JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Eddie Haymaker on December 22, 2018, 06:02:44 PM
-
Lets for arguments sake assume LHO did take a shot at walker.
This is where it all comes undone. On one hand they are presenting this like a totally innocent coincidence where they get him the job by chance and good intent but on the other is the walker evidence being revealed after the fact showing him to be an aspiring assassin all along.
So which one is it? You can?t have both.
Oh and BTW the route was changed, security was relaxed, the roof was off and the rear seats were raised up.
You wanna talk about getting Dracula a job at the blood bank?
What are the odds of this? any city in america,any route,any building on said route,any vip,any day. Thats one lucky lone gunman.He waited 5 weeks for his unlikely opportunity. So when was the last time a sitting US president drove through Dealey Plaza? NEVER? A mathematical impossibility? So If DNA evidence is based on mathematical probability why isn't this real evidence?
So If I follow the logic here he might have worked there for 10 years before someone famous drove by.Or perhaps 25 years.He was not planning an execution he was saving up for June's shoe's.He was at work.working.
No I'm sorry this did NOT happen by chance like Ruth Paine and the WR say's.
This is real evidence (circumstantial) but undeniably strong as to a wider conspiracy In Dallas and it was provided by the Warren Commission.
She mention's Lee's problems getting a job but NEVER say's she got him the job.
Why isn't she overcome with guilt and grief?
She says "I wish I could have done something"
Well,you could have not gotten him the job!
then the world would never have heard of LHO - right?
He worked hard there for 4 weeks unaware that JFK was coming to Dallas.
She seems pretty cool and calm for a housewife who's clear actions just got the president murdered.
RP does not know about the rifle (but it is not hidden well wrapped in a blanket.)
She had the FBI come to her home to question the Oswalds. (who were under active federal surveillance)
LHO was known to intelligence.Hardly a "nobody"
She tries to portray herself as just an "observer" but she has played VERY active role in this getting LHO the job and revealing evidence to investigators.
After the fact she becomes a "spy" and finds the damning walker confession.
She is super pro lone gunman and helps bury Oswald to the media.
The TSBD was not just a building on the route but a perfect building to shoot from under these perfect conditions. (open top, slow speed, no detail) Think about that. He didn't even call about the job himself and If the government?s evidence is true and correct he would not have known until around the Tuesday at the very earliest that the motorcade went anywhere near his building (So with only 2 full days to prepare)
Mrs. PAINE - ?And the subject of his looking for work and that he hadn't found work for a week, came up while we were having coffee, the four young mothers at Mrs. Roberts' house, and Mrs. Randle mentioned that her younger brother, Wesley Frazier thought they needed another person at the Texas School Book Depository where Wesley worked.? WC Testimony
a lie, she did not. Then she claimed to LMR that Buell was going to ask for her, another lie.The DPD were very rough on Buell Frazier.
Mrs. RANDLE ?Mrs. Paine said that, I had told Wesley that he might--that she said he was going to call over there. In fact, Mrs. Paine asked me if I would call and see if there was a job available and I told her, no, that I didn't know anybody over there, and if she wanted to call over the place she would have to do it because I didn't know if there was any job openings over there. ? WC Testimony.
I believe Buell Frazier and Linnie May Randle were manipulated by Mrs Paine and I also believe LMR felt she was being manipulated when RP tried to get her to call the TSBD on behalf of a virtual stranger. My opinion is she knew something was wrong being asked to do that.She had only met RP once or twice before.They were not ?close?.The testimony of Frazier and Randle, who each stated on two occasions that the bag they saw was much too short to have contained the rifle, even in its disassembled state. Frazier also claimed that the bag Oswald had carried was a standard grocery store bag.
The public only knew on the morning of the 19th (Tuesday) the motorcade route and it was depicted as going straight down main street. At this point lets just agree there is confusion over who printed what map when and If the route was changed at all, who approved it? Lets just say If you were a lone assassin you wouldn?t know where to shoot from or when exactly.
From the Evidence you have to charge Ruth Paine with conspiracy to murder don?t you? The rifle is kept at your house? You speak Russian? You got him the job.
If a DA can get Clay Shaw to trial surely RP qualify's too given the evidence.
October 16, 1963: LHO begins work at the TSBD. 5 Weeks.
Does he apply for a dozen jobs all along the motorcade route? No
Who are the ONLY people who might have foreknowledge of the route? The secret service,JFK administration and Officials of the city of Dallas.
Was the route changed? It doesn?t matter. The City of Dallas was ultimately responsible for the route. The secret service don?t plan the route in someone else?s town.
Who did LHO work for? The city of Dallas.
-
Eddie,
Seeing as how George DeMohrenschildt effectively handed Oswald off to Russophile Ruthie, and how GdM was probably a long-term "KGB" "illegal" (according to CI/SIG analyst Edward Clare Petty), I suspect that Ruthie was KGB, as well.
-- Tommy :)
-
55 years have passed and you guys have nothing. Do you think when the 100th anniversary comes around there will be something that might cast serious suspicion in the mind of a serious, smart unbiased investigator from the new generation coming through?
-
55 years have passed and you guys have nothing. Do you think when the 100th anniversary comes around there will be something that might cast serious suspicion in the mind of a serious, smart unbiased investigator from the new generation coming through?
55 years have passed and you still can't prove with evidence that Oswald did it. Will you ever be able to?
-
She started training in Russian in 1957
Her family is heavily involved in intelligence
If her family was intell and she is learning Russian in Texas
She is obviously being groomed as a
US Counter Intelligence agent for the CIA
Handed off by the obviously CIA GdM
RP was smart enough to not make the same mistake George did
IMO a legitimate CIA operation monitoring the Oswald's
SteveH
Is it your contention this murder fell into Oswalds's lap by chance?
I don't mind you challenging this - but what do you have to offer?
I have shown my hand - what do you have?
BTW I am an unbiased investigator
I do not consider myself part of a group at all
I have simply gone where the evidence took me
It brought me to Mrs Paine
I can't say 100% who shot at JFK but I do know 100% who didn't.
-
"[Oswald was] [h]anded off by the obviously CIA GdM."
.....
Eddie,
Edward Clare Petty, who had come to believe that James Angleton was working for the KGB (LOL), told author Richard Russell that he thought DeMohrenschildt was a long-term KGB "illegal".
From one of my posts on another forum:
According Richard Russell, CI/SIG officer Clare Edward Petty told him there were some Venona intercepts that indicated to Petty that GdM might have been a Ruskie spy.
"Clare Petty, a former official on Angleton's staff, told me that shortly before his CIA retirement in 1974, he was examining a potential de Mohrenschildt link to some Soviet cipher traffic first intercepted by American intelligence in World War II. Known as the VENONA material, 'it Was only partially broken,' according to Petty, including lots of agent cryptonyms that we never found out to whom they applied. I had started to consider the possibility of whether a certain Soviet illegal might have been de Mohrenschildt. It was clear that whoever was being described in the codes had been in the United States, went to Mexico during he war, and was a real wheeler-dealer. He also had another nationality; my recollection is that it was Polish.'"
-- The Man Who Knew Too Much, Dick Russell pp. 273
Hmm. Let's see, the KGB agent ...
1 ) Was from Poland, or some other northern Slavic country
2 ) Was in the U.S. before WW II
3 ) Went to Mexico during WW II
4 ) Was a real wheeler-dealer
Hmm ...
1 ) George "von" Mohrenschildt was born in Mazyr, Belarus, about 300 miles east of the Polish border
2 ) He immigrated to the U.S. in May, 1938.
3 ) He and his girlfriend, Lilia Larin, lived in Mexico for several months in 1942, and then returned to the U.S.
4 ) He was a wheeler-dealer. (Insurance Salesman, His Own Art Work, Sugar Speculator, Oil Speculator, Film Producer ...)
-- Tommy [:sun]
-
Why would the Russians want to kill JFK?
and replace him with a "screaming hawk" like LBJ?
JFK is giving them everything they want
the Jupiter missiles are gone
No sorry, not on board with that
This was a coup d'etat by the RIGHT
There is no "left" involved
Thats why LHO is a square peg in a round hole
-
Why would the Russians want to kill JFK?
and replace him with a "screaming hawk" like LBJ?
JFK is giving them everything they want
the Jupiter missiles are gone
No sorry, not on board with that
This was a coup d'etat by the RIGHT
There is no "left" involved
Thats why LHO is a square peg in a round hole
Eddie,
Have you read the page from Mark Reibling's book "Wedge" that I laboriously typed out and posted on another thread about a month ago?
Here's the thread.
Feel free to reply to it, there (near the bottom of page 2, this forum).
Thanks.
-- Tommy :)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1444.0.html
-
This is an inside job Tommy
every bit of evidence points to it
JJ Angleton was not a straight shooter - goes with the territory (CI)
Please read my theory's
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1445.0.html
Its possible Mrs Paine had no idea what the OP was until it was too late
and she was committed to it
LBJ wanted people to believe it was the soviets but it was team Texas all the way.
-
55 years have passed and you still can't prove with evidence that Oswald did it. Will you ever be able to?
Proof beyond reasonable doubt considering the weight of all of the evidence? Certainly.
Can you name a single CT that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt? I bet you can't.
-
This is an inside job Tommy
every bit of evidence points to it
JJ Angleton was not a straight shooter - goes with the territory (CI)
Please read my theory's
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1445.0.html
Its possible Mrs Paine had no idea what the OP was until it was too late
and she was committed to it
LBJ wanted people to believe it was the soviets but it was team Texas all the way.
Eddie,
LOL.
Regardless, I forgot to edit my previous post to reflect the fact that I've recently "discovered" that the KGB effectively planted a John Newman and Peter Dale Scott-like, KGB (not CIA) coverup-inducing "WWIII virus" when triple-agent Ivan Obyedkov "volunteered" the radioactive name "Kostikov" to Oswald (or more likely a KGB impersonator of Oswald) over a probably known-by-KGB-to-be-tapped-by-the-CIA Soviet Embassy phone line) on 10/01/63 in Mexico City.
Obydekov's name was mispelled in James Angleton's June 19, 1975, Church Committee testimony (on MFF page 16 of that Church Committe document), and Angleton talks about him for several pages in his February 9, 1976, testimony, but refers to him there as "another hangnail" rather than by name.
Fwiw, Bill Simpich told me a couple of months ago in a FB message that he agrees with my assessment that "Byetkov*?" must have been this Ivan Obyedkov, the suspuciously well-paid security guard (whose 48-page 201 file, only recently released, is mysteriously very heavily redacted) at the Mexico City Soviet Embassy.
-- Tommy :)
-
"Can you name a single CT that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt? I bet you can't."
Well, one of those CT's are correct
He was shot through the right temple, clear as day
In a public execution
Tommy-you're a tin foil hat guy
the more outrageous you're theory the more evidence you need
all you have is "He said so"
Its no where near enough
-
"Tommy, You're a tin foil hat guy.
The more outrageous you're [sic] theory the more evidence you need.
All you have is 'He said so'
Move on."
.....
Eddie,
Your calling me a Tinfoil Hat Guy is rich.
A classic example of "the pot calling the kettle black," if there ever was one.
LOL
-- Tommy :)
PS. If by "he" you mean Bill Simpich, would you like for me to post (if I'm technically able to do so) his FB message to me, here?
-
Ruth Paine is to be encountered to be challenged, not petted, stroked, and flattered. Did Bill (of this forum, during his visit with Ruth he posted about...) ask her how well she got to know her parents' close friend who was rooming in her parents' house in New York in the 1930's, and dining with them in the 1950's?
Mike did not want Ruth to be on the WC record as principal correspondent with Robert Webster's employer, Rand's friend, Frederick T Merrill at the State Dept.:
From Bill Simpich:
https://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=151155
......
The Paines probably had a handler within the intelligence community in 1959, whether they knew it or not. Based on their background with the World Federalists and Ruth?s work with the Quakers and Soviet-American friendship committees, Cord Meyer is the logical candidate. By 1963, Meyer was the chief of the covert action division.
Frederick Merrill at the State Department put his stamp of approval on the East-West Contact Committee program organized by the Quakers that Ruth had worked on ? the following year, Merrill worked on the Robert Webster defector case that was linked to the Oswald defector case. Did some combination of Meyer, AID and the State Department somehow persuade the Paines to keep an eye on this defector family, or were they simply manipulated into position? Ruth had other intelligence operatives in her family ? such as her sister Sylvia Hoke and her brother-in-law John Hoke ? who could play a role in helping to convince her. Michael Paine?s family also had access to talent in the intelligence arena. Michael?s mother had a close friend named Mary Bancroft who was an OSS spy that slept with Allen Dulles.
After the Magnolia party, Ruth asked Marina Oswald if she would like to live with her so that she could improve her Russian. Lee was about to leave Marina for awhile while he went to his home town of New Orleans and looked for more steady work. Michael and Ruth had ostensibly split up, and were living in different houses.
Thanks to Barbara LaMonica, Peg Barker, Bill Kelly, and many other researchers for their insights on de Mohrenschildt and the Paines.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm
Testimony Of Michael R. Paine
.......
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you know whether your wife engaged in a writing campaign or a pen pal campaign between people in the United States and people in the Soviet Union?
Mr. PAINE - That was another part of this East-West contacts committee's duties or tasks they took upon themselves and I think she was chairman, accepted the chairmanship of that committee.
For a while, it was almost moribund, very inactive.
Mr. DULLES - Which committee was that, the committee to stimulate letters between Russia and the United States?
Mr. PAINE - Yes; to find names and addresses on each side to connect people together.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you yourself ever take part in any activity of that group?
Mr. PAINE - No; I didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER - You spoke of the East-West contacts committee as being active in trying to bring a group of Russians to the United States. Did they engage in any activities other than this attempt to bring Russians to the United States that you know of?
Mr. PAINE - That is the only one I know of, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did they succeed in bringing some Russians to the United States?
Mr. PAINE - Yes; they did. They brought three Russians, and then the Russians reciprocated by taking a group of Quakers who knew Russian on a tour of Russia.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you married to Ruth Hyde Paine at the time these Russian people came to the United States under the auspices of the East-West contacts committee?
Mr. PAINE - I might have been; I don't know.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you know whether she actively participated in the program to bring the Russians to the United States?
Mr. PAINE - Well, she participated insofar as going to the meetings. I don't believe she did most of the writing to the State Department and what-not to try to arrange clearances and itineraries and things like that, but she was at the meetings at which those things were discussed.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did she ever discuss them with you in any detail?
Mr. PAINE - We, I would often--I went to several of those meetings myself. ....
