civil discourse as usual. Those of us who disagree with you are "idiots," "insane," and "going off the rails." This one is pretty simple. It would seemingly take someone of influence at the DPD to ensure the evidence was controlled and manipulated as many of your kindred have suggested over and over and over again. In fact, many of the top DPD officials are routinely named as being involved in the plot for that very reason. The inconsistency of your argument is that these same officials - who had the authority to control more complex tasks - couldn't call off the press conference. They could frame Oswald, cover up the crime. and somehow recruit Ruby to kill Oswald, but they couldn't figure out how to keep Oswald from the press. LOL.
-
Seriously?, The press demand a lot of things and always have and always will, but that doesn't mean that they should have been allowed a press conference and let's be frank they shouldn't have been in the corridors where Oswald was being transported in the first place. The Dallas Police who according to legend has the most to hide but the fact that they didn't give a sh*t about what Oswald said speaks volumes.
Over the years there have been a lot of people arrested for famous crimes and for someone who was supposed to be a patsy giving this murderer this much exposure at this point in proceedings is unheard of in my experiences.
JohnM
Chief Curry went out of his way to accommodate the press for the transfer so this supports my statement. LHO had to be shown to alleviate suspicions of police brutality and injustice.
-
It was the only way to parade LHO around so that someone would kill him and as J. Edgar Hoover would say . We got our man and that should close this case ! Not so fast there , J. Edgar !!!!!!
Yep, parading Saint Oz around so that Ruby could whack him was the ONLY way to get rid of the patsy runt.
The real assassins were dumb enough to allow their innocent patsy to escape and flee the depository, so now the mission to eliminate Saint Oz fell to the DPD conspirators and Jack Ruby.
Dumbass cops missed their chance in the Texas Theater.
And of course Saint Oz couldn't have slashed his wrists or hung himself while in custody.
Yep, Saint Oz could have only been silenced AFTER parading him around during interrogation and AFTER a press conference.
Brilliantly executed plan to assassinate JFK and frame Saint Patsy with the exception of allowing Oz to escape the scene of the crime, survive arrest, and appear at a press conference.
Makes perfect sense.
-
Yep, parading Saint Oz around so that Ruby could whack him was the ONLY way to get rid of the patsy runt.
The real assassins were dumb enough to allow their innocent patsy to escape and flee the depository, so now the mission to eliminate Saint Oz fell to the DPD conspirators and Jack Ruby.
Dumbass cops missed their chance in the Texas Theater.
And of course Saint Oz couldn't have slashed his wrists or hung himself while in custody.
Yep, Saint Oz could have only been silenced AFTER parading him around during interrogation and AFTER a press conference.
Brilliantly executed plan to assassinate JFK and frame Saint Patsy with the exception of allowing Oz to escape the scene of the crime, survive arrest, and appear at a press conference.
Makes perfect sense.
That whoosh you're about to hear is your fine bit of sarcasm/mockery/satire flying over CT pointy heads.
-
Imo Oswald participated in the press conference because he had nothing to hide.
But what makes you even think that the people who arranged the press conference were conspirators?
Bingo. Make up strawman conspirators, argue against those strawman conspirators, lather, rinse, repeat.
-
LHO had to be shown to alleviate suspicions of police brutality and injustice.
Congratulations, thanks for proving my point that even though you claim that the Dallas Police setup Oswald by replacing the Mauser, forged Oswald's palmprint, planted bullets, planted shells, planted a jacket, planted a revolver and host of other nefarious nastiness and then the Dallas Police who had full control of Oswald just let him speak freely and in turn leave themselves at the mercy of Oswald's mouth?
As if!
The only reason they let Oswald speak is because nobody cared what Oswald said because Oswald had nothing to say.
JohnM
-
Bingo. Make up strawman conspirators, argue against those strawman conspirators, lather, rinse, repeat.
Hardly, the DP letting Oswald speak to the press can only lead to the Dallas Police having nothing to hide.
JohnM
-
Great civil discourse as usual. Those of us who disagree with you are "idiots," "insane," and "going off the rails." This one is pretty simple. It would seemingly take someone of influence at the DPD to ensure the evidence was controlled and manipulated as many of your kindred have suggested over and over and over again. In fact, many of the top DPD officials are routinely named as being involved in the plot for that very reason. The inconsistency of your argument is that these same officials - who had the authority to control more complex tasks - couldn't call off the press conference. They could frame Oswald, cover up the crime. and somehow recruit Ruby to kill Oswald, but they couldn't figure out how to keep Oswald from the press. LOL.
Why do you think your fantasy conspirators would want to keep Oswald from the press? Gee, he might say he didn't kill anybody. That would ruin everything.
-
Congratulations, thanks for proving my point that even though you claim that the Dallas Police setup Oswald by replacing the Mauser, forged Oswald's palmprint, planted bullets, planted shells, planted a jacket, planted a revolver and host of other nefarious nastiness
When did Rob (or anyone else) claim that?
-
Hardly, the DP letting Oswald speak to the press can only lead to the Dallas Police having nothing to hide.
That's quite a glaring non-sequitur. Even for you.
-
Why do you think your fantasy conspirators would want to keep Oswald from the press? Gee, he might say he didn't kill anybody. That would ruin everything.
That would ruin everything?
LOL
-
When did Rob (or anyone else) claim that?
Ok so you reckon that nobody claimed any of the main evidence was planted against Oswald, ok!
JohnM
-
Why do you think your fantasy conspirators would want to keep Oswald from the press? Gee, he might say he didn't kill anybody. That would ruin everything.
Wait a minute.
I thought it was the CKs and the Saint patsy defense team that insist on the existence of conspirators.
Nice of you to acknowledge it's only a fantasy.
Try to get right whose fantasy it is.
-
They are not my conspirators?.but your pathetic assumption that conspirators in general would ever be able to control every minor detail of an event and all the people involved is wacky to say the least.
Conspirators after the fact controlling the physical evidence, now that's a different ballgame all together.
But back to my question; what makes you think the people who arranged the press conferences were part of the conspiracy if there was one?
Conspirators never make mistakes.
That?s why no Conspiracy in the history of mankind has ever been exposed :D
-
Wait a minute.
I thought it was the CKs and the Saint patsy defense team that insist on the existence of conspirators.
Nice of you to acknowledge it's only a fantasy.
Try to get right whose fantasy it is.
How does the CT general belief of the existence of conspirators equate to LNs making up bogus stories about particular persons who they claim were, could or would have been, part of a conspiracy?
-
How does the CT general belief of the existence of conspirators equate to LNs making up bogus stories about particular persons who they claim were, could or would have been, part of a conspiracy?
I didn't realize it was the LNs making up bogus stories about conspirators.
I thought that was the domain of the CKs.
And here I was thinking that the term 'lone nut' was indicative of Oswald acting alone, that there was no conspiracy and no conpirators to name.
Now I understand that it's actually the LNs naming bogus conspirators.
Thanks for clarifying that, Marty.
-
I didn't realize it was the LNs making up bogus stories about conspirators.
I thought that was the domain of the CKs.
And here I was thinking that the term 'lone nut' was indicative of Oswald acting alone, that there was no conspiracy and no conpirators to name.
Now I understand that it's actually the LNs naming bogus conspirators.
Thanks for clarifying that, Marty.
Now I understand that it's actually the LNs naming bogus conspirators.
Too bad but not a real surprise that you didn't get it.
Perhaps it goes along with the alternate reality LNs prefer to live in.
-
Now I understand that it's actually the LNs naming bogus conspirators.
Too bad but not a real surprise that you didn't get it.
Perhaps it goes along with the alternate reality LNs prefer to live in.
I get it now.
That's why I thanked you for explaining that it's the LNs making up bogus stories about conspirators.
I was under the false impression that by definition LNs don't believe there was a conspiracy, hence there are no conspirators to name.
Now that I understand that it's the LNs that are making up bogus stories about conspirators, I feel much better.
Thanks for liberating me from the alternate reality I was living in.
-
Congratulations, thanks for proving my point that even though you claim that the Dallas Police setup Oswald by replacing the Mauser, forged Oswald's palmprint, planted bullets, planted shells, planted a jacket, planted a revolver and host of other nefarious nastiness and then the Dallas Police who had full control of Oswald just let him speak freely and in turn leave themselves at the mercy of Oswald's mouth?
As if!
The only reason they let Oswald speak is because nobody cared what Oswald said because Oswald had nothing to say.
JohnM
Either you quote me saying those things in bold or we all will see that you lie and just make things up to smear other posters. Well?
-
Hardly, the DP letting Oswald speak to the press can only lead to the Dallas Police having nothing to hide.
JohnM
Only in your opinion. Since you weren't there you have no way of knowing for sure why they did this.
-
Ok so you reckon that nobody claimed any of the main evidence was planted against Oswald, ok!
JohnM
But you claimed that I did. Thanks for proving that you lied in an attempt to smear me when I treated you civilly.
-
I get it now.
That's why I thanked you for explaining that it's the LNs making up bogus stories about conspirators.
I was under the false impression that by definition LNs don't believe there was a conspiracy, hence there are no conspirators to name.
Now that I understand that it's the LNs that are making up bogus stories about conspirators, I feel much better.
Thanks for liberating me from the alternate reality I was living in.
You are making progress?.
At least now you understand that there is a difference between
"LNs naming bogus conspirators"
and
"LNs making up bogus stories about conspirators
Well done Thumb1:
-
You are making progress?.
At least now you understand that there is a difference between
"LNs naming bogus conspirators"
and
"LNs making up bogus stories about conspirators
Well done Thumb1:
That's great, Marty.
Now that you've explained the difference, feel free to cite any LNer naming bogus conspirators and/or making up bogus stories about them.
Name a conspirator or bogus story about a conspirator that LNers have brought forth or endorsed.
Better yet, name a LNer that believes there was a conspiracy or conspirators to begin with.
LNers continually debunk the naming of the fantasy conspirators and the bogus stories and theories that the CKs keep bringing.
Talk about alternate realties. What color is the sky on your planet ?
-
JohnM: Hardly, the DP letting Oswald speak to the press can only lead to the Dallas Police having nothing to hide.
That's quite a glaring non-sequitur. Even for you.
The Dallas police collected all the first day evidence any of which if fake or planted could perhaps be contradicted by Oswald, why take that chance?, therefore as I said earlier the actions of the Dallas Police can only lead to them having nothing to hide.
JohnM
-
The Dallas police collected all the first day evidence any of which if fake or planted could perhaps be contradicted by Oswald, why take that chance?, therefore as I said earlier the actions of the Dallas Police can only lead to them having nothing to hide.
JohnM
Oswald actually contradicted some of it, but it was to no avail
He said he owned a revolver, but the one he had was bought in Fort Worth.... nobody cared, wanted to know or investigated
-
Oswald actually contradicted some of it, but it was to no avail
He said he owned a revolver, but the one he had was bought in Fort Worth.... nobody cared, wanted to know or investigated
When Oswald's revolver and accompanying serial number was directly linked to Oswald's PO box then it's all over red rover.
JohnM
-
That's great, Marty.
Now that you've explained the difference, feel free to cite any LNer naming bogus conspirators and/or making up bogus stories about them.
Name a conspirator or bogus story about a conspirator that LNers have brought forth or endorsed.