This is the obit of the father of Robert E.Webster's employer's (H. James Rand's) business partner.:
It seems Jim Rand's father thought highly of the father of Ruth Paine's State Dept. contact that she could
not recall the name of.........
The Diamond of Psi Upsilon - Volume 20, Issue 1 - Page 47
https://books.google.com/books?id=pJ5MAAAAMAAJ (https://books.google.com/books?id=pJ5MAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA47&dq="*which+had+previously+absorbed+his+old+company,+the+Library+Bureau.+Two+months+after+joining+the+company,+Mr.+Merrill"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIh6WVlo_dxgIVhD8-Ch2l6QF7#v=onepage&q="*which%20had%20previously%20absorbed%20his%20old%20company%2C%20the%20Library%20Bureau.%20Two%20months%20after%20joining%20the%20company%2C%20Mr.%20Merrill"&f=false) Psi Upsilon - 1933 - Full view - More editions
William Fessenden Merrill 1933....Resigning both positions in June, 1928, he was named vice- president and general manager of Remington Rand, which had previously absorbed his old company, the Library Bureau. .Two months after joining the company, Mr. Merrill was promoted to the presidency of the organization, succeeding James H. Rand, Jr., who became chairman of the board. More than a year ago Brother Merrill retired because of ill health, but retained many directorships until the time of his death. He was a ... He is survived by a widow, a son, Frederick T. Merrill, and a brother, Oliver B. Merrill, Gamma '91. Charles
-
We know the FBI had active surveillance on the oswalds
Is it really a stretch given the international flavor of the targets that the CIA
in all probability knew who they were?
and where they were
Or does that fit the evidence like a glove?
-
Proof beyond reasonable doubt considering the weight of all of the evidence? Certainly.
Can you name a single CT that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt? I bet you can't.
What planet do you live on? In my country [The USA] GUILT must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...not innocence. So try it again Mr DA wannabe.
-
From the Evidence you have to charge Ruth Paine with conspiracy to murder don?t you? The rifle is kept at your house? You speak Russian? You got him the job.
If a DA can get Clay Shaw to trial surely RP qualify's too given the evidence.
-
Proof beyond reasonable doubt considering the weight of all of the evidence? Certainly.
Certainly not.
Can you name a single CT that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt? I bet you can't.
Nope. Nor has your theory.
-
Ruth Paine is to be encountered to be challenged, not petted, stroked, and flattered. Did Bill (of this forum, during his visit with Ruth he posted about...) ask her how well she got to know her parents' close friend who was rooming in her parents' house in New York in the 1930's, and dining with them in the 1950's?
No, I did not. I didn't have reason to.
-
Thanks Mr Brown
Please read the first post of this thread
I really would like to know your opinion,please help us on this point
Can it really be a coincidence?
This fell in his lap?
Thankyou
-
Not this crap again.
Ruth was a tall, intelligent, beautiful woman and was in a position to absolutely screw Oswald over, so surely if she was an agent she would have said something like;
?Oswald had a rifle in her garage.
?Oswald beat Marina.
?Oswald said he hated Kennedy.
?Oswald said he'd like to shoot Kennedy.
?Oswald was in the garage on Thursday night.
?Oswald carried the long package out the front door and left towards Frazier's house.
But as we know the only thing Ruth was guilty of was being a good samaritan, God bless her.
And in addition to the above, the only reason that Ruth rang Truly for the job was because the local ladies got together for tea at a nearby neighbour and Linnie Mae who also happened to be there had a brother who worked at the Depository which prompted the phone call, how silly is a conspiracy that relies on so many random events? LOL?
Oswald applied for jobs throughout October 63, say for instance he was actually employed by Padgett Printing, what then?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qx6rMZjm/padgett-job-application1.jpg)
As an aside, Oswald seemed to be getting frustrated at not landing a job so he resorted to LYING on his TSBD application, what a dog!
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZnT1TVgX/LHO-TSBD-job-App-101563-docx1.jpg)
JohnM
-
Thanks Mr Brown
Please read the first post of this thread
I really would like to know your opinion,please help us on this point
Can it really be a coincidence?
This fell in his lap?
Thankyou
Hi Eddie. Since you asked, your original post is full of errors and faulty logic.
-
Ed, I've joined this thread late but for what it's worth - kudos to you. This is how I've always looked at this too. There are just way too many coincidences to all of this. My father was kind of like Oswald - a mere nobody dockworker (shipping and receiving) getting by at MAFCO in the Midwest. But it's always been amazing for me to imagine for all of this to happen to a mere "nobody" nut like the official story tries to paint Oswald.
Of course the official story supporters will always continue to say, "yep, that's how it was. Bless Ruth...bless her [Quaker - big emphasis on neutral/humble Quaker] heart."
The real, everyday world just does not work like that. I can live with one coincidence...but that many? Paine was literally glued to these freaking people, yet it's all from her good, caring heart?
One other thing I want to add - for those still supporting the official story...IMO if they didn't hate President Kennedy so much, they'd have a much more open mind about seeing the inconsistencies in the story.
-
Hi Eddie. Since you asked, your original post is full of errors and faulty logic.
Can you answer my question please?
for the record
This fell in his lap?
--------------------------------------
Johnny you should read the first post - it has the WC interviews VERBATIM
can't you guys put up anything but insults?
facts are facts
Its simple mathematics
SHE HAD TO KNOW
-
She is still alive and has never wavered from her story right? I would hope she would have by now. Something still does not seem right about the Paines. She stated she was learning Russian to speak to Marina but she also was teaching Russian(if I heard that right). I am of the sense that she was some sort of handler but of course it's just an opinion.
-
George de Mohrenschildt tried that
It didnt work out too well for him
Don't forget the FBI comes around to question them AT RUTH'S.
thats cool - I am such a good Samaritan I wont even check your belongings for
weapons or anything.Even though I have young children living here.
Here I'll give you driving lessons and get you a job-"I never liked Lee"
What a gal,an actress,a spy and an informant. A real triple threat.
Russian speaking too? Would you say CIA material?
-
One other thing I want to add - for those still supporting the official story...IMO if they didn't hate President Kennedy so much, they'd have a much more open mind about seeing the inconsistencies in the story.
Where do you get that idea?
-
One other thing I want to add - for those still supporting the official story...IMO if they didn't hate President Kennedy so much, they'd have a much more open mind about seeing the inconsistencies in the story.
Yeah sorry mate,I'm not a fan of Kennedy at all
Oswald treated his wife badly but so did JFK
I just seek truth unbiased, Its a murder it doesn't matter who you like more
It's like shooting fish in a barrel though
this case (WR) is like swiss cheese
-
Yeah sorry mate,I'm not a fan of Kennedy at all
Oswald treated his wife badly but so did JFK
I just seek truth unbiased, Its a murder it doesn't matter who you like more
It's like shooting fish in a barrel though
this case (WR) is like swiss cheese
That's even better, Ed. Finally, someone who actually does not like Kennedy but is looking at this whole thing with an unjaundiced eye. Great.
-
Ed, I've joined this thread late but for what it's worth - kudos to you. This is how I've always looked at this too. There are just way too many coincidences to all of this. My father was kind of like Oswald - a mere nobody dockworker (shipping and receiving) getting by at MAFCO in the Midwest. But it's always been amazing for me to imagine for all of this to happen to a mere "nobody" nut like the official story tries to paint Oswald.
Of course the official story supporters will always continue to say, "yep, that's how it was. Bless Ruth...bless her [Quaker - big emphasis on neutral/humble Quaker] heart."
The real, everyday world just does not work like that. I can live with one coincidence...but that many? Paine was literally glued to these freaking people, yet it's all from her good, caring heart?
One other thing I want to add - for those still supporting the official story...IMO if they didn't hate President Kennedy so much, they'd have a much more open mind about seeing the inconsistencies in the story.
I'd like to point out that our dear Ruthie, a poor Quaker housewife, was determined to learn to read write, and speak Russian....
And she started her quest about the time that Hoover knew that The Oswald's would be coming to Texas from Russia....
-
She is still alive and has never wavered from her story right? I would hope she would have by now. Something still does not seem right about the Paines. She stated she was learning Russian to speak to Marina but she also was teaching Russian(if I heard that right). I am of the sense that she was some sort of handler but of course it's just an opinion.
From what I've read she learned Russian in college - both at Penn University and Middlebury college - and, as an adult, offered a course teaching it at a community college in Dallas/Ft. Worth (only one person signed up for it). She took in both Oswalds, in part, because they were desperately poor - Oswald lived on unemployment checks for long stretches - and she, based on her Christian/Quaker teachings, wanted to help them. She met the Oswalds at a party and talked to both in her passable Russian. It's true, as you pointed out, that one of the reasons she took Marina in was because she wanted to help her Russian.
My source for some of the above is Thomas Mallon's book, "Mrs. Paine's Garage." But some of this was also in her WC testimony and her grand jury testimony in the Garrison investigation (that's here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/garr/grandjury/Paine/html/Paine_0001a.htm).
There is no evidence that I consider remotely plausible that she was a handler for the Oswalds or that she worked for US intelligence. These connections between friends of her parents (while they were in college?) and the CIA or government aren't very persuasive. My late father worked for the FBI; I have never spent a second working for them. And really, do you know who your parent's friends were when they were in college? Before you were born? I sure don't.
Finally: if her and her husband's mission was to frame Oswald they could have made very serious charges against him. For example that he expressed hatred for JFK, or that she saw the rifle in the garage, or that he threatened JFK, et cetera. Neither Paine made any remarks at all implicating Oswald directly into the act. He was dead, they certainly could have.
-
yeah so 57-63 learning Russian
thats 7 years inclusive by 1963 learning Russian
She claimed (to the WC) she could speak only very poorly
but in 1963 was teaching Russian
When you look into RP's testimony there are many provable lies
She seems super stoney face for a housewife implicated in a murder
this argument "she could have done this,she could have done that"
stop it - it's lame
It was obviously unnecessary for that - his goose was cooked
-
She seems super stoney face for a housewife implicated in a murder
Some men have a problem with a strong minded independent woman. Especially so if that woman expresses liberal points of view on freedom and individual rights. That's a reality that women like Ruth Paine have to deal with even today.
-
Some men have a problem with a strong minded independent woman. Especially so if that woman expresses liberal points of view on freedom and individual rights. That's a reality that women like Ruth Paine have to deal with even today.
There's nothing "strong-minded" about it Steve. You can't just brush all of this stuff aside just because the WC says there's nothing to be seen. The whole premise of the WC was to ensure that a single person did the murders and no conspiracy existed. That was the entire mandate from the get-go.
With that said, go here:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ForensicFilesChannel/videos
These are actual murder cases as told by the seasoned detectives and prosecutors and lawyers. The Kennedy case was no more nor no less any real than any of these cases. I dare you to watch any of the 300 odd episodes and find in *any* of them where, upon discovering a dead body, investigators huddle together and say, "yep, Mr. Mustard did it. Exclude all avenues of investigation except those that lead to Mr. Mustard."
Real-world investigation doesn't work like the Kennedy case did. The entire "case" was predetermined. So really anyone who still falls for what happened based on the WR has truly been hoodwinked the entire 55 years since it happened.
-
There's nothing "strong-minded" about it Steve. You can't just brush all of this stuff aside just because the WC says there's nothing to be seen. The whole premise of the WC was to ensure that a single person did the murders and no conspiracy existed. That was the entire mandate from the get-go.
With that said, go here:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ForensicFilesChannel/videos
These are actual murder cases as told by the seasoned detectives and prosecutors and lawyers. The Kennedy case was no more nor no less any real than any of these cases. I dare you to watch any of the 300 odd episodes and find in *any* of them where, upon discovering a dead body, investigators huddle together and say, "yep, Mr. Mustard did it. Exclude all avenues of investigation except those that lead to Mr. Mustard."
Real-world investigation doesn't work like the Kennedy case did. The entire "case" was predetermined. So really anyone who still falls for what happened based on the WR has truly been hoodwinked the entire 55 years since it happened.
I dare you to watch any of the 300 odd episodes and find in *any* of them where, upon discovering a dead body, investigators huddle together and say, "yep, Mr. Mustard did it. Exclude all avenues of investigation except those that lead to Mr. Mustard."
Except... the Warren Commission did not exclude all avenues of investigation except those that lead to Lee Oswald.
This just shows me (and should show others) that you criticize the Warren Commission without having ever read it's report.
That doesn't make sense. You don't make sense.
-
There's nothing "strong-minded" about it Steve. You can't just brush all of this stuff aside just because the WC says there's nothing to be seen. The whole premise of the WC was to ensure that a single person did the murders and no conspiracy existed. That was the entire mandate from the get-go.
With that said, go here:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ForensicFilesChannel/videos
These are actual murder cases as told by the seasoned detectives and prosecutors and lawyers. The Kennedy case was no more nor no less any real than any of these cases. I dare you to watch any of the 300 odd episodes and find in *any* of them where, upon discovering a dead body, investigators huddle together and say, "yep, Mr. Mustard did it. Exclude all avenues of investigation except those that lead to Mr. Mustard."
Real-world investigation doesn't work like the Kennedy case did. The entire "case" was predetermined. So really anyone who still falls for what happened based on the WR has truly been hoodwinked the entire 55 years since it happened.
These are actual murder cases as told by the seasoned detectives and prosecutors and lawyers.
And how would these seasoned experts approach the JFK case, by looking at the evidence?
This is just off the top of my head.
Oswald ordered the rifle.
Oswald was photographed with the rifle.
Oswald's rifle was seen in his Neeley street house.
Oswald's rifle was seen in the Paine's garage.
Oswald visited the Paine house on a Thursday.
Oswald left his wedding ring with his wife on the morning of the assassination.
Oswald lied about the contents of the brown paper bag.
Oswald lied about where he placed the package in Frazier's car.
Oswald's prints were found on the murder weapon
Oswald's shirt fibers were found on the murder weapon
Oswald's prints were found on the recently moved rifle rest box.
Oswald was seen in the sniper's nest window.
The autopsy showed that Kennedy was hit from high and behind.
The bullet fragments found in the Limo were exclusively linked to Oswald's rifle.
Oswald immediately fled the crime scene
Oswald fumbled about jumping from a slow moving bus to a cab.
Oswald got out way past his rooming house.
Oswald got his revolver.
Oswald was seen killing a cop.
The shells at the scene which were discarded by Oswald were exclusively linked to Oswald's revolver.
Oswald was positively identified by many people while he fled from that crime scene.
Oswald while being arrested tried to kill more Police.