Better yet, name a LNer that believes there was a conspiracy or conspirators to begin with.
LNers continually debunk the naming of the fantasy conspirators and the bogus stories and theories that the CKs keep bringing.
Talk about alternate realties. What color is the sky on your planet ?
Now that you've explained the difference, feel free to cite any LNer naming bogus conspirators and/or making up bogus stories about them.
Richard Smith
Better yet, name a LNer that believes there was a conspiracy or conspirators to begin with.
How in the world would I know what an LN truly believes?
LNers continually debunk the naming of the fantasy conspirators and the bogus stories and theories that the CKs keep bringing.
I have no problem with anybody, including a LN, that debunks a fantasy conspiracy
-
The Dallas police collected all the first day evidence any of which if fake or planted could perhaps be contradicted by Oswald, why take that chance?, therefore as I said earlier the actions of the Dallas Police can only lead to them having nothing to hide.
JohnM
If they had nothing to hide, why were there so many errors and inconsistencies in their reports?
The FBI definitely didn?t think the Dallas PD did a competent job with the evidence. Plenty of valid criticism has been leveled at the DPD. It doesn?t mean they all were in on a conspiracy but in a universe where Oswald lives to get a fair trial, he might?ve Walked...
-
If they had nothing to hide, why were there so many errors and inconsistencies in their reports?
The FBI definitely didn?t think the Dallas PD did a competent job with the evidence. Plenty of valid criticism has been leveled at the DPD. It doesn?t mean they all were in on a conspiracy but in a universe where Oswald lives to get a fair trial, he might?ve Walked...
Oswald would have walked alright ... walked to an uncomfortable chair with straps for his wrists and ankles.
The case against him on two counts of murder was overwhelming; eyewitnesses, handwriting, photographs, fingerprints, possession of handgun, ownership of rifle, proven habitual liar, psychological profiling etc.
-
It's quite obvious that Ruby had Carte Blanche to go anywhere he wanted to go so he could be close to Oswald . Hell , Oswald was calm , cool and collected because he knew he hadn't shot or killed anyone that weekend.
The midnight press conference was an opportunity to get Ruby close to LHO. IMO
Ruby was able to get every where the press was allowed and ultimately got close enough to do the deed.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/coy3a.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/coy4.jpg)
-
Ok so you reckon that nobody claimed any of the main evidence was planted against Oswald, ok!
No, I?m asking you who ever claimed that ?Dallas Police setup Oswald by replacing the Mauser, forged Oswald's palmprint, planted bullets, planted shells, planted a jacket, planted a revolver and host of other nefarious nastiness?.
Do you even read what you write?
-
Wait a minute.
I thought it was the CKs and the Saint patsy defense team that insist on the existence of conspirators.
Nice of you to acknowledge it's only a fantasy.
Try to get right whose fantasy it is.
You guys make up fantasy conspirators that micromanaged every detail of what happened in order to argue that they couldn?t have done that. Therefore, Oswald did it.
-
I didn't realize it was the LNs making up bogus stories about conspirators.
?Richard Smith? makes up bogus stories about conspirators on a daily basis. So that he can then argue that his made up conspirators ?wouldn?t/couldn?t do that?.
-
When Oswald's revolver and accompanying serial number was directly linked to Oswald's PO box then it's all over red rover.
?Oswald?s revolver?. LOL.
-
These are the same folks who just complained about civil discourse on the forum. LOL.
Martin wasn?t even involved in Mark?s ?Richard Smith behaves like a jerk? thread.
Is there anything that you do not misrepresent?
-
Martin wasn?t even involved in Mark?s ?Richard Smith behaves like a jerk? thread.
Is there anything that you do not misrepresent?
Martin wasn?t even involved in Mark?s ?Richard Smith behaves like a jerk? thread.
Are you joking, Martin made a stack of posts in that thread.
Is there anything that you do not misrepresent?
Dishonest John strikes again. Ouch!
JohnM
-
Are you joking, Martin made a stack of posts in that thread.
Prove it.
-
Prove it.
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one bites the dust
(https://s15.postimg.cc/elpyi3tkb/ouch.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/99d55a284cac95011e21a0c2a29c7bc6/tumblr_nxpawt7tD81td2ssqo1_400.png)
JohnM
-
Another one bites the dust
I don?t know what that is, but it certainly doesn?t prove anything.
-
I don?t know what that is, but it certainly doesn?t prove anything.
Thumb1:
OK!
JohnM
-
Thumb1:
OK!
JohnM
That's exactly the mantra Iacoletti adopts when discussing the overwhelming evidence against Oswald in the deaths of Kennedy and Tippit.
This is proof that one can put the evidence right in front of Iacoletti and he will still deny what it proves. He is wrong on all accounts.
Perhaps he is going to claim that your image is doctored or faked, like he does about pretty much every single piece of evidence presented against Saint Lee of the Oswalds.
-
That's exactly the mantra Iacoletti adopts when discussing the overwhelming evidence against Oswald in the deaths of Kennedy and Tippit.
This is proof that one can put the evidence right in front of Iacoletti and he will still deny what it proves. He is wrong on all accounts.
Perhaps he is going to claim that your image is doctored or faked, like he does about pretty much every single piece of evidence presented against Saint Lee of the Oswalds.
Precisely, that's why I didn't bother elaborating, Iacoletti was caught with his pants down and took up his familiar battle position, the sure sign of a man who has run out of ideas.
JohnM
-
That's exactly the mantra Iacoletti adopts when discussing the overwhelming evidence against Oswald in the deaths of Kennedy and Tippit.
This is proof that one can put the evidence right in front of Iacoletti and he will still deny what it proves. He is wrong on all accounts.