Oswald denied owning the murder weapon.
Oswald claimed that the authentic backyard photos were manipulated.
Oswald forget that he lived at Neeley street the address where he was photographed with the rifle.
With all this evidence what other conclusion could possibly be considered?
JohnM
-
... anyone who still falls for what happened based on the WR has truly been hoodwinked the entire 55 years since i!t happened.
But after 55 years there's not one piece of evidence to link beyond reasonable doubt anyone else with the murders. CTs can't even agree on a 'most likely' theory and argue amongst themselves to promote their own pet theory. That's why Stone's movie encompassed so many crazy elements so as to not offend any group. You have expressed a view that LNs are likely to be JFK retractors. I've not seen a skeric of evidence to support that.
Anyway it's now Christmas morning here so I'll wish you all the best for a happy holiday period. ☺
-
But after 55 years there's not one piece of evidence to link beyond reasonable doubt anyone else with the murders. CTs can't even agree on a 'most likely' theory and argue amongst themselves to promote their own pet theory. That's why Stone's movie encompassed so many crazy elements so as to not offend any group. You have expressed a view that LNs are likely to be JFK retractors. I've not seen a skeric of evidence to support that.
Anyway it's now Christmas morning here so I'll wish you all the best for a happy holiday period. ☺
Merry Christmas Steve.
-
this thread asks 1 simple question
DId RP get this job interview for oswald by chance?
LN'ers I want your honest qualified opinion
Did this/could this fall into his lap like this?
What are the odds of this? any city in america,any route,any building on said route,any vip,any day. Thats one lucky lone gunman.He waited 5 weeks for his unlikely opportunity. So when was the last time a sitting US president drove through Dealey Plaza? NEVER? A mathematical impossibility?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The big problem with your list there is the DPD is corrupt
and proven to be so with the documentary "the thin blue line"
Their evidence is unreliable at best
witnesses are intimidated as a matter of course in the DPD homicide
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I object Sir to your ridiculous accusations of male chauvinism
you can't help but insult - It's a common misdirection trick you guys use
She is still stoney face af you don't deny that
The way she interview's reminds me of...Oswald. stone cold.reversed.poised.
Same trainer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe Oswald was involved, perhaps he even took a shot or 2
But his rifle did not fire the final shot
And the WR was a cover up
There was a conspiracy here to murder involving 2 or more persons
That is my personal position to be clear
-
"Ruth was a tall, intelligent, beautiful woman
But as we know the only thing Ruth was guilty of was being a good samaritan, God bless her. "
This is truly ridiculous
Is she the LN'ers patron saint or something
I mean there is bias and then there's this...
Is she one of you guy's auntie?
Mr Brown backing the WR. Oh well you got guts ma man
At least you commit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No evidence? This forum is FULL of serious evidence that disproves the WR.
the worlds biggest hoax
you just wont ever admit it - which is funny ;D ;D
(http://i47.tinypic.com/15x8g46.jpg)
Lemme guess that perfectly round bullet strike is a ricochet?
well, you can lead a horse to water
but you can't make it grow a brain
-
yeah so 57-63 learning Russian
thats 7 years inclusive by 1963 learning Russian
She claimed (to the WC) she could speak only very poorly
but in 1963 was teaching Russian
When you look into RP's testimony there are many provable lies
She seems super stoney face for a housewife implicated in a murder
this argument "she could have done this,she could have done that"
stop it - it's lame
It was obviously unnecessary for that - his goose was cooked
Oswald's 'goose was cooked' (how quaint) the moment his father died while he himself was still entombed in the belly of the beast*
* Mommy Dearest
-
Ruth Paine was up to her eyeballs in the Assassination of JFK . She is wrapped up in this Web of deceit that has so many players , with just a handful still living .
-
Dr homer wood says to the WC he saw Oswald at a rifle range practising
on Saturday the 16th of November
2 days BEFORE the public knew of the motorcade route
So I guess, just in case he wanted to be prepared?
in case JFK happened to drive past - where I work - next week - by chance
LOL THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE
this is evidence of a conspiracy
Either he knew earlier than anyone else in Dallas (so had help planning)
Or someone was actively setting him up
BOTH are proof towards a conspiracy to murder
-
I'd like to point out that our dear Ruthie, a poor Quaker housewife, was determined to learn to read write, and speak Russian....
And she started her quest about the time that Hoover knew that The Oswald's would be coming to Texas from Russia....
C O I N C I D E N C E
It happens all the time.
-
COINCIDENCE? you want COINCIDENCE?
Thats nothing
how about practical mathematical impossibilities?
please read the first post in this thread
-
Mathematical improbability?
You're here aren't you? You're in the world instead of another child sired by your father and born of your mother. One chance in 50 million+
According to your logic: Eddie Haymaker must not exist. Neither does the real person using that fake name.
-
WTF?
We are not talking about me sparky
If thats all you got
do not bother
-
Merry Christmas Steve.
Bill, I hope the new year brings better and more prosperous days to you and yours. All the very best.
-
Christmas truce?
surely not here?
???
-
Dr homer wood says to the WC he saw Oswald at a rifle range practising
on Saturday the 16th of November
2 days BEFORE the public knew of the motorcade route
So I guess, just in case he wanted to be prepared?
in case JFK happened to drive past - where I work - next week - by chance
LOL THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE
this is evidence of a conspiracy
Either he knew earlier than anyone else in Dallas (so had help planning)
Or someone was actively setting him up
BOTH are proof towards a conspiracy to murder
Strange thing is the gun range is way out in Irving near RP's house
Where his rifle was kept
Didn't Oswald stay in his rooming house that weekend?
What say you nutters?
-
As an aside, Oswald seemed to be getting frustrated at not landing a job so he resorted to LYING on his TSBD application, what a dog!
What?s the lie?
-
This is just off the top of my head.
Obviously, since many of the claims in your list are pure BS:
-
Strange thing is the gun range is way out in Irving near RP's house
Where his rifle was kept
Didn't Oswald stay in his rooming house that weekend?
Mr Iacoletti
What do you think?
Did he not spend the weekend of the 16th at his rooming house?
without his rifle
-
Mr Iacoletti
What do you think?
Did he not spend the weekend of the 16th at his rooming house?
without his rifle
No idea. Particularly since we don?t actually know what ?his rifle? was or where it was kept.
-
What?s the lie?
Where was Oswald living?
When did Oswald last work?
How long did Oswald work at his last job?
Where did Oswald last work?
What's the official level of Oswald's Marine Discharge?
How long was Oswald continuously living in Dallas?
Was Oswald rooming or boarding somewhere?
JohnM
-
we don't know where is rifle was kept?
oh great
we can't even establish the basic facts
but the nutters seem to know everything
:-[
-
Where was Oswald living?
When did Oswald last work?
How long did Oswald work at his last job?
Where did Oswald last work?
What's the official level of Oswald's Marine Discharge?
How long was Oswald continuously living in Dallas?
Was Oswald rooming or boarding somewhere?
What's the lie?
-
we don't know where is rifle was kept?
oh great
we can't even establish the basic facts
but the nutters seem to know everything
:-[
They think they know everything. They just can't demonstrate that what they think they know is actually true.
-
LN'ers wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the head . You saw what it did for Arlen Specter ! It put Arlen right in the middle of a bunch of other Senators so they could all lie to each other and to all of us . How proud you must be . Now if there are those ( Republicans or others ) who just didn't like the Kennedy's and were not bothered by JFK getting murdered in Dallas then maybe your running from the truth is just the way you like it , then get on board with your buddies and stick with that LHO all alone crap.
-
They think they know everything. They just can't demonstrate that what they think they know is actually true.
Yeah well,proving something to others is very difficult
Hell,we've all seen the murder live as it happened
and we still can't agree
-
Lets for arguments sake assume LHO did take a shot at walker.
This is where it all comes undone. On one hand they are presenting this like a totally innocent coincidence where they get him the job by chance and good intent but on the other is the walker evidence being revealed after the fact showing him to be an aspiring assassin all along.
So which one is it? You can?t have both.
Oh and BTW the route was changed, security was relaxed, the roof was off and the rear seats were raised up.
You wanna talk about getting Dracula a job at the blood bank?
What are the odds of this? any city in america,any route,any building on said route,any vip,any day. Thats one lucky lone gunman.He waited 5 weeks for his unlikely opportunity. So when was the last time a sitting US president drove through Dealey Plaza? NEVER? A mathematical impossibility? So If DNA evidence is based on mathematical probability why isn't this real evidence?
-
Maybe I missed it but was it Ruth's estranged husband's uncle who started Bell helicopter?
-
his mothers husband (step father?)
They all got rich
vietnam
-
The government agencies involved in depicting LHO as they do is only for convenience which is more like excuses for lies And if they expected the world to believe it I am amazed by people who were right there during the assassination especially reporters who were willing to accept anything from the government in exchange for making the crazy event more about themselves. I am sure you have seen all sorts of interviews, have you noticed a common theme from every other media person who witnessed the events of Nov.22 tend to act almost proud of being a witness, it is the strangest thing, but explains so much about how weak the press can be and is still so true today.
-
I don't think they could pull it off today
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uwOrDwCNkXM/maxresdefault.jpg)
not with this sh&t!
-
The government agencies involved in depicting LHO as they do is only for convenience which is more like excuses for lies And if they expected the world to believe it I am amazed by people who were right there during the assassination especially reporters who were willing to accept anything from the government in exchange for making the crazy event more about themselves. I am sure you have seen all sorts of interviews, have you noticed a common theme from every other media person who witnessed the events of Nov.22 tend to act almost proud of being a witness, it is the strangest thing, but explains so much about how weak the press can be and is still so true today.
The reporters who covered this event - the ones I've read such as Hugh Aynesworth - interviewed associates and colleagues of Oswald's. People who knew him. Marina, Robert Oswald and others. It was from these accounts and others where we have our understanding of the person.
You do know that you don't have to read a single word of the Warren Commission to find out about who Lee Oswald was? The people who knew him were interviewed.
By the way, may I ask you a question? Who is "the government"? You seem to view it as some sort of monolithic "thing" or entity. It's been more than fifty years since the assassination. Do you think "the government" - whatever that is - is covering up what happened?
For me "the government" consists of dozens of agencies and departments filled with thousands and thousands of people. These are bureaucracies filled with people who often have their own agendas. Anyone who believes that "the government" can be controlled is simply wrong.
-
Well where is our fresh investigation?
The HSCA ruled a probable conspiracy defying the WR's findings
Why hasn't there been a full and extensive investigation?
The Lane Enquiry headed by Mark Lane (1990)
M Lane
V Bugliosi
Warren E Burger
J Marrs
J Garrison
Ted Kennedy
Edwin Meese
This is what needs to happen - believers and non-believers alike
we should ALL want this - A balanced full & fair investigation
Do you really think ANY branch of government would want to admit
a coup took place in the US in 1963?
"It's easier to fool people
than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain
-
I think the government is out of control, for example, the CIA was created out of the OSS but OSS had been related to WARTIME. the CIA developed into ALL THE TIME. An agency going from SOME of the TIME to ALL of the TIME, there is a loose climate created that inevitably breeds all sorts of problems relating to "who is accountable." Or when Pres. Eisenhower warned of the Military Industrial Complex he seemed very concerned about the government's future and sure enough, the outside influence becomes normalized. An example I see today would be the Government Media Complex, there was a time when I could not tell a news anchorman's political leanings where today news anchors are flaunting their political leanings. Walter Cronkite, Paul Harvey, and others repeated: "the weapon was a Mauser" only to find that it oddly changed, 2 completely different newsmen who probably at the time believed there was a mix-up. Live TV then was in its infancy which made it easy and at the same time difficult to control. Now I am getting off topic or at least I am wandering.
-
And how would these seasoned experts approach the JFK case, by looking at the evidence?
This is just off the top of my head.
Oswald ordered the rifle. - Prove it sucka
Oswald was photographed with the rifle. - By whom? Marina said she took 1 photo. There were at least 6 taken, with different cameras. DPD?
Oswald's rifle was seen in his Neeley street house. - Seen by 1 of his handlers?
Oswald's rifle was seen in the Paine's garage. - Not by Ruth according to her FBI interview "I was surprised to learn that he had a gun."
Oswald visited the Paine house on a Thursday. - So?
Oswald left his wedding ring with his wife on the morning of the assassination. - That's because he was about to play the patsy in the Big Event.
Oswald lied about the contents of the brown paper bag. - Sheep dipping the patsy. How many prints were on that bag that he supposedly manhandled? Ans: 1 partial palm print and a pinky print.
Oswald lied about where he placed the package in Frazier's car. - Even if true, what does that prove?
Oswald's prints were found on the murder weapon - No they weren't. Which isn't possible without wiping them off after extensive handling of the rifle.
Oswald's shirt fibers were found on the murder weapon - Planted you mean.
Oswald's prints were found on the recently moved rifle rest box. - LHO left 1 left palm print on Box A, 1 right palm print on Box D and nothing else on the 6th floor, while the investigator's prints were all over the place.
Oswald was seen in the sniper's nest window. - Eye witnesses, you believe them when it suits you.
The autopsy showed that Kennedy was hit from high and behind. - Still waiting for your laser re-enactment to prove it was possible, let alone feasible.
The bullet fragments found in the Limo were exclusively linked to Oswald's rifle. - LOL, like the MB?
Oswald immediately fled the crime scene - As per instructions. LHO knew he was the designated patsy, but the plan was for him to escape, possibly to Russia or Mexico. Then came the double-cross.
Oswald fumbled about jumping from a slow moving bus to a cab. - WTF does this have to do with anything? He was anxious to meet with his handler to help him escape.
Oswald got out way past his rooming house. - As per instructions.
Oswald got his revolver. - Which also had none of his prints on it or the hulls that he supposedly ejected at the crime scene. How was that possible?
Oswald was seen killing a cop. - More eye witness testimony collected by conspirators.
The shells at the scene which were discarded by Oswald were exclusively linked to Oswald's revolver. - What about the bullets? There is no known scientific procedure that can conclusively relate a fired bullet, to an expended cartridge case.
Oswald was positively identified by many people while he fled from that crime scene. - Just before he fled, LHO pressed a plunger on his .38 to eject ALL his spent hulls (4) at the crime scene. Was it to reload?
Oswald while being arrested tried to kill more Police. - This was according to the conspirators, which was after LHO knew he had been double-crossed and he was being set up as the patsy to take the fall. So he must have reloaded.