Perhaps he is going to claim that your image is doctored or faked, like he does about pretty much every single piece of evidence presented against Saint Lee of the Oswalds.
John I. is caught in another outright lie? I'm shocked. How slimy is it to knowingly make a false claim because he thought the thread had been deleted and no one could "prove" it? How about Duncan clears it up by confirming that Martin participated in that thread and John can then apologize for his dishonesty?
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/ouch2.png)
-
When Oswald's revolver and accompanying serial number was directly linked to Oswald's PO box then it's all over red rover.
JohnM
Prove it.
-
That's exactly the mantra Iacoletti adopts when discussing the overwhelming evidence against Oswald in the deaths of Kennedy and Tippit.
This is proof that one can put the evidence right in front of Iacoletti and he will still deny what it proves. He is wrong on all accounts.
Perhaps he is going to claim that your image is doctored or faked, like he does about pretty much every single piece of evidence presented against Saint Lee of the Oswalds.
Boy, that is some pretty strong Koolade that you are drinking. You're totally delusional.
-
Precisely, that's why I didn't bother elaborating, Iacoletti was caught with his pants down and took up his familiar battle position, the sure sign of a man who has run out of ideas.
JohnM
How did you come by that screen shot?
-
Boy, that is some pretty strong Koolade that you are drinking. You're totally delusional.
Indeed.
Bill, quote me ever saying that pretty much every single piece of evidence presented against Oswald is doctored or fake.
Your problem is that you actually believe that the evidence there is actually shows that Oswald killed JFK.
-
That's exactly the mantra Iacoletti adopts when discussing the overwhelming evidence against Oswald in the deaths of Kennedy and Tippit.
This is proof that one can put the evidence right in front of Iacoletti and he will still deny what it proves. He is wrong on all accounts.
Perhaps he is going to claim that your image is doctored or faked, like he does about pretty much every single piece of evidence presented against Saint Lee of the Oswalds.
Which, of course, he just did. Thereby implying that John M faked the info contained in his post. How about Martin just clear it up for us?
-
Reasons why conspirator(s) put Oswald before the camera at midnight:
1. Calm the public and start convincing them that Oswald was the lone shooter and there was no conspiracy.
2. Make use of Oswald's disheveled appearance and his blackened eye and cut to reinforce the effect of no.1
3. Hope that Oswald would make some incriminating statement.
4. Show good faith that the pulbic and the press were given opportunity to see and ask quesionts of the suspect so that later, when he gets shot dead, it will be easier to explain that shooting as another non conspiratorial shooting by a lone crazy man, Jack Ruby.
-
From Ruby's WC testimony.......
This is referring to the night of the assassination.
"I left the club--I left the synagogue and I drove by the Bali-Hai Restaurant. I noticed they were open. I took recognition of that. I drove by another club called the Gay Nineties, and they were closed.
And I made it my business to drive down Preston Road. In my mind suddenly it mulled over me that the police department was working overtime. And this is the craziest thing that ever happened in a person's life. I have always been very close to the police department, I don't know why.
I felt I have always abided by the law--a few little infractions, but not serious--and I felt we have one of the greatest police forces in the world here, and I have always been close to them, and I visited in the office. And over the radio I heard they were working overtime.
I stopped at the delicatessen called Phil's on Oak Lawn Avenue, and suddenly I decided--I told the clerk there I wanted him to make me some real good sandwiches, about 10 or 12, and he had already started on the sandwiches and I got on the phone.
I called an officer by the name of Sims and I said, "Sims, I hear you guys are working," and so on. I said, "I want to bring some sandwiches." And he said, "Jack, we wound up our work already. We wound up what we were doing. We are finished what we were doing. I will tell the boys about your thoughtfulness, and I will thank them for you.""
Is this Detective Richard Sims from Homicide? If so, why was he not asked about this conversation during his WC testimony?
-
Reasons why conspirator(s) put Oswald before the camera at midnight:
1. Calm the public and start convincing them that Oswald was the lone shooter and there was no conspiracy.
2. Make use of Oswald's disheveled appearance and his blackened eye and cut to reinforce the effect of no.1
3. Hope that Oswald would make some incriminating statement.
4. Show good faith that the pulbic and the press were given opportunity to see and ask quesionts of the suspect so that later, when he gets shot dead, it will be easier to explain that shooting as another non conspiratorial shooting by a lone crazy man, Jack Ruby.
Point #3 , Zeon.
Interview without representation.
I still don't buy that the press knew Lee was being charged with the murder of the president , before the accused himself knew.
-
From Ruby's WC testimony.......
This is referring to the night of the assassination.
"I left the club--I left the synagogue and I drove by the Bali-Hai Restaurant. I noticed they were open. I took recognition of that. I drove by another club called the Gay Nineties, and they were closed.
And I made it my business to drive down Preston Road. In my mind suddenly it mulled over me that the police department was working overtime. And this is the craziest thing that ever happened in a person's life. I have always been very close to the police department, I don't know why.
I felt I have always abided by the law--a few little infractions, but not serious--and I felt we have one of the greatest police forces in the world here, and I have always been close to them, and I visited in the office. And over the radio I heard they were working overtime.
I stopped at the delicatessen called Phil's on Oak Lawn Avenue, and suddenly I decided--I told the clerk there I wanted him to make me some real good sandwiches, about 10 or 12, and he had already started on the sandwiches and I got on the phone.
I called an officer by the name of Sims and I said, "Sims, I hear you guys are working," and so on. I said, "I want to bring some sandwiches." And he said, "Jack, we wound up our work already. We wound up what we were doing. We are finished what we were doing. I will tell the boys about your thoughtfulness, and I will thank them for you.""
Is this Detective Richard Sims from Homicide? If so, why was he not asked about this conversation during his WC testimony?
Ruby was very busy that night.