Oswald denied owning the murder weapon. - Not the revolver. Otherwise, there is no proof that the MC was even the murder weapon, let alone owned and fired by Oswald.
Oswald claimed that the authentic backyard photos were manipulated. - Then maybe you can explain the darkroom shenanigans of the DPD.
Oswald forget that he lived at Neeley street the address where he was photographed with the rifle. - Photographed once by Marina? Right.
With all this evidence what other conclusion could possibly be considered? - All it takes is 1 contradiction to destroy the silly LN hypothesis and there are many. Conclusion: Oswald never even took a shot. The conspirators wouldn't let him. He was just the LN patsy, who knew too much.
JTrojan
-
The reporters who covered this event - the ones I've read such as Hugh Aynesworth - interviewed associates and colleagues of Oswald's. People who knew him. Marina, Robert Oswald and others. It was from these accounts and others where we have our understanding of the person.
You do know that you don't have to read a single word of the Warren Commission to find out about who Lee Oswald was? The people who knew him were interviewed.
By the way, may I ask you a question? Who is "the government"? You seem to view it as some sort of monolithic "thing" or entity. It's been more than fifty years since the assassination. Do you think "the government" - whatever that is - is covering up what happened?
For me "the government" consists of dozens of agencies and departments filled with thousands and thousands of people. These are bureaucracies filled with people who often have their own agendas. Anyone who believes that "the government" can be controlled is simply wrong.
The reporters who covered this event - the ones I've read such as Hugh Aynesworth - interviewed associates and colleagues of Oswald's. People who knew him. Marina, Robert Oswald and others. It was from these accounts and others where we have our understanding of the person.
I'd wager a large amount of money that those same reporters could paint a picture of Steve Galbraith that would have Joe Gullible loathing Galbraith....
-
The reporters who covered this event - the ones I've read such as Hugh Aynesworth - interviewed associates and colleagues of Oswald's. People who knew him. Marina, Robert Oswald and others. It was from these accounts and others where we have our understanding of the person.
I'd wager a large amount of money that those same reporters could paint a picture of Steve Galbraith that would have Joe Gullible loathing Galbraith....
Empty words as usual.
Those people knew Oswald or spoke with people who did. You didn't, I didn't, They Did.
-
Lets for arguments sake assume LHO did take a shot at walker.
This is where it all comes undone. On one hand they are presenting this like a totally innocent coincidence where they get him the job by chance and good intent but on the other is the walker evidence being revealed after the fact showing him to be an aspiring assassin all along.
So which one is it? You can?t have both.
Oh and BTW the route was changed, security was relaxed, the roof was off and the rear seats were raised up.
You wanna talk about getting Dracula a job at the blood bank?
What are the odds of this? any city in america,any route,any building on said route,any vip,any day. Thats one lucky lone gunman.He waited 5 weeks for his unlikely opportunity. So when was the last time a sitting US president drove through Dealey Plaza? NEVER? A mathematical impossibility? So If DNA evidence is based on mathematical probability why isn't this real evidence?
No assumption needed re Walker attempt.
No magic needed in any bullets that day unless they came from the knoll or a ghost.
Oh, btw.. apparently the back seat wasn't raised, the plastic roof wasn't bulletproof (or even bullet-resistant. Nor was the limo itself. In fact LBJ was aghast to learn that, especially when he found out Hoover himself had two bulletproof limos at his personal disposal.. one in California; the other in New York if I remember correctly.
-
Sorry, Bill, you're wrong. Everything is just too pat, too perfect for all of this to happen like the WC tries to convey it to be. You can't have it both ways - we can't have Oswald like a "Tim McVeigh" - a loose cannon nobody who just decides to take a shot at Walker and then kill Kennedy - and then have all of these people in his life (Paine, George, Hosty, the folks down in NO) guiding him and Marina along, finding jobs for him, discovering evidence after the fact, saying they didn't like him but doing things for him.
Life doesn't work that way. I often imagine my own life (and you should too) - Oswald had to have been the luckiest person on Earth for all of things to have happened to him, by total strangers no less. But it wasn't luck - it all happened to lead up to 11/22.
If you can't get your head around it, then that's on you.
-
Sorry, Bill, you're wrong. Everything is just too pat, too perfect for all of this to happen like the WC tries to convey it to be. You can't have it both ways - we can't have Oswald like a "Tim McVeigh" - a loose cannon nobody who just decides to take a shot at Walker and then kill Kennedy - and then have all of these people in his life (Paine, George, Hosty, the folks down in NO) guiding him and Marina along, finding jobs for him, discovering evidence after the fact, saying they didn't like him but doing things for him.
Life doesn't work that way. I often imagine my own life (and you should too) - Oswald had to have been the luckiest person on Earth for all of things to have happened to him, by total strangers no less. But it wasn't luck - it all happened to lead up to 11/22.
If you can't get your head around it, then that's on you.
Wrong about what?
? The back seat wasn't raised (beyond normal)
? The plastic roof wasn't bulletproof
? The plastic roof wasn't bullet resistant
? The limo wasn't bulletproof
? LBJ was aghast to learn that, especially when he found out Hoover himself had two bulletproof limos at his personal disposal.. one in California; the other in New York if I remember correctly.
Well?
-
As usual you prove nothing and don't address the CRUX of the argument
The top wasn't bulletproof? who said it was?
Well at least we would have known where the bullets came from aye?
once again answering questions nobody asked
But avoiding the elephant in the room
ALL those ridiculous circumstances 5 WEEKS - you gonna ignore that?
This is a classic case of ideology over intellect
-
Anyone who suggests that Ruth Paine was involved in some type of conspiracy/frame up of Oswald is simply a few fries short of a happy meal. That is Bigfoot-type nonsense. Some obvious things RP would have done if she were involved in the frame up:
1) testify that Oswald stored a rifle in her garage
2) testify that Oswald disliked JFK
3) testify that Oswald was acting strangely the night before the assassination
4) confirm that Oswald carried a long package to work on the morning of the assassination.
She did none of these obvious things.
-
you're argument is weak and incidental
Oswald was arrested and charged with murdering the president
what more did she NEED to do?
It was mission accomplished
she ignored LHO's request for a lawyer
and buried him
THEN she finds the BS walker "evidence"
The saint like Ruth Paine didnt lift a finger for her "friend"
she maintains she never liked
pretty devious and deceptive for an angelic figure no?
Is she your auntie?
-
you're argument is weak and incidental
Oswald was arrested and charged with murdering the president
what more did she NEED to do?
It was mission accomplished
she ignored LHO's request for a lawyer
and buried him
THEN she finds the BS walker "evidence"
The saint like Ruth Paine didnt lift a finger for her "friend"
she maintains she never liked
pretty devious and deceptive for an angelic figure no?
Is she your auntie?
THEN she finds the BS walker "evidence"
The Walker evidence (the note Lee left behind for Marina) was hidden, by Marina, inside a book which was included in a list of belongings turned over by Ruth Paine to the police in Irving who in turn, gave the items to the Secret Service who would give the property to Marina. It was the Secret Service who found the note inside the book, not Ruth Paine.
-
Regardless I just can't get around the odds
What are the odds of this? any city in america,any route,any building on said route,any vip,any day. Thats one lucky lone gunman.He waited 5 weeks for his unlikely opportunity. So when was the last time a sitting US president drove through Dealey Plaza? NEVER? A mathematical impossibility?
He's just a lone gunman stroking his rifle at night,waiting for his chance
"when lord when is it gonna be my time? I can wait decades If I have to, I can swim rivers, I can climb mountains, I ..what he's coming TO ME tomorrow?"
wow - what a crock
The law of probability says she HAD to know
RP very shrewdly placed him there
She did her very best to get others to do it for her
So they would take the blame AND was caught lying about that
Angelic? Not so much
-
Regardless I just can't get around the odds
What are the odds of this? any city in america,any route,any building on said route,any vip,any day. Thats one lucky lone gunman.He waited 5 weeks for his unlikely opportunity. So when was the last time a sitting US president drove through Dealey Plaza? NEVER? A mathematical impossibility?
He's just a lone gunman stroking his rifle at night,waiting for his chance
"when lord when is it gonna be my time? I can wait decades If I have to, I ..what he's coming tomorrow?" wow - what a crock
The law of probability says she HAD to know
You're looking at this whole thing after the fact.
Let's use a typical day in your life as an example.
Once a day is over... and you have made all of the movements you made during that day... and many things happened to you during that day... and you had many conversations with others during the course of that day...
At the end of that day, looking back at the day, the day went exactly like it did, regardless of what the odds were, before that day started, that ALL of those things would happen in the exact manner that they did.
You're basically saying that all of your movements, events and conversations throughout your day had to be suspiciously planned because the odds, before the day started, that every single one of those happenings and conversations would occur in the exact manner that they did were almost nil... Yet, they did occur exactly as they did, despite those almost nil odds.
-
No,I disagree
He was an rifleman waiting for a target
the most powerful man in the world comes to him under perfect conditions
Its not the same thing (or anywhere close) to what you allude to
Everyone investigating this crime thought right away it was planned weeks or
months in advance
The Dallas DA say's as much in an interview on the day
RP though in the Pg1 interview says it was not planned ahead
But how could she know that for sure?
Your response?
ah Its just one of those things hatmaker
hey, sh&t happens - No sorry it doesn't. Not like this.
He was an rifleman waiting for a target
Your entire point relies on this belief of yours being factual.
You don't know that he was a rifleman waiting for a target; you just don't.
-
Your entire point relies on this belief of yours being factual.
You don't know that he was a rifleman waiting for a target; you just don't.
If RP was innocent, it happened by chance - you believe
and the walker evidence is true - you believe
You expect me to believe he's a rifleman in waiting
not the other way round
???
I believe he was working hard trying to save up for his daughters shoes
and he liked (and voted for) Kennedy
-
If RP was innocent, it happened by chance - you believe
and the walker evidence is true - you believe
You expect me to believe he's a rifleman in waiting
not the other way round
???
I believe he was working hard trying to save up for his daughters shoes
and he liked (and voted for) Kennedy
I don't believe Oswald was a rifleman in waiting... well, until he learned of the parade route.
-
Common sense would confirm that no plan would entail having to bring the President to a location convenient for the assassin. Think of the complexity of doing that. The plan: Let's make sure some loser gets hired in a particular building via some Irving housewife, hope he continues to work there and show up on the day of the assassination and not have an alibi at the moment of the assassination, and oh yeah let's somehow convince the President to visit Dallas and arrange for his motorcade to pass this particular building. It's laughable as a planned event. It fits perfectly with an event that unfolded by chance.
-
Common sense would confirm that no plan would entail having to bring the President to a location convenient for the assassin.
Well...it happened. Rooftops and grassy knoll fences ::)
-
Well...it happened. Rooftops and grassy knoll fences ::)
Not by design. By chance. No plan would entail having to control the movements of the President. The assassin would be taken to the target. Not the other way around.
-
Not by design. By chance. No plan would entail having to control the movements of the President. The assassin would be taken to the target. Not the other way around.
Thats right Mr Smith but it happened
You are pointing out EXACTLY what happened
It's a unique assassination in that the target comes to the assassin
THIS DOES NOT JUST HAPPEN
at work?(he doesn't need to "drive" or go anywhere)
Thats why I know for sure (MO)
1-RP was involved (even Ruby mentions LHO's job)
2-The City of Dallas were involved (route,TSBD) Mayor Cabell
"naturally If I work in that building"
If LHO had to move to say the records building (If the route stayed on main)
Or anywhere else
we are not having this conversation
-
Thats right Mr Smith but it happened
You are pointing out EXACTLY what happened
It's a unique assassination in that the target comes to the assassin
THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN JUST HAPPEN
at work?(he doesn't need to "drive" or go anywhere)
Thats why I know for sure (MO)
1-RP was involved (even Ruby mentions LHO's job)
2-The City of Dallas were involved (route,TSBD)
"naturally If I work in that building"
If LHO had to move to say the records building (If the route stayed on main)
Or anywhere else
we are not having this conversation
Ugh. Brutal. How about this? If Ruth Paine was involved, then why wouldn't she do the obvious thing for someone trying to frame Oswald and confirm that he owned a rifle and carried a long package to work on the morning of the assassination?
-
GOD - you keep saying that
Why? Because as you say its OBVIOUS
She is smarter than you think
for the 10th time
What she doesn't say means nothing - ok?
lets look at what she did say
lets look at what she did do
she is caught lying to the WC regarding who helped LHO get his interview
and tries to get a neighbour to take the "credit"
Linnie may basically says "do it yourself"
she does not get LHO a lawyer
the ss tell MO to stay away from her (RP)
Some people would need counselling or psychological help If they had
helped facilitate a gruesome murder like SHE DID.
She has no guilt at all
She is stoney faced in her interviews and seems emotionally detached
She tells no one but the WC she help LHO get the job (see OP interview)
she goes to the FBI
She say's she never liked LHO (well she fooled LHO)
She says she never knew about the rifle (wrapped in a blanket)
The FBI comes to her home to interview the Oswalds
She has NO suspicion of them?
The president is driving through town
she still has zero suspicions
She is no saint - she is no Samaritan
Hell any decent person would get the kid a lawyer
She's not a friend of theirs and never was
you guys are the one's in la la land on this
-
Thats right Mr Smith but it happened
You are pointing out EXACTLY what happened
It's a unique assassination in that the target comes to the assassin
THIS DOES NOT JUST HAPPEN
at work?(he doesn't need to "drive" or go anywhere)
Thats why I know for sure (MO)
1-RP was involved (even Ruby mentions LHO's job)
2-The City of Dallas were involved (route,TSBD) Mayor Cabell
"naturally If I work in that building"
If LHO had to move to say the records building (If the route stayed on main)
Or anywhere else
we are not having this conversation
You aren't here to have conversations with anyone, Haywire.
You're a classic internet troll
-
You aren't here to have conversations with anyone, Haywire.
You're a classic internet troll
I am actually having one right now
before you rudely interrupted with
nothing
you're trolling right now aren't you?
well you got nothing to say on the subject
please go away
Haywire - I like that
;D ;D
-
You aren't here to have conversations with anyone, Haywire.
You're a classic internet troll
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/pot_kettle.jpg)
Is Haywire at the meetings?
-
apparently not LOL
-
GOD - you keep saying that
Why? Because as you say its OBVIOUS
She is smarter than you think
for the 10th time
What she doesn't say means nothing - ok?
lets look at what she did say
lets look at what she did do
she is caught lying to the WC regarding who helped LHO get his interview
and tries to get a neighbour to take the "credit"
Linnie may basically says "do it yourself"
she does not get LHO a lawyer
the ss tell MO to stay away from her (RP)
Some people would need counselling or psychological help If they had
helped facilitate a gruesome murder like SHE DID.
She has no guilt at all
She is stoney faced in her interviews and seems emotionally detached
She tells no one but the WC she help LHO get the job (see OP interview)
she goes to the FBI
She say's she never liked LHO (well she fooled LHO)
She says she never knew about the rifle (wrapped in a blanket)
The FBI comes to her home to interview the Oswalds
She has NO suspicion of them?
The president is driving through town
she still has zero suspicions
She is no saint - she is no Samaritan
Hell any decent person would get the kid a lawyer
She's not a friend of theirs and never was
you guys are the one's in la la land on this
How about focusing for once and answering the question posed instead of drifting off into rambling kook nonsense like the above? Why didn't Ruth Paine confirm that Oswald stored a rifle in her garage and carry a long package to work on the morning of the assassination if she was involved in his frame up?
-
I answered your question
the same one you ask EVERYTIME RP is brought up
What she doesn't say means nothing - ok?
nada
-
"It was the Secret Service who found the note inside the book, not Ruth Paine."
Within the belongings turned over by RP was a note.
The SS found it in a book.
There is nothing to say she was unaware it was in the book, after all, it was her who handed it over
-
"It was the Secret Service who found the note inside the book, not Ruth Paine."
Within the belongings turned over by RP was a note.
The SS found it in a book.
There is nothing to say she was unaware it was in the book, after all, it was her who handed it over
"It was the Secret Service who found the note inside the book, not Ruth Paine."
Right.
Within the belongings turned over by RP was a note.
The SS found it in a book.
That's exactly what I said. Right?
There is nothing to say she was unaware it was in the book, after all, it was her who handed it over
That does not change a single thing I said.
Also, I changed one word in your above statement...
There is nothing to say she was aware it was in the book.
-
There's also no proof she didn't plant it either
another crazy coincidence?
this case is so full of them
it boggles the mind
-
There's also no proof she didn't plant it either
another crazy coincidence?
this case is so full of them
it boggles the mind
There's also no proof she didn't plant it either
Well, whenever you have something which shows that Ruth planted the note inside the book, we can talk. Deal?
-
Haywire - I like that
;D ;D
It suits you
haywire:
balmy, barmy [chiefly British], bats, batty, bedlam, bonkers, brainsick, bughouse [slang], certifiable, crackbrained, cracked, crackers, crackpot, cranky [dialect], crazed, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, demented, deranged, fruity [slang], gaga, insane, kooky (also kookie), loco [slang], loony (also looney), loony tunes (or looney tunes), lunatic, mad, maniacal (also maniac), mental, meshuga (or meshugge), moonstruck, non compos mentis, nuts, nutty, psycho, psychotic, scatty [chiefly British], screwy, unbalanced, unhinged, unsound, wacko (also whacko), wacky (also whacky), wud [chiefly Scottish]
-
I answered your question
the same one you ask EVERYTIME RP is brought up
What she doesn't say means nothing - ok?
nada
LOL. So you believe Ruth Paine was a housewife/master spy behind the assassination, but can't explain why she wouldn't confirm that Oswald owned a rifle and carried a long package to work? Typical kook denial. Give it one second of thought, and then apologize to intelligent people for wasting their time.
-
Buddy
She knows LHO didn't walk to work
She knows Buell has to drive him
The package evidence (which is 100% debunked btw)
takes care of itself
If you are an experienced researcher on this subject
why is your knowledge so limited?
I'm tiring of holding your hand
Do you want me to draw you a picture?
Watch her interview on pg1 and tell me
spy or housewife?
-
she does not get LHO a lawyer
Apparently, Ruthie had no attorney on her own behalf...curious ::)
She is stoney faced in her interviews and seems emotionally detached
YupShe says she never knew about the rifle (wrapped in a blanket)
Because it was never there.
-
So de Mohrenschildt and his wife knew about the rifle
It was no secret
In fact he gives a copy of the infamous photo to him
But de Mohrenschildt wouldn't warn RP whom they move in with
that he may be armed and (apparently) unstable?
with her children?
The FBI visit more than once and nobody searches their belongings?
either she is the dumbest housewife ever
Or she is one of the shrewdest undercover operatives in history
you weigh the evidence on pg1 of this thread
you decide
-
Right.
That's exactly what I said. Right?
That does not change a single thing I said.
Also, I changed one word in your above statement...
There is nothing to say she was aware it was in the book.
Oh! That's the standard used. RP knew what the important belongings were but just not 1 or 2 items. Is that where you're at or maybe she didn't pass any of the belongings along. She could always default to the neighbor
-
Buddy
She knows LHO didn't walk to work
She knows Buell has to drive him
The package evidence (which is 100% debunked btw)
takes care of itself
If you are an experienced researcher on this subject
why is your knowledge so limited?
I'm tiring of holding your hand
Do you want me to draw you a picture?
Watch her interview on pg1 and tell me
spy or housewife?
So to be clear, you have no explanation as to why Ruth Paine would not confirm that Oswald owned a rifle and carried a long package to work that morning if she were involved in a frame up of Oswald. Those are obvious points that she would confirm in that role. You are just another long winded krank wasting our time venting a lot of incoherent nonsense. Like a UFO "researcher." Whenever someone here starts referencing being a "researcher" I know they are a complete fraud. Read your response above and try to make sense of it.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble Mark but no CTer on this forum falls into that category. Certainly not Eddie who I was addressing. No doubt there are many sincere people who believe all manner of nonsense about the JFK case. Not unlike the UFO and Bigfoot "researchers" who are diligent and occasionally even fairly intelligent. But simply being diligent doesn't mean they have any credibility. People venting compulsion disorders can put in an enormous amount of effort on absurd theories. None of that, however, should be confused with being a legitimate "researcher." More often than not they are sitting in their mother's basement spending all their time on forums like this one. Once in a blue moon some minor tidbit is uncovered, but that is the rare exception. Mostly it is just circling back to the same, long debunked nonsense.
Why don't you simply say; anybody who does not agree with me isn't a serious researcher? Because that's what you are really saying with your pathetic rant, right?
Oh.. and before you start against me; I've never claimed to be a researcher. I just ask questions you (and your ilk) can't answer.
-
Why don't you simply say; anybody who does not agree with me isn't a serious researcher? Because that's what you are really saying with your pathetic rant, right?
Oh.. and before you start against me; I've never claimed to be a researcher. I just ask questions you (and your ilk) can't answer.
There are people who still entertain theories that have been disproven beyond any doubt. People who believe the earth is flat, for example. There are many diligent people who believe and are trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot and ghosts. These people can't be taken seriously due to the facts and evidence to the contrary. I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence. The evidence dictates that conclusion. Not my agreement or disagreement with others. What I see here is long debunked nonsense recycled over and over again. Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt. After 50 plus years, there may be some details left to be learned but nothing that will change the bottom line conclusions that have been established by the facts. Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case. The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.
-
There are people who still entertain theories that have been disproven beyond any doubt. People who believe the earth is flat, for example. There are many diligent people who believe and are trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot and ghosts. These people can't be taken seriously due to the facts and evidence to the contrary. I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence. The evidence dictates that conclusion. Not my agreement or disagreement with others. What I see here is long debunked nonsense recycled over and over again. Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt. After 50 plus years, there may be some details left to be learned but nothing that will change the bottom line conclusions that have been established by the facts. Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt. Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case. The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.
I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence. The evidence dictates that conclusion. Not my agreement or disagreement with others.
Since it is your opinion that the evidence is solid and that it "dictates that conclusion" it is indeed your agreement or disagreement with others that is making you say that people who disagree with you are not serious reseachers.
Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt.
False doubt?... Asking questions about discrepancies in the evidence that you (and your ilk) can not answer creates doubt. There is nothing false about that.
And the mere fact that you are constantly complaining that John and I apply "an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence" is perhaps the best indication to me that you do in fact have a vested interest in Oswald's guilt and that you are not sure the evidence will hold up under scrutiny. It's similar to a prosecutor asking the jury not to look too close at the evidence. Why else would you imply that John and I have some sort of agenda, when we are clearly only asking questions?
Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case. The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.
Exactly what I said; your basic position is that you are convinced by the evidence and anybody who does not share your view is not to be taken seriously. You've got a unjustifiable high opinion of yourself, haven't you?
-
There are people who still entertain theories that have been disproven beyond any doubt. People who believe the earth is flat, for example. There are many diligent people who believe and are trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot and ghosts. These people can't be taken seriously due to the facts and evidence to the contrary. I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence. The evidence dictates that conclusion. Not my agreement or disagreement with others. What I see here is long debunked nonsense recycled over and over again. Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt. After 50 plus years, there may be some details left to be learned but nothing that will change the bottom line conclusions that have been established by the facts. Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case. The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.
given the known facts and evidence in this case?
or lack of
If the authorities wanted to have a full and thorough investigation
into this crime they could have (a real autopsy track the wounds etc)
Evidence should never have gone to the FBI
There would be no goddamn CT's If they had done a job worthy of the murder of a president
the autopsy should have been done in Texas
The Lincoln should have been secured as evidence by the DPD
followed by a full scientific study (which alone IMO could seal this case)
these are not just cases where mistakes were made
laws were broken here. Several really good ones
you complain about CT's?
If you listen to the infamous KLIF broadcast you clearly hear them say
a shot through the right temple from a grassy knoll
Thats in under 90 minutes of the shooting LIVE from parkland hospital
the seeds of conspiracy were not born by kook's
Most of the responsibility can firmly be placed on the shoulders
of the Government's clumsy investigation and the thinly disguised WR cover up
IMO The Zapruder film is a very big part as well
flat earth and bigfoot?
It must be you guys who believe in ghosts
The WR and the MBT? Pure fantasies
The majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy
So mock us all you like
you are the minority today
you are the krank's
In 50 years people will LOL at the mention of the WR
Some already do
-
I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence. The evidence dictates that conclusion. Not my agreement or disagreement with others.
Since it is your opinion that the evidence is solid and that it "dictates that conclusion" it is indeed your agreement or disagreement with others that is making you say that people who disagree with you are not serious reseachers.
Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt.
False doubt?... Asking questions about discrepancies in the evidence that you (and your ilk) can not answer creates doubt. There is nothing false about that.
And the mere fact that you are constantly complaining that John and I apply "an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence" is perhaps the best indication to me that you do in fact have a vested interest in Oswald's guilt and that you are not sure the evidence will hold up under scrutiny. It's similar to a prosecutor asking the jury not to look too close at the evidence. Why else would you imply that John and I have some sort of agenda, when we are clearly only asking questions?
Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case. The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.
Exactly what I said; your basic position is that you are convinced by the evidence and anybody who does not share your view is not to be taken seriously. You've got a unjustifiable high opinion of yourself, haven't you?
LOL. A great insight into the hazy confines of your confused logic. What possible vested interest could I have in Oswald's guilt? John Wilkes Booth was guilty of assassinating Lincoln and was involved in a conspiracy. I have no vested interest in that conclusion. It is what the evidence dictates. It is not my "opinion" but a fact supported by the evidence. The sun rises in the East. Not because it is my opinion but because the facts dictate that conclusion. If someone disagreed with this conclusion, it would not change the facts or be the basis of my acceptance of that conclusion. What you are suggesting is that there are apparently no facts only opinions. The earth is round and not flat. You apparently believe that can only be my "opinion" since there are people who disagree and no doubt make a lot of nonsense arguments to the contrary. It's laughable but goes a long way toward explaining why you can't accept the obvious conclusion from the evidence in this case.
-
LOL. A great insight into the hazy confines of your confused logic. What possible vested interest could I have in Oswald's guilt? John Wilkes Booth was guilty of assassinating Lincoln and was involved in a conspiracy. I have no vested interest in that conclusion. It is what the evidence dictates. It is not my "opinion" but a fact supported by the evidence. The sun rises in the East. Not because it is my opinion but because the facts dictate that conclusion. If someone disagreed with this conclusion, it would not change the facts or be the basis of my acceptance of that conclusion. What you are suggesting is that there are apparently no facts only opinions. The earth is round and not flat. You apparently believe that can only be my "opinion" since there are people who disagree and no doubt make a lot of nonsense arguments to the contrary. It's laughable but goes a long way toward explaining why you can't accept the obvious conclusion from the evidence in this case.
You give some pretty pathetic examples to make your point, but exaggeration is to be expected from you so there's really no suprise there. Anybody who thinks that Oswald's guilt is just as much a fact as the sun coming up in the east or the earth being round needs his head examined.
What possible vested interest could I have in Oswald's guilt?
You tell me. You were the one who brought it up.
What you are suggesting is that there are apparently no facts only opinions.
It's your opinion that determines, for you, what is a fact and what isn't! For instance, it is merely your opinion that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD concealed in a paper bag that was found in the sniper's nest but you call it a fact. But it is only a fact to you! Others might think differently and do.
You apparently believe that can only be my "opinion" since there are people who disagree
No, I don't believe that at all. You're trying to twist my words.
It's laughable but goes a long way toward explaining why you can't accept the obvious conclusion from the evidence in this case.
There you go again? What obvious conclusion would that be? The answer is of course the one which you have reached based on things that you, in your opinion, have determined to be "facts". If somebody else does not share your opinion about what is a fact and what isn't the ultimate conclusion becomes less obvious.
I repeat; your basic position is that you are convinced by the evidence and anybody who does not share your view is not to be taken seriously. You've got a unjustifiable high opinion of yourself, haven't you?
-
I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence. The evidence dictates that conclusion. Not my agreement or disagreement with others.
Since it is your opinion that the evidence is solid and that it "dictates that conclusion" it is indeed your agreement or disagreement with others that is making you say that people who disagree with you are not serious reseachers.
Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt.
False doubt?... Asking questions about discrepancies in the evidence that you (and your ilk) can not answer creates doubt. There is nothing false about that.
And the mere fact that you are constantly complaining that John and I apply "an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence" is perhaps the best indication to me that you do in fact have a vested interest in Oswald's guilt and that you are not sure the evidence will hold up under scrutiny. It's similar to a prosecutor asking the jury not to look too close at the evidence. Why else would you imply that John and I have some sort of agenda, when we are clearly only asking questions?
Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case. The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.
Exactly what I said; your basic position is that you are convinced by the evidence and anybody who does not share your view is not to be taken seriously. You've got a unjustifiable high opinion of yourself, haven't you?