After being told by Detective Sims the sandwiches weren't needed, he still purchased 8 corned beef sandwiches, 8 black cherry sodas, two celery tonics, 3 cups of butter, a half loaf of Jewish rye and extra pickles.
He told the counterman at Phil's Deli that he was going to take the sandwiches to the disk jockeys at KLIF, and he eventually did just that.
But not before attending the press conference, and notably correcting Wade's erroneous 'Free Cuba movement' statement with the actual 'Fair Play for Cuba' moniker.
Shortly afterwards, Ruby is on the phone with KLIF trying to gain admission to the station to bring them the sandwiches. Ruby is rebuffed and told the doors to the station are locked.
At that moment Ruby sees Wade outside the phone booth and asks the man at KLIF if they'd like an interview with him. KLIF agrees to it. Wade is talking to reporter Ike Pappas, when Ruby approaches and says 'There's a call for you, Henry'. Wade goes into the booth and is interviewed.
Interview over, Wade gives the receiver back to Ruby who asks if they'll let him in with the sandwiches now. He's told they'll leave the door open for 5 minutes only.
Before leaving for KLIF, Ruby runs into KLIF reporter Russ Knight upstairs, hurries back down to the basement, and sets up yet another interview with Wade.
Ruby doesn't make it to KLIF in 5 minutes and finds the door locked.
He waits there 10 minutes before Russ Knight comes down the street returning to KLIF with the taped interview of Wade that Ruby had just arranged.
Knight unlocks the door and Ruby brings his $9.60 bag of sandwiches into the station.
Busy night for Ruby. Life is strange.
-
Which, of course, he just did. Thereby implying that John M faked the info contained in his post. How about Martin just clear it up for us?
I'm surprised Martin hasn't rushed to John I's defense here to clear this matter up? Wonder why?
-
True to form, "Richard" thinks lack of evidence is evidence.
-
Reasons why conspirator(s) put Oswald before the camera at midnight:
1. Calm the public and start convincing them that Oswald was the lone shooter and there was no conspiracy.
2. Make use of Oswald's disheveled appearance and his blackened eye and cut to reinforce the effect of no.1
3. Hope that Oswald would make some incriminating statement.
4. Show good faith that the pulbic and the press were given opportunity to see and ask quesionts of the suspect so that later, when he gets shot dead, it will be easier to explain that shooting as another non conspiratorial shooting by a lone crazy man, Jack Ruby.
I read something about FBI Dallas being livid about the DPD putting Oswald into that potentially vulnerable situation. Some kind of territorial thing... DPD showing off, shoving it in FBI faces...something along those lines. I think it was Tom Tilson (?) who said the cops were thought of as country bumpkins, hicks or something, by FBI Dallas.
-
I read something about FBI Dallas being livid about the DPD putting Oswald into that potentially vulnerable situation. Some kind of territorial thing... DPD showing off, shoving it in FBI faces...something along those lines. I think it was Tom Tilson (?) who said the cops were thought of as country bumpkins, hicks or something, by FBI Dallas.
Well, I know he said this at the 1988 LHO Mock Trial about the Dallas Homicide office.
"No, I didn't dare go into the office. I didn't have a wide [Stetson] hat."
And to Earl Gotz:
"If you didn't have a big white hat on, they didn't even want you in their office."
-
Bill, quote me ever saying that pretty much every single piece of evidence presented against Oswald is doctored or fake.
Okay. Where do I start? Let's start with these six (there are plenty more):
The shell fragments allegedly found inside the limo, which were linked through ballistics to the rifle found up on the sixth floor. Were these fragments really found inside the limo or were they planted?
The two shell casings found in Oak Cliff, one by Barbara Davis and one by Virginia Davis. Were these two shells really found at the scene by these girls? Were the shells planted there on the ground after the fact (once the police left the area) to be found by the two girls? Did the two girls each find a shell casing, turn them over to the police (one to Dhority and one to Doughty) and then the shells were replaced in evidence by two totally different shells?
The paper trail and money order leading to Oswald's purchase of the rifle allegedly found up on the sixth floor. Was this paper trail faked? Was the money order faked?
The paper trail leading to Oswald's purchase of the revolver allegedly used to kill Tippit. Was this paper trail faked?
The revolver in evidence, allegedly taken from Oswald when he was apprehended inside the theater. Is that really the revolver taken from Oswald or did the real murder weapon disappear and Gerald Hill plant into evidence a revolver linked to Oswald?
-
Which, of course, he just did. Thereby implying that John M faked the info contained in his post. How about Martin just clear it up for us?
(https://i.imgur.com/5WIHwcJ.jpg)
-
Okay. Where do I start? Let's start with these six (there are plenty more):
The shell fragments allegedly found inside the limo, which were linked through ballistics to the rifle found up on the sixth floor. Were these fragments really found inside the limo or were they planted?
The two shell casings found in Oak Cliff, one by Barbara Davis and one by Virginia Davis. Were these two shells really found at the scene by these girls? Were the shells planted there on the ground after the fact (once the police left the area) to be found by the two girls? Did the two girls each find a shell casing, turn them over to the police (one to Dhority and one to Doughty) and then the shells were replaced in evidence by two totally different shells?
The paper trail and money order leading to Oswald's purchase of the rifle allegedly found up on the sixth floor. Was this paper trail faked? Was the money order faked?
The paper trail leading to Oswald's purchase of the revolver allegedly used to kill Tippit. Was this paper trail faked?
The revolver in evidence, allegedly taken from Oswald when he was apprehended inside the theater. Is that really the revolver taken from Oswald or did the real murder weapon disappear and Gerald Hill plant into evidence a revolver linked to Oswald?
The evidence against Oswald for John Iacolletti exists in a sort of twilight zone: it's not real but it's also not faked, it exists but it doesn't exist, it's not authentic but also not inauthentic.
Using this approach - placing the evidence in a sort of undefined and indeterminate area - he can both dismiss it out of hand but can also deny that he is claiming that it is faked or manufactured.
Of course, that's a complete intellectual dodge. It exists. How did it come to exist? Either Oswald made it or someone else did. Who is that someone else? Those are our choices. Choosing (c) neither is, frankly, a dodge.
-
The evidence against Oswald for John Iacolletti exists in a sort of twilight zone: it's not real but it's also not faked, it exists but it doesn't exist, it's not authentic but also not inauthentic.
Using this approach - placing the evidence in a sort of undefined and indeterminate area - he can both dismiss it out of hand but can also deny that he is claiming that it is faked or manufactured.
Of course, that's a complete intellectual dodge. It exists. How did it come to exist? Either Oswald made it or someone else did. Who is that someone else? Those are our choices. Choosing (c) neither is, frankly, a dodge.
The Dallas PD did a shoddy job of documenting and protecting Chains of evidence. So it?s very easy to be skeptical. I assume most problems with the evidence are not due to Malice but it can?t easily be ruled out...
-
Imo Oswald was given a midnight press conference because nobody besides Oswald had anything to hide.
JohnM
I just read that it was not a press conference at all. It took place in the police lineup room and LHO was initially behind the glass, but the reporters were complaining about this setup so he was brought out to the witness area. He was asked a few questions and then the DPD cut it off.
Can anyone confirm this?
-
Another ?I just read?? What happed, Publix cut your hours on the register and you have all this time to ?read? and post now? Once again, provide citation.
-
I just read that it was not a press conference at all. It took place in the police lineup room and LHO was initially behind the glass, but the reporters were complaining about this setup so he was brought out to the witness area. He was asked a few questions and then the DPD cut it off.
Can anyone confirm this?
Where did you read that?
-
I just read that it was not a press conference at all.
Well it certainly looks like a press conference and if Oswald had anything to say he would have said it.
JohnM
-
From Ruby's WC testimony.......
This is referring to the night of the assassination.
"I left the club--I left the synagogue and I drove by the Bali-Hai Restaurant. I noticed they were open. I took recognition of that. I drove by another club called the Gay Nineties, and they were closed.
And I made it my business to drive down Preston Road. In my mind suddenly it mulled over me that the police department was working overtime. And this is the craziest thing that ever happened in a person's life. I have always been very close to the police department, I don't know why.
I felt I have always abided by the law--a few little infractions, but not serious--and I felt we have one of the greatest police forces in the world here, and I have always been close to them, and I visited in the office. And over the radio I heard they were working overtime.
I stopped at the delicatessen called Phil's on Oak Lawn Avenue, and suddenly I decided--I told the clerk there I wanted him to make me some real good sandwiches, about 10 or 12, and he had already started on the sandwiches and I got on the phone.
I called an officer by the name of Sims and I said, "Sims, I hear you guys are working," and so on. I said, "I want to bring some sandwiches." And he said, "Jack, we wound up our work already. We wound up what we were doing. We are finished what we were doing. I will tell the boys about your thoughtfulness, and I will thank them for you.""
Is this Detective Richard Sims from Homicide? If so, why was he not asked about this conversation during his WC testimony?
Bumping in hope of an answer from the experts.
-
Bumping in hope of an answer from the experts.
Paraphrasing the following from The Day Kennedy Was Shot:
'From a phone booth in Phil's, Ruby dialed RI 8-9711 and asked the city hall operator to connect him with 'Homicide and Robbery'. The phone was picked up by Detective Richard Sims.'
I don't know why Sims wasn't asked about this conversation, but I suspect you already knew the call was to Detective Sims and have an opinion on why it didn't come up in his WC testimony.
Am I right ?
If so, why not just say what you have to say ?
-
Paraphrasing the following from The Day Kennedy Was Shot:
'From a phone booth in Phil's, Ruby dialed RI 8-9711 and asked the city hall operator to connect him with 'Homicide and Robbery'. The phone was picked up by Detective Richard Sims.'
I don't know why Sims wasn't asked about this conversation, but I suspect you already knew the call was to Detective Sims and have an opinion on why it didn't come up in his WC testimony.
Am I right ?
If so, why not just say what you have to say ?
Thanks Howard. I thought it was him but was not sure. Maybe there were other officers called Sims.....a bit like Tippit.....you never know.
I haven't checked but I figured the most likely answer was that Ruby testified some time after Sims or the penny did not drop with the WC counsel after Ruby testified. To me it seems that Ruby was keen to gain access/info regarding Oswald on the Friday. I had not known he was at the midnight press conference although I know he had corrected Wade regarding the "Free Cuba" comment. I figure Ruby had his pistol on him at that time.
-
Thanks Howard. I thought it was him but was not sure. Maybe there were other officers called Sims.....a bit like Tippit.....you never know.
I haven't checked but I figured the most likely answer was that Ruby testified some time after Sims or the penny did not drop with the WC counsel after Ruby testified. To me it seems that Ruby was keen to gain access/info regarding Oswald on the Friday. I had not known he was at the midnight press conference although I know he had corrected Wade regarding the "Free Cuba" comment. I figure Ruby had his pistol on him at that time.
I'm not sure of the chronology of the testimony. I tend to think the call to Sims was probably known of before Sims' WC testimony, but you could be right.
There's no doubt Ruby was keen to gain access from the get-go. He succeeded.
Ruby was already in the hallways of police HQ when Oswald was being moved to and from his cell for interrogation. He was caught on tape in close vicinity to Oswald on one of those occasions.
And he did have his pistol on him.