"we are clearly only asking questions"
Also known as 'JAQing off'
-
Lets for arguments sake assume LHO did take a shot at walker.
This is where it all comes undone. On one hand they are presenting this like a totally innocent coincidence where they get him the job by chance and good intent but on the other is the walker evidence being revealed after the fact showing him to be an aspiring assassin all along.
The evidence necessary to convict Oswald had already been collected and analyzed by the time the note that incriminated Oswald in the Walker shooting was found. In other words, the Walker note was just more icing on the cake.
-
Why would the Russians want to kill JFK?
and replace him with a "screaming hawk" like LBJ?
JFK is giving them everything they want
the Jupiter missiles are gone
No sorry, not on board with that
This was a coup d'etat by the RIGHT
There is no "left" involved
Thats why LHO is a square peg in a round hole
Good question and points. So far no evidence has been presented to support this claim.
-
Except... the Warren Commission did not exclude all avenues of investigation except those that lead to Lee Oswald.
This just shows me (and should show others) that you criticize the Warren Commission without having ever read it's report.
That doesn't make sense. You don't make sense.
LOL. Sure.
Quote on
IV. Lee H. Oswald as the Assassin (Ball and Belin)
(This section should state the facts which lead to
the conclusion that Oswald pulled the trigger and
should also indicate the elements in the case which
have either not been proven or are based on doubtful
testimony. Each of the factors listed below should
be reviewed in that light.)
A. Identification of Rifle as Murder Weapon
B. Oswald's Ownership of Weapon
C. Evidence of Oswald Carrying Weapon to Building
1. Fake Curtain Rod Stroy [sic]
2. Buell Frazier's Story
3. Possible Presence in Paine's Garage on
Evening of November 21, 1963
D. Evidence of Oswald on Sixth Floor
1. Palm Prints on Carton
2. Paper Bag with Oswald Print
E. Eyewitness Testimony
F. Oswald After Assassination -- Actions in
Building
G. Oswald After Assassination -- Actions up to
Tippit Shooting
H. Shooting of Tippit and Arrest in Theatre
1. Eyewitnesses
2. Gun as Murder Weapon
3. Oswald's Ownership of Gun
I. Statements After Arrest
J. Prior Actions
1. Walker Shooting
2. Possible Nixon Attempt
3. Practice with Rifle
K. Evidence of any Accomplices in Assassination
L. Appraisal of Oswald's Actions on November 21
and 22 in Light of Assassination
(This will be a difficult section, but I feel we
must face up to the various paradoxical aspects of
Oswald's behavior in light of his being the
assassin. I suggest the following items for
consideration.)
1. Did He Have a Planned Escape?
2. Why did he pass up the Opportunity to get money
on November 21 when he returned to Irving?
3. Discussion with Marina about getting apartment
in Dallas
4. Asking fellow employee, on morning of November
22, which way the President was coming.
Quote off
-
The evidence necessary to convict Oswald had already been collected and analyzed by the time the note that incriminated Oswald in the Walker shooting was found. In other words, the Walker note was just more icing on the cake.
Yeah but the icing was WAY too thick
and ruined the entire cake (far too sweet)
they tried too hard
and made their scenario simply unbelievable
Yeah he took a shot at walker
then he waited and brooded
I know what I'll do.I'll get a job in a random high building and wait...
It's only a matter of time until someone famous comes by and BLAM
hey hey I'm famous yeah
What an incredible plan
In the history of infamous assassinations there has never been a more
ridiculous murder plan than this
but according to the "official" version this is what happened
Whats that Ruth you have found a job opening in a random high building?
this could be it,my opportunity
Sure I'll go for an interview
I'll just work like there's nothing up and wait...
I might have to work here for the rest of my life waiting
but It'll be all worth it in the...what? He's coming on FRIDAY?
That's in 2 days time
Oh happy days under 5 weeks I had to wait
My work boots aren't even worn in yet
wow I must be the luckiest assassin in history
especially as I can't drive anywhere
My target is coming to me
I couldn't have PLANNED this better!
The Dallas DA says he obviously planned this months in advance
NO - He didn't, but obviously someone has...
HE was either an "opportunistic killer" or he was setup
what does the evidence suggest to you?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is where the evidence has been "crisscrossed" and contradicted itself
the walker evidence vs the opportunistic killer - crisscross
Similar to the WC evidence that LHO was seen at a rifle range near RP's house
on sat the 16th.
He did not go to Irving that weekend so had no access to his rifle
AND he did still not know JFK was driving past the TSBD so why practice?
The JB evidence where he claims he heard a description on radio
of the JD killer. Which did not get broadcast at all.JD was confirmed DOA at @1.50 pm which also contradicts his evidence.another crisscross
-
Eddie, the post appears as a bad rap song.
-
<block>55 years have passed and you guys have nothing. Do you think when the 100th anniversary comes around there will be something that might cast serious suspicion in the mind of a serious, smart unbiased investigator from the new generation coming through?</block>
You are wrong here. There is film and photographic evidence of a conspiracy that is undeniable and you know it but do not want to accept it. A conspiracy means that the U.S. Government was involved directly, indirectly, or as a coverup.
-
You are wrong here. There is film and photographic evidence of a conspiracy that is undeniable and you know it but do not want to accept it. A conspiracy means that the U.S. Government was involved directly, indirectly, or as a coverup.
Well said, Mister Shahrdar....
-
You give some pretty pathetic examples to make your point, but exaggeration is to be expected from you so there's really no suprise there. Anybody who thinks that Oswald's guilt is just as much a fact as the sun coming up in the east or the earth being round needs his head examined.
What possible vested interest could I have in Oswald's guilt?
You tell me. You were the one who brought it up.
What you are suggesting is that there are apparently no facts only opinions.
It's your opinion that determines, for you, what is a fact and what isn't! For instance, it is merely your opinion that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD concealed in a paper bag that was found in the sniper's nest but you call it a fact. But it is only a fact to you! Others might think differently and do.
You apparently believe that can only be my "opinion" since there are people who disagree
No, I don't believe that at all. You're trying to twist my words.
It's laughable but goes a long way toward explaining why you can't accept the obvious conclusion from the evidence in this case.
There you go again? What obvious conclusion would that be? The answer is of course the one which you have reached based on things that you, in your opinion, have determined to be "facts". If somebody else does not share your opinion about what is a fact and what isn't the ultimate conclusion becomes less obvious.
I repeat; your basic position is that you are convinced by the evidence and anybody who does not share your view is not to be taken seriously. You've got a unjustifiable high opinion of yourself, haven't you?
Do you believe there are such things as facts even when others voice disagreement? For example, I assume you agree that it is a fact that the world is round and not flat even though there are groups of people who make arguments to the contrary. These people are dismissed as kranks because the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the world is round. Just because someone disagree doesn't turn a fact into an opinion as you have erroneously suggested. The conclusion of one person that the world is round is not equaled out by the conclusion of another that it is flat. It's the evidence that establish facts. The evidence against Oswald is conclusive. That is not merely my "opinion" because you and some other kranks disagree. It is a fact. I don't reach that conclusion because I have some axe to grind with Oswald, conspiracy theories, or anyone who disagrees with that conclusion. It is the evidence that dictates that result.
-
Do you believe there are such things as facts even when others voice disagreement? For example, I assume you agree that it is a fact that the world is round and not flat even though there are groups of people who make arguments to the contrary. These people are dismissed as kranks because the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the world is round. Just because someone disagree doesn't turn a fact into an opinion as you have erroneously suggested. The conclusion of one person that the world is round is not equaled out by the conclusion of another that it is flat. It's the evidence that establish facts. The evidence against Oswald is conclusive. That is not merely my "opinion" because you and some other kranks disagree. It is a fact. I don't reach that conclusion because I have some axe to grind with Oswald, conspiracy theories, or anyone who disagrees with that conclusion. It is the evidence that dictates that result.
Do you believe there are such things as facts even when others voice disagreement?
Sure there are... you've just given two examples with the sun coming up in the east and the earth being round. One is selfevident as anybody can see it rise everyday and the other is scientifically proven. Oswald's guilt is neither!
Just because someone disagree doesn't turn a fact into an opinion as you have erroneously suggested.
You have it backwards, just because someone is of the opinion that something is a fact doesn't make it so!
The conclusion of one person that the world is round is not equaled out by the conclusion of another that it is flat. It's the evidence that establish facts.
Agreed.
The evidence against Oswald is conclusive.
You will probably not understand or accept this, but this is where you go of the rails. Just because it is conclusive in your opinion doesn't automatically make it a fact. It doesn't even make it conclusive.
That is not merely my "opinion" because you and some other kranks disagree.
No, it's your opinion because?.. wait for it, it is your opinion!
It is a fact. I don't reach that conclusion because I have some axe to grind with Oswald, conspiracy theories, or anyone who disagrees with that conclusion. It is the evidence that dictates that result.
Wrong again. You seem to be under the misguided belief that whatever is your opinion is automatically a fact. It isn't, no matter how many times you repeat it.
-
<block>55 years have passed and you guys have nothing. Do you think when the 100th anniversary comes around there will be something that might cast serious suspicion in the mind of a serious, smart unbiased investigator from the new generation coming through?</block>
You are wrong here. There is film and photographic evidence of a conspiracy that is undeniable and you know it but do not want to accept it. A conspiracy means that the U.S. Government was involved directly, indirectly, or as a coverup.
Not that I support that there was a conspiracy but why should it be the US government? Why not Cuba, or the former U.S.S.R, anti-Castro Cubans, the Italian Mafia, Crosby, Stills and Nash?
-
Actually that is wrong
When we talk of a conspiracy to murder
It involves 2 or more people pre-planning a murder
that is a conspiracy to murder
that is all
yes you can reference a "wider" conspiracy
but usually when people reference a conspiracy they mean more than LHO
Thats why when the HSCA rules a probable conspiracy
it is quite open ended, it means more than 1 (but could be 1,000)
Only the US Government could have done what was done
come on Oscar you know that
-
Not that I support that there was a conspiracy but why should it be the US government? Why not Cuba, or the former U.S.S.R, anti-Castro Cubans, the Italian Mafia, Crosby, Stills, and Nash?
Rap music to Crosby, Stills, and Nash?
I think it's fair to say you're easily distracted. When you're spoon-fed a story by the government, why ask questions, right?
So tell me, what was it for you? "A lone gunman"? "He spent time in Russia"? Or "If Dan Rather believes it, then I can be a lapdog too"?
-
Not that I support that there was a conspiracy but why should it be the US government? Why not Cuba, or the former U.S.S.R, anti-Castro Cubans, the Italian Mafia, Crosby, Stills and Nash?
Mr Narvarro, Just answer this question:.... Could any of the "suspects" you have named controlled the autopsy of President Kennedy?
There's no doubt that the autopsy was a sham.... Who had the power to control that autopsy?
-
https://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oswalds-kostikov-letter/
I found this on another forum. This, to me, is as close to a Rosetta Stone that's out there to show that LHO was being set up.
-
Actually that is wrong
When we talk of a conspiracy to murder
It involves 2 or more people pre-planning a murder
that is a conspiracy to murder
that is all
yes you can reference a "wider" conspiracy
but usually when people reference a conspiracy they mean more than LHO
Thats why when the HSCA rules a probable conspiracy
it is quite open ended, it means more than 1 (but could be 1,000)
Only the US Government could have done what was done
come on Oscar you know that
I know what a conspiracy is and you emphatically state that the evidence points to the US government. I counter that there's as much evidence for US involvement as there is for the countries and entities mentioned, including Crosby, Stills and Nash. In other words, there's none. All there is is speculation about motives, half truths, weird guilt by association (as that provided by Tom Scully for example), fabrications, opinions from luminaries that are vague or misguided, partial readings of official government documents that omit context, not believing the testimony of individuals who are at the center of the alleged controversy (Nicholas Katzenbaugh for example), the reliance on interviews from individuals who are purported to have inside knowledge (Brothers in Arms for example).. I'm sure you get my drift.
-
Mr Narvarro, Just answer this question:.... Could any of the "suspects" you have named controlled the autopsy of President Kennedy?
There's no doubt that the autopsy was a sham.... Who had the power to control that autopsy?
The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy. That goes without question. The events that led to the autopsy being performed at Bethesda is documented in The Death of a President by William Manchester, a civilian and not subject to any military or governmental pressure. The reason for the incompleteness of the autopsy being an incomplete one was mainly due to Jaqueline Kennedy who didn't even want an autopsy performed. It was as a result to deference to her wishes and the pressure to end the autopsy as quickly as possible due to Jaqueline's presence at Bethesda Naval Hospital and her desire to get on with the ceremony and her late husbands burial. According to Dr. Humes he was not under any pressure but I think he knows that Dr. Burkley was hurrying things up and interfering in the process as a curtesy to both Robert and Jaqueline Kennedy. I have to be somewhere at the moment so I'll continue later today.
Nevertheless, photos and X-Rays taken at Bethesda of the Presidents body and wounds should leave no doubt there was only one entry wound to the head and back and only one exit wound to the head. The path of the bullet can be traced in JFK's head as coming from rear to front and the large wound to the right side of the head corresponds with that shown in the Zapruder film. So, even though the doctors at Bethesda did not trace the wound from JFK's back to the throat the evidence in JFK's tie and shirt, plus the Zapruder film showing JFK assuming the Thorburg position as JBC is shown to be on the receiving end of a bullet, clearly indicate that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back exited through his throat and then entered JBC in the back, exited through his chest (see lapel flip), and struck his right wrist (see hat flip as JBC is holding it with his right hand).
For anyone who insist that there was some nefarious reason behind the choice of Bethesda as the hospital , for the choice of the doctors to perform the autopsy, that the documented evidence (such as the photos, X-Rays, Humes autopsy report) were faked, and that the testimony of the doctors performing the autopsy were lies, definite provable evidence must be produced or else you're just rowing up the river without a paddle.
-
The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy. That goes without question. The events that led to the autopsy being performed at Bethesda is documented in The Death of a President by William Manchester, a civilian and not subject to any military or governmental pressure. The reason for the incompleteness of the autopsy being an incomplete one was mainly due to Jaqueline Kennedy who didn't even want an autopsy performed. It was as a result to deference to her wishes and the pressure to end the autopsy as quickly as possible due to Jaqueline's presence at Bethesda Naval Hospital and her desire to get on with the ceremony and her late husbands burial. According to Dr. Humes he was not under any pressure but I think he knows that Dr. Burkley was hurrying things up and interfering in the process as a curtesy to both Robert and Jaqueline Kennedy. I have to be somewhere at the moment so I'll continue later today.