-
I'm not sure of the chronology of the testimony. I tend to think the call to Sims was probably known of before Sims' WC testimony, but you could be right.
There's no doubt Ruby was keen to gain access from the get-go. He succeeded.
Ruby was already in the hallways of police HQ when Oswald was being moved to and from his cell for interrogation. He was caught on tape in close vicinity to Oswald on one of those occasions.
And he did have his pistol on him.
I think this photo has often been claimed to be Ruby......I am sure it is not due to the hairline.
(https://preview.ibb.co/b197Ee/18196_C88_12_EF_496_D_9_C88_5935810_A92_A8.jpg)
-
I think this photo has often been claimed to be Ruby......I am sure it is not due to the hairline.
(https://preview.ibb.co/b197Ee/18196_C88_12_EF_496_D_9_C88_5935810_A92_A8.jpg)
Sorry Colin, can't view the image you posted on this computer.
But if it's the one I'm thinking of (profile in which we see the right side of the individual leaning forward and looking at Oswald's back as he is being taken out of the hallway), I think that's Ruby.
Either way, there's no doubt Ruby wanted to gain access and be on the scene.
-
Well it certainly looks like a press conference and if Oswald had anything to say he would have said it.
JohnM
If he was part of the Conspiracy, why would he incriminate himself and others?
If he was framed, how would he know who framed him?
-
Where did you read that?
Why does that matter? Is it true or not?
-
Well it certainly looks like a press conference and if Oswald had anything to say he would have said it.
JohnM
You clearly have no idea what a press conference is if you think this looks like one.
-
The evidence against Oswald for John Iacolletti exists in a sort of twilight zone: it's not real but it's also not faked, it exists but it doesn't exist, it's not authentic but also not inauthentic.
Using this approach - placing the evidence in a sort of undefined and indeterminate area - he can both dismiss it out of hand but can also deny that he is claiming that it is faked or manufactured.
Of course, that's a complete intellectual dodge. It exists. How did it come to exist? Either Oswald made it or someone else did. Who is that someone else? Those are our choices. Choosing (c) neither is, frankly, a dodge.
You nailed it exactly. John is a dishonest contrarian. The single worst poster on this board. He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy. Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator? We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic. Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one. It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others. The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.
-
Why does that matter? Is it true or not?
It matters because you have a track record of being a little loose with the truth.
Before anyone comments on your claim you should reference your source. Even a raving CTer would expect you to do that.
My bet is that your source (if you have one) is another low grade poster on a CT forum.
-
You nailed it exactly. John is a dishonest contrarian. The single worst poster on this board. He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy. Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator? We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic. Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one. It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others. The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.
Says the lazy, dishonest contrarian who when asked for evidence that Oswald killed JFK, either gives none at all or rattles off a bunch of conclusions about the evidence that are either completely false, unproven, or misleading rather then providing any actual evidence.
-
Okay. Where do I start? Let's start with these six (there are plenty more):
The shell fragments allegedly found inside the limo, which were linked through ballistics to the rifle found up on the sixth floor. Were these fragments really found inside the limo or were they planted?
What is your evidence that they were found inside the limo?
The two shell casings found in Oak Cliff, one by Barbara Davis and one by Virginia Davis. Were these two shells really found at the scene by these girls?
What is your evidence that the two shells in evidence (and which two shells anyway?) were found at the scene by the Davis girls?
The paper trail and money order leading to Oswald's purchase of the rifle allegedly found up on the sixth floor. Was this paper trail faked? Was the money order faked?
What is your evidence that these paper trails lead to Oswald?
The paper trail leading to Oswald's purchase of the revolver allegedly used to kill Tippit. Was this paper trail faked?
What is your evidence that this paper trail leads to Oswald
The revolver in evidence, allegedly taken from Oswald when he was apprehended inside the theater. Is that really the revolver taken from Oswald or did the real murder weapon disappear and Gerald Hill plant into evidence a revolver linked to Oswald?
What is your evidence that CE143 was taken from Oswald when he was apprehended inside the theater?
What I've noticed is that when nutters can't defend the provenance of what they consider to be evidence, they quickly rush to shift the burden of proof and insist that you prove that somebody faked it. Even evidence that doesn't even have anything to do with who murdered Kennedy.
If you can't (for example) reliably prove that Oswald filled out the 2-inch order coupon that a microfilm picture was taken of with anything other than a biased, unscientific judgment call (and you cannot), then there is no need for any of your "paper trail" to have been "faked" by anybody. If there is no evidence that Oswald picked up a parcel from the post office containing CE139 (and there is not), then there is no need for any of your "paper trail" to have been "faked" by anybody. That's why they are strawmen. You want to pretend that either the evidence we have proves what you think it proves, OR that some vast conspiracy that nobody ever claimed faked it all. You can't prove your case, so you shift the burden to the other side of the false dichotomy.
-
Of course, that's a complete intellectual dodge. It exists. How did it come to exist? Either Oswald made it or someone else did. Who is that someone else? Those are our choices. Choosing (c) neither is, frankly, a dodge.
No, it's not a "dodge". It's the only intellectually honest answer. The time to believe a claim is true is when you have a good reason to believe it. Just choosing an answer that you cannot support is no virtue.
-
Chief of police, Jesse Curry, said that Oswald was shown to the news reporters: "... to demonstrate that he had not been mistreated." (or words to that effect).
-
It matters because you have a track record of being a little loose with the truth.
Before anyone comments on your claim you should reference your source. Even a raving CTer would expect you to do that.
My bet is that your source (if you have one) is another low grade poster on a CT forum.
Loose with truth? 😅😄 This is funny coming from someone who hasn't cited one piece of evidence since they have been on this board.
Why does a source matter? I asked a basic question. Was this held in the lineup room or not? Since you clearly can't answer that question then move on.
I thought you weren't going to respond to my posts? Talk about being loose with the truth.
-
Chief of police, Jesse Curry, said that Oswald was shown to the news reporters: "... to demonstrate that he had not been mistreated." (or words to that effect).
Curry was in charge of nothing. Just read his testimony.
Mr. RANKIN - Do you know who was there to try to identify Lee Oswald?
Mr. CURRY - No, I don't. The news media, a number of them, had continued to say, "Let us see him. What are you doing to him? How does he look?"
I think one broadcaster that I had heard or someone had told me about, said that Lee Harvey Oswald is in custody of the police department, and that something about he looked all right when he went in there, they wouldn't guarantee how he would look after he had been in custody of the Dallas police for a couple of hours, which intimated to me that when I heard this that they thought we were mistreating the prisoner.
Mr. RANKIN - Did you do anything about that?
Mr. CURRY - I offered then at that time they wanted to see him and they wanted to know why they couldn't see him and I said we had no objection to anybody seeing him. And when he was being moved down the hall to go back up in the jail they would crowd on him and we just had to surround him by officers to get to take him to the jail elevator to take him back upstairs, to let him rest from the interrogation.
Mr. RANKIN - And this showup, how many people attended?
Mr. CURRY - I would think perhaps 75 people.............
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/curry1.htm
-
You nailed it exactly. John is a dishonest contrarian. The single worst poster on this board. He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy. Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator? We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic. Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one. It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others. The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.
He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy.
How does taking issue with the evidence equate to implying that there was a conspiracy? If you don't accept the evidence at face value you must believe in a conspiracy? Is that how your mind works
Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?
This may be over your head, but why do you feel there has to be faked or manufactured evidence? Why can't there simply be misrepresented evidence?
We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's a void at all
Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one.
Which is exactly what any detective does every day.
It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others.
Where is it written that one has to have an alternative theory to examine the evidence that allegedly supports another theory?
The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.
Whining again? Just make your case, present the evidence and convince somebody, will ya?
-
John is a dishonest contrarian. The single worst poster on this board.
Trolls appoint themselves as forum magistrates ...judging the content of other members' posts that do not agree with their rigid formulated perspective.
Is that about right?
-
Trolls appoint themselves as forum magistrates ...judging the content of other members' posts that do not agree with their rigid formulated perspective.
Is that about right?
yes
-
He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy.
How does taking issue with the evidence equate to implying that there was a conspiracy? If you don't accept the evidence at face value you must belief in a conspiracy? Is that how your mind worksWho exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?
Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?
This may be over your head, but why do you feel there has to be faked or manufactured evidence? Why can't there simply be misrepresented evidence?
We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's a void at all
Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one.
Which is exactly what any detective does every day.
It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others.
Where is it written that one has to have an alternative theory to examine the evidence that allegedly supports another theory?
The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.
Whining again? Just make your case, present the evidence and convince somebody, will ya?
While you are rambling away, why not clear up John I.'s claim that you did not post on the "Richard Smith" thread? Wouldn't an intellectually honest person want to do that? This one is simple Here is an example. If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime? There are documents that confirm a rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box. Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. There is no third option in which this evidence somehow exists but neither Oswald nor a conspirator is responsible for it. I understand why John takes this dishonest and lazy approach. If he confirmed that he was suggesting a conspiracy, then he might have to do something other than be a contrarian. He might actually have to provide some support or at least a narrative that makes sense. Easier to shrug away everything as suspect without making any attempt to explain an alternative.
-
While you are rambling away, why not clear up John I.'s claim that you did not post on the "Richard Smith" thread? Wouldn't an intellectually honest person want to do that? This one is simple Here is an example. If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime? There are documents that confirm a rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box. Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. There is no third option in which this evidence somehow exists but neither Oswald nor a conspirator is responsible for it. I understand why John takes this dishonest and lazy approach. If he confirmed that he was suggesting a conspiracy, then he might have to do something other than be a contrarian. He might actually have to provide some support or at least a narrative that makes sense. Easier to shrug away everything as suspect without making any attempt to explain an alternative.
If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime?
You really are not getting any of this, aren't you now? I don't think John has ever argued that the Klein's documents (which were created as part of a transaction initiated by a handwritten order form) are fake. It seems to me that he only questions the photo copy of the order form and the conclusion of the FBI that it is Oswald's handwriting on that form.
I could be mistaken, but I think John has also never claimed that the BY photos are faked. Personally, I think they are likely authentic. So, regardless of your constant exaggerations, what you really only have is a photo copy of an order form and some photographs and neither of those prove Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle allegedly used to kill Kennedy.
Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.
True, but that does not automatically mean that the evidence was faked. Authentic evidence can also be misrepresented.
I understand why John takes this dishonest and lazy approach. If he confirmed that he was suggesting a conspiracy, then he might have to do something other than be a contrarian. He might actually have to provide some support or at least a narrative that makes sense. Easier to shrug away everything as suspect without making any attempt to explain an alternative.
John is not dishonest or lazy in his approach. It seems to me he simply feels that the evidence against Oswald does not support the conclusions attached to it by the WC and/or LNs and on the other hand he feels there is not enough evidence to make a claim that there has been a conspiracy.
Actually, the lazy one is you. Instead of answering my questions, you just ignore the content of my post and basically simply repeat again what you wrote in the post I replied to with my questions.
-
If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime?
Here we see "Richard's" dishonesty in action. There is no testimony or photos that link Oswald to that rifle.
There are documents that confirm a rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box.
No, actually, there are not.
Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.
Or somebody is falsely representing the evidence that there is. That's your third option.
I haven't said a single thing that is dishonest. You're just mad because I expose your false claims every time you make them.