Nevertheless, photos and X-Rays taken at Bethesda of the Presidents body and wounds should leave no doubt there was only one entry wound to the head and back and only one exit wound to the head. The path of the bullet can be traced in JFK's head as coming from rear to front and the large wound to the right side of the head corresponds with that shown in the Zapruder film. So, even though the doctors at Bethesda did not trace the wound from JFK's back to the throat the evidence in JFK's tie and shirt, plus the Zapruder film showing JFK assuming the Thorburg position as JBC is shown to be on the receiving end of a bullet, clearly indicate that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back exited through his throat and then entered JBC in the back, exited through his chest (see lapel flip), and struck his right wrist (see hat flip as JBC is holding it with his right hand).
For anyone who insist that there was some nefarious reason behind the choice of Bethesda as the hospital , for the choice of the doctors to perform the autopsy, that the documented evidence (such as the photos, X-Rays, Humes autopsy report) were faked, and that the testimony of the doctors performing the autopsy were lies, definite provable evidence must be produced or else you're just rowing up the river without a paddle.
The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy. That goes without question. The events that led to the autopsy being performed at Bethesda is documented in The Death of a President by William Manchester, a civilian and not subject to any military or governmental pressure. The reason for the incompleteness of the autopsy being an incomplete one was mainly due to Jaqueline Kennedy who didn't even want an autopsy performed. It was as a result to deference to her wishes and the pressure to end the autopsy as quickly as possible due to Jaqueline's presence at Bethesda Naval Hospital and her desire to get on with the ceremony and her late husbands burial. According to Dr. Humes he was not under any pressure but I think he knows that Dr. Burkley was hurrying things up and interfering in the process as a curtesy to both Robert and Jaqueline Kennedy. I have to be somewhere at the moment so I'll continue later today.
The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy. That goes without question.
The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy.
Thank You...Nuff said... However I have a question.
Since this was the body of the President Of the United States, who had been brutally murdered.... Can you please offer me a plausible explanation That ....The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy.
Don't bother with the B.S. about Jackie having the power to circumvent the law.... ....
-
The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy. That goes without question. The events that led to the autopsy being performed at Bethesda is documented in The Death of a President by William Manchester, a civilian and not subject to any military or governmental pressure. The reason for the incompleteness of the autopsy being an incomplete one was mainly due to Jaqueline Kennedy who didn't even want an autopsy performed. It was as a result to deference to her wishes and the pressure to end the autopsy as quickly as possible due to Jaqueline's presence at Bethesda Naval Hospital and her desire to get on with the ceremony and her late husbands burial. According to Dr. Humes he was not under any pressure but I think he knows that Dr. Burkley was hurrying things up and interfering in the process as a curtesy to both Robert and Jaqueline Kennedy. I have to be somewhere at the moment so I'll continue later today.
The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy. That goes without question.
The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy.
Thank You...Nuff said... However I have a question.
Since this was the body of the President Of the United States, who had been brutally murdered.... Can you please offer me a plausible explanation That ....The autopsy at Bethesda was definitely an incomplete one, performed by doctors not trained in forensic autopsy.
Don't bother with the B.S. about Jackie having the power to circumvent the law.... ....
I'll tell you this. Read Death of a President by William Manchester. Until you do don't bother asking me what I should bother about.
-
I'll tell you this. Read Death of a President by William Manchester. Until you do don't bother asking me what I should bother about.
Death of a President was one of the first books I read about the murder of JFK....That was decades ago ( I've read it a couple of times) and I'm still puzzled by the way Manchester related and described events.... The prose seemed to be so flamboyant and bombastic that I've long wondered if Manchester was writing with tongue in cheek.... I reached the conclusion that Machester wanted to reveal information that he could only impart if he made it sound implausible ......
-
I'll tell you this. Read Death of a President by William Manchester. Until you do don't bother asking me what I should bother about.
I agree. I've got a copy. A must read for anyone interested in the Kennedy assassination.
-
I agree. I've got a copy. A must read for anyone interested in the Kennedy assassination.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/10/death-of-a-president200910
A CLASH OF CAMELOTS
Within months of J.F.K.?s death, the president?s widow asked William Manchester to write the authorized account of the assassination. He felt he couldn?t refuse her. Two years later, nearly broken by the task, Manchester found himself fighting a bitter, headline-making battle with Jackie and Bobby Kennedy over the finished book. The author chronicles the toll Manchester?s 1967 best-seller, The Death of a President, exacted?physically, emotionally, and financially?before it all but disappeared.
BY SAM KASHNER
OCTOBER 2009
....For two days before the burial, the line of citizens waiting to file by the catafalque reached five miles, snaking through the chill, solemn streets of the capital. For the procession from the Rotunda to St. Matthew?s Cathedral, where the funeral Mass was held, Mrs. Kennedy didn?t want to ride in one of the government?s black Cadillacs, so she walked, leading a delegation from 92 nations. Charles de Gaulle, who towered over the other heads of state as they followed the horse-drawn caisson down Constitution Avenue, later reflected that President Kennedy?s widow ?gave the world an example of how to behave.? Manchester later noted that, in the hours after the tragedy, ?Jacqueline Kennedy was virtually the government of this country and held it together.? After the assassination, she had stood beside Lyndon B. Johnson in her blood-splattered Chanel suit as he was sworn into office. Now, at the president?s funeral, in her black widow?s garb, she symbolized the nation?s grief. For five years in a row, a Gallup poll named her ?the most admired woman in the world.?
Following the ordeal of the funeral, Jacqueline resolved to leave the White House as quickly as possible. Before departing, she had a plaque inscribed with the words ?In this room lived John Fitzgerald Kennedy, with his wife Jacqueline, during the two years, ten months, and two days he was president of the United States? and placed it in the Lincoln bedroom. (The Nixons would later have the plaque removed.) Eleven days after the funeral, Jacqueline sought refuge at her temporary home at 3038 N Street, in Georgetown.
Beset by writers clamoring for interviews, Jacqueline decided to designate one to produce the official story of the assassination. In part, she wanted to stop Jim Bishop, a syndicated columnist living in Florida, who was already preparing a book. He was the author of The Day Lincoln Was Shot and a just-finished book, A Day in the Life of President Kennedy, but according to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Pulitzer Prize?winning historian and special assistant to Kennedy, the First Lady considered Bishop a ?hack? who asked too many personal questions. She preferred that no book be written, but as that was impossible, she went in search of an author.
William Manchester was not her first choice. Theodore H. White, a family favorite (The Making of the President 1960), and Walter Lord (A Night to Remember) turned her down. Then Pierre Salinger, the Kennedys? press secretary, suggested Manchester, a onetime foreign correspondent for the Baltimore Sun and the author of novels and nonfiction books on H.L. Mencken, the Rockefellers, and President Kennedy....
-
Death of a President was one of the first books I read about the murder of JFK....That was decades ago ( I've read it a couple of times) and I'm still puzzled by the way Manchester related and described events.... The prose seemed to be so flamboyant and bombastic that I've long wondered if Manchester was writing with tongue in cheek.... I reached the conclusion that Machester wanted to reveal information that he could only impart if he made it sound implausible ......
He was writing with an intelligent audience in mind. He didn't dumb it down.
-
He was writing with an intelligent audience in mind. He didn't dumb it down.
Anything above Dr. Seuss The Cat in the Hat would be considered bombastic by Cakebread.
-
Anything above Dr. Seuss The Cat in the Hat would be considered bombastic by Cakebread.
Just opened the book to a random page....
Since you so enthusiastically endorse William Manchester's book Death of a President...Take a look at page 280....
Notice that at 12:45 ..... Quote...."Oswald's description , based on observation of eyewitness Brennan is broadcast over channel 2 by Inspector Sawyer from radio car in front of Depository" ...Unquote
What was that description?? Did that description fit Lee Oswald? And What kind of weapon did Sawyer say the suspect was armed with?
Sawyer:... "The person wanted in this is a slender white male about thirty , five feet ten, one sixth five carrying what looked to be a 30 -30 or some type of Winchester."
Then at 12:47 / 12 :48 P.M...Quote..." ( Oswald) enters cab at Greyhound bus station, 3 1/2 blocks from bus . rides in silence beside driver." /i]... Unquote
What time was it when William Whaley the Cab Driver took the passenger into his cab?.... And how was that man dressed?.... Did the man fit the description that Inspector Sawyer had broadcast?
-
I did not do it
say's Lee with glee
I could not see
through that tree
I could not run
down 3 sets of stairs
tricking my coworkers
who were unawares
I did not run
or shoot a cop
I wanted to see
another Heflin flop
Now taken in
this is no fun
so now they say
they found my gun
;D ;D
-
Anything above Dr. Seuss The Cat in the Hat would be considered bombastic by Cakebread.
Are you promoting your favorite book again , Navarro?
-
Just opened the book to a random page....
Since you so enthusiastically endorse William Manchester's book Death of a President...Take a look at page 280....
Notice that at 12:45 ..... Quote...."Oswald's description , based on observation of eyewitness Brennan is broadcast over channel 2 by Inspector Sawyer from radio car in front of Depository" ...Unquote
What was that description?? Did that description fit Lee Oswald? And What kind of weapon did Sawyer say the suspect was armed with?
Sawyer:... "The person wanted in this is a slender white male about thirty , five feet ten, one sixth five carrying what looked to be a 30 -30 or some type of Winchester."
Then at 12:47 / 12 :48 P.M...Quote..." ( Oswald) enters cab at Greyhound bus station, 3 1/2 blocks from bus . rides in silence beside driver." /i]... Unquote
What time was it when William Whaley the Cab Driver took the passenger into his cab?.... And how was that man dressed?.... Did the man fit the description that Inspector Sawyer had broadcast?
Sawyer:... "The person wanted in this is a slender white male about thirty , five feet ten, one sixth five carrying what looked to be a 30 -30 or some type of Winchester."
Sawyer's description that Manchester acknowledges he got from Howard Brennan prior to 12:45 ...could fit dozens of young men that were in Dealey plaza .... But the description did not fit Lee Oswald,,,,Lee had just turned 24 years old, He was 5 ' 9" tall and weighed 131 pounds....and the rifle that was found in the TSBD was NOT a 30-30 Winchester or some other type of hunting rifle....It was an old Italian military rifle with a wooden stock that cover 90% of the metal barrel.... It sure as hell could not be mistaken for a 30-30 Winchester or any hunting rifle.
-
Since you so enthusiastically endorse William Manchester's book.....
In 2017, research into Manchester's life story revealed that he had fabricated many details about his academic accomplishments, war record, and military honors. [17] These revelations cast into doubt much of what Manchester had written in his memoir Goodbye Darkness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Manchester
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Manchester
I strongly suspect that William Manchester was a Hoover lackey..... If not actually on Hoover's payroll....
-
Just opened the book to a random page....
Since you so enthusiastically endorse William Manchester's book Death of a President...Take a look at page 280....
Notice that at 12:45 ..... Quote...."Oswald's description , based on observation of eyewitness Brennan is broadcast over channel 2 by Inspector Sawyer from radio car in front of Depository" ...Unquote
What was that description?? Did that description fit Lee Oswald? And What kind of weapon did Sawyer say the suspect was armed with?
Sawyer:... "The person wanted in this is a slender white male about thirty , five feet ten, one sixth five carrying what looked to be a 30 -30 or some type of Winchester."
Then at 12:47 / 12 :48 P.M...Quote..." ( Oswald) enters cab at Greyhound bus station, 3 1/2 blocks from bus . rides in silence beside driver." /i]... Unquote
What time was it when William Whaley the Cab Driver took the passenger into his cab?.... And how was that man dressed?.... Did the man fit the description that Inspector Sawyer had broadcast?
Is this what you consider bombastic prose by Wm. Manchester? Appears to be very sensible and backed by excellent research.
-
Sawyer:... "The person wanted in this is a slender white male about thirty , five feet ten, one sixth five carrying what looked to be a 30 -30 or some type of Winchester."
Sawyer's description that Manchester acknowledges he got from Howard Brennan prior to 12:45 ...could fit dozens of young men that were in Dealey plaza .... But the description did not fit Lee Oswald,,,,Lee had just turned 24 years old, He was 5 ' 9" tall and weighed 131 pounds....and the rifle that was found in the TSBD was NOT a 30-30 Winchester or some other type of hunting rifle....It was an old Italian military rifle with a wooden stock that cover 90% of the metal barrel.... It sure as hell could not be mistaken for a 30-30 Winchester or any hunting rifle.
:D :D You're a riot, Cakebread. I bet you even loose when arguing with yourself.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Manchester
Perfect Senate candidate for the great state of Connecticut.
-
Is this what you consider bombastic prose by Wm. Manchester? Appears to be very sensible and backed by excellent research.
No, I do not consider the excerpt from DOAP "Bombastic".... I simply opened the book it opened at page 280 so I quoted what I saw...
So you do agree that Manchester's account of the DPD radio broadcast by Inspector Sawyer at 12:45 PM is accurate ??...
That's very good... because it refutes the idea that Lee Oswald was the gunman that Howard Brennan saw...
First off... Lee Oswald was 24 years old.... Second...He did NOT weigh anywhere near 165 ponds... (he weighed 131 lbs) but the most obvious part of the description is the FACT that Brennan described a hunting rifle ( possibly a 30-30 Winchester) as the man's weapon...
It is an irrefutable FACT that the FBI has claimed that the murder weapon was an old Italian military rifle, a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano. The carcano has the entire barrel covered by a wooden stock....whereas the 30-30 has the entire shiny metal barrel exposed, so there's NO WAY anybody could call a carcano a 30-30 Winchester....
-
:D :D You're a riot, Cakebread. I bet you even loose when arguing with yourself.
You're right.... I do examine a point... and sometimes I'm compelled to reject a theory after "arguing" with myself
-
No, I do not consider the excerpt from DOAP "Bombastic".... I simply opened the book it opened at page 280 so I quoted what I saw...
So you do agree that Manchester's account of the DPD radio broadcast by Inspector Sawyer at 12:45 PM is accurate ??...
That's very good... because it refutes the idea that Lee Oswald was the gunman that Howard Brennan saw...
First off... Lee Oswald was 24 years old.... Second...He did NOT weigh anywhere near 165 ponds... (he weighed 131 lbs) but the most obvious part of the description is the FACT that Brennan described a hunting rifle ( possibly a 30-30 Winchester) as the man's weapon...
It is an irrefutable FACT that the FBI has claimed that the murder weapon was an old Italian military rifle, a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano. The carcano has the entire barrel covered by a wooden stock....whereas the 30-30 has the entire shiny metal barrel exposed, so there's NO WAY anybody could call a carcano a 30-30 Winchester....
Brennan's description worked twice; with Tippit at 10th and Patton and at the Texas Theater. Pretty damn good.
-
Brennan's description worked twice; with Tippit at 10th and Patton and at the Texas Theater. Pretty damn good.
How exactly did Brennan's description work in Tippit's case? You don't know and thus can only speculate why Tippit stopped his killer. You don't even know if Tippit had even heard the decription or (if he heard it) put two and two together.
And ultimately Tippit was killed?. is that what you mean by saying that Brennan's description worked?
As far as the TT is concerned. There is no proof whatsoever that the description for Kennedy's killer had anything to do with that. They went into the TT looking for Tippit's killer, didn't they? Or are you claiming that they were actively looking for Kennedy's killer in Oak Cliff within a little more than an hour after the murder?
-
No, I do not consider the excerpt from DOAP "Bombastic".... I simply opened the book it opened at page 280 so I quoted what I saw...
So you do agree that Manchester's account of the DPD radio broadcast by Inspector Sawyer at 12:45 PM is accurate ??...
That's very good... because it refutes the idea that Lee Oswald was the gunman that Howard Brennan saw...
First off... Lee Oswald was 24 years old.... Second...He did NOT weigh anywhere near 165 ponds... (he weighed 131 lbs) but the most obvious part of the description is the FACT that Brennan described a hunting rifle ( possibly a 30-30 Winchester) as the man's weapon...
It is an irrefutable FACT that the FBI has claimed that the murder weapon was an old Italian military rifle, a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano. The carcano has the entire barrel covered by a wooden stock....whereas the 30-30 has the entire shiny metal barrel exposed, so there's NO WAY anybody could call a carcano a 30-30 Winchester....
Manchesters account is accurate:
Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45.
This is the transcript of the police dispatch. But Brennan did not testify that he saw a 30-30 Winchester but a high powered rifle. Either Sawyer misinterpreted Brennan, he incorporated what another witness said about seeing a Winchester type rifle in with Brennan's description, or Brennan is lying about the description of the rifle.
As has been pointed out to you by another poster the circumstances at the time of the event are fluid and based on quick observations during a stressful event. To expect any witness to give an exact description of an individual is asking way too much. In general terms the description did fit Oswald as it would fit a host of other individuals but it also eliminates a host of other individuals. The fact that Brennan stated in his original deposition of 11/22 that he could identify the shooter is clear evidence that he got a good look at Oswald.
The later descriptions that went out after the Tippit shooting also fit Oswald in general terms and were very close to those given by Brennan.
We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson. Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, (siren) black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks. (Sirens)
Wanted for investigation for assault to murder on a police officer: A white male; approximately thirty; about five foot eight; slender build; has black hair; a white jacket; a white shirt and dark trousers. The suspect last seen running west on Jefferson from 400 East Jefferson. 1:24
Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.
All of the witness descriptions fir Oswald within reason and they led to his eventual arrest at the TT. Just think, if Julia Postal had given a description of an individual sneaking into the TT that was 6', bald, heavy set and dark complected do you think the police would have rushed into the TT?
-
Manchesters account is accurate:
Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45.
This is the transcript of the police dispatch. But Brennan did not testify that he saw a 30-30 Winchester but a high powered rifle. Either Sawyer misinterpreted Brennan, he incorporated what another witness said about seeing a Winchester type rifle in with Brennan's description, or Brennan is lying about the description of the rifle.
As has been pointed out to you by another poster the circumstances at the time of the event are fluid and based on quick observations during a stressful event. To expect any witness to give an exact description of an individual is asking way too much. In general terms the description did fit Oswald as it would fit a host of other individuals but it also eliminates a host of other individuals. The fact that Brennan stated in his original deposition of 11/22 that he could identify the shooter is clear evidence that he got a good look at Oswald.
The later descriptions that went out after the Tippit shooting also fit Oswald in general terms and were very close to those given by Brennan.
We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson. Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, (siren) black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks. (Sirens)
Wanted for investigation for assault to murder on a police officer: A white male; approximately thirty; about five foot eight; slender build; has black hair; a white jacket; a white shirt and dark trousers. The suspect last seen running west on Jefferson from 400 East Jefferson. 1:24
Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.
All of the witness descriptions fir Oswald within reason and they led to his eventual arrest at the TT. Just think, if Julia Postal had given a description of an individual sneaking into the TT that was 6', bald, heavy set and dark complected do you think the police would have rushed into the TT?
Navarro, You apparently can't even understand your own post.....
We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson. Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, (siren) black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks.
Wanted for investigation for assault to murder on a police officer: A white male; approximately thirty; about five foot eight; slender build; has black hair; a white jacket; a white shirt and dark trousers. The suspect last seen running west on Jefferson from 400 East Jefferson. 1:24[/i]
Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.
Question:.....Mr Navarro, What was the color of the shirt of the man who shot JD Tippit? What was the color of the shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing in the Texas Theater?
-
The Walker evidence (the note Lee left behind for Marina) was hidden, by Marina, inside a book which was included in a list of belongings turned over by Ruth Paine to the police in Irving who in turn, gave the items to the Secret Service who would give the property to Marina. It was the Secret Service who found the note inside the book, not Ruth Paine.
The DPD searched the books when they went through the Paine residence.
-
I don't believe Oswald was a rifleman in waiting... well, until he learned of the parade route.
When did he learn of the motorcade route? And can you support it?
-
Well, whenever you have something which shows that Ruth planted the note inside the book, we can talk. Deal?
Whenever you can show that the note was actually inside the book we can talk.
-
Perfect Senate candidate for the great state of Connecticut.
You think he'd be better than Da Nang Dick?
-
You think he'd be better than Da Nang Dick?
Well, that was intended as a joke which you cought on to. IMO, Blumenthal is just a Schumer puppet so a dead Manchester would be no different. On the other hand, a dead GOP Manchester would have been useful to a degree. Remember Strom Thurmond!!
-
Well, that was intended as a joke which you cought on to. IMO, Blumenthal is just a Schumer puppet so a dead Manchester would be no different. On the other hand, a dead GOP Manchester would have been useful to a degree. Remember Strom Thurmond!!
I remember Strom very well. He mellowed out to be a rather decent fellow in his very old age. I imagine that Trent Lott remembers him as well.
A dead Manchester wouldn't be near as vile as the live Blumenthal.
-
The Walker evidence (the note Lee left behind for Marina) was hidden, by Marina, inside a book which was included in a list of belongings turned over by Ruth Paine to the police in Irving who in turn, gave the items to the Secret Service who would give the property to Marina. It was the Secret Service who found the note inside the book, not Ruth Paine.
The DPD searched the books when they went through the Paine residence.
Please provide testimony (or any document) which shows that the officers literally shook the pages of each book. Well?
-
The Walker evidence (the note Lee left behind for Marina) was hidden, by Marina, inside a book which was included in a list of belongings turned over by Ruth Paine to the police in Irving who in turn, gave the items to the Secret Service who would give the property to Marina. It was the Secret Service who found the note inside the book, not Ruth Paine.
Please provide testimony (or any document) which shows that the officers literally shook the pages of each book. Well?
Ruth Paine testified that the DPD were searching her books when she left her home. Can you show that she either was wrong, lied or that the DPD were not thorough in their search?
-
Ruth Paine testified that the DPD were searching her books when she left her home. Can you show that she either was wrong, lied or that the DPD were not thorough in their search?
Translation...
"I cannot provide testimony (or any document) which shows that the officers literally shook the pages of each book."
-
Not a valid vimeo URL
great new fact based documentary coming soon
The CIA truly is a family business
through out the history of the CIA
blood has proven thicker than water
-
Not a valid vimeo URL
great new fact based documentary coming soon
The CIA truly is a family business
through out the history of the CIA
blood has proven thicker than water
Jim DiEugenio? Gee, what a shocker!
-
Translation...
"I cannot provide testimony (or any document) which shows that the officers literally shook the pages of each book."
And think about the counternarrative being implied here. For some reason RP and the sinister conspirators fabricate this evidence but for some inexplicable reason don't put it in a place and time where the authorities will find it during the search. Afterward they stick it in a random book and hope they do. Quite a plan. And then they don't mention Walker in the note. Is that how anyone would go about trying to link Oswald to the Walker shooting? LOL.
-
And think about the counternarrative being implied here. For some reason RP and the sinister conspirators fabricate this evidence but for some inexplicable reason don't put it in a place and time where the authorities will find it during the search. Afterward they stick it in a random book and hope they do. Quite a plan. And then they don't mention Walker in the note. Is that how anyone would go about trying to link Oswald to the Walker shooting? LOL.
LOL!...Are you really this naive and obtuse, Mr "Smith"? I hadn't thought so...But maybe, you really are a simpleton.....
-
And think about the counternarrative being implied here. For some reason RP and the sinister conspirators fabricate this evidence but for some inexplicable reason don't put it in a place and time where the authorities will find it during the search. Afterward they stick it in a random book and hope they do. Quite a plan. And then they don't mention Walker in the note. Is that how anyone would go about trying to link Oswald to the Walker shooting? LOL.
Richard, that's just too much common sense for Caprio and Cakebread. You're going to make their heads explode. Be careful.
-
LOL!...Are you really this naive and obtuse, Mr "Smith"? I hadn't thought so...But maybe, you really are a simpleton.....
I'm sure you had plenty of substantive rebuttal points to make here but had a good reason for not expressing a single one.
-
Richard, that's just too much common sense for Caprio and Cakebread. You're going to make their heads explode. Be careful.
Thoughtful (students of JFK Assassination controversy capable of wiping their own and who are otherwise reasonable
people) posters do have to admit that, although it is 55 years later and the agency is larger now, MOST have never met
a CIA agent or even a former or current CIA employee.
Bill and Richard, the core problem here is neither of you demonstrate reasonable behavior or level of suspicion
in reaction to the unreasonable....too many spooks in the mix!
Ruth's sister was a CIA employee, sister's husband was a AID (a CIA cloaked agency) employee, the Hyde girls' father
William Avery Hyde was recently considered a useful candidate by the CIA, a college friend of both mom and pop
Hyde, who had roomed in NYC in 1930 with the Hyde couple and their two young daughters was later a CIA analyst
reporting to his supervisor Bruce Solie on his specific contact with Ruth's parents.
Quixotic Joust: Communists and Anti-Communists Meet Under Ground
quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2014/11/communists-and-anti-communists-meet.html (https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=Dgg5XKOaI8_4sgW_i4CoDw&q=quixoticjoust+bruce+solie+hyde&btnK=Google+Search&oq=quixoticjoust+bruce+solie+hyde&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160l2.674.16784..17471...0.0..0.159.3039.15j15......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0j0i131j0i10j0i13j0i8i13i30j0i13i30j33i299.SKrkA8tzeao)
Nov 10, 2014 - William A. Hyde was in Washington this last week-end, visiting his ... Talbot was reporting to Bruce Solie, of the CIA's Security staff, about a ...
Quixotic Joust: Hyde Family in the CIA and USAID
quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2015/01/hyde-family-and-central-intelligence.html
Jan 5, 2015 - In attempting to determine what role, if any, Ruth Paine's Hyde .... A report by Bruce Solie of the CIA generated on December 5, 1963, stated:
......
....and Ruth formed a, and was writing to the State Dept. manager of that sort of intelligence gathering program.:
https://aarclibrary.org/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-11-the-paines-carry-the-weight/
.....Ruth also worked on an American-Russian student exchange organized by this committee in 1958, taking an active role in making the travel arrangements for the Russian visitors. The Paines told the Warren Commission that Ruth was a prominent committee member, but never addressed who was Ruth?s contact with the State Department to get the travel arrangements done.
I think she had such a contact, and the contact?s probable identity tells us a lot. The Director of East-West Contacts within the State Department, Frederick Merrill, stated his approval of this 1958 exchange. [xxviii] Merrill worked with the Free Europe Committee, which funded Radio Free Europe and other projects to ensure the flow of funds to Soviet exile groups. [xxix] Michael Paine allowed that Ruth may have written the State Department to set up this exchange. [xxx] The next year, Merrill informed the chief of CIA East-West Contacts that the Rand Corporation was asking the State Department about Robert Webster?s whereabouts when he defected to the Soviet Union. [xxxi] Oswald was to follow in Webster?s footsteps just days later.
.....
FREDERICK MERRILL, DIPLOMAT, 69, DEAD - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/02/archives/frederick-merrill-diplomat-69-dead.html
Dec 2, 1974 - 1 ?Frederick T. Merrill, who was the State Department's Director of East‐West Contacts from 1956 to 1960 and deputy chief of mission in ...
......This is the obit of the father of Robert E.Webster's employer's (H. James Rand's) business partner.:
It seems Jim Rand's father thought highly of the father of Ruth Paine's State Dept. contact that she could
not recall the name of.........
The Diamond of Psi Upsilon - Volume 20, Issue 1 - Page 47
https://books.google.com/books?id=pJ5MAAAAMAAJ (https://books.google.com/books?id=pJ5MAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA47&dq="*which+had+previously+absorbed+his+old+company,+the+Library+Bureau.+Two+months+after+joining+the+company,+Mr.+Merrill"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIh6WVlo_dxgIVhD8-Ch2l6QF7#v=onepage&q="*which%20had%20previously%20absorbed%20his%20old%20company%2C%20the%20Library%20Bureau.%20Two%20months%20after%20joining%20the%20company%2C%20Mr.%20Merrill"&f=false) Psi Upsilon - 1933 - Full view - More editions
William Fessenden Merrill 1933....Resigning both positions in June, 1928, he was named vice- president and general manager of Remington Rand, which had previously absorbed his old company, the Library Bureau. .Two months after joining the company, Mr. Merrill was promoted to the presidency of the organization, succeeding James H. Rand, Jr., who became chairman of the board. More than a year ago Brother Merrill retired because of ill health, but retained many directorships until the time of his death. He was a ... He is survived by a widow, a son, Frederick T. Merrill, and a brother, Oliver B. Merrill, Gamma '91. Charles
......
-
And think about the counternarrative being implied here. For some reason RP and the sinister conspirators fabricate this evidence but for some inexplicable reason don't put it in a place and time where the authorities will find it during the search. Afterward they stick it in a random book and hope they do. Quite a plan. And then they don't mention Walker in the note. Is that how anyone would go about trying to link Oswald to the Walker shooting? LOL.
If the Police had found the letter on the book written in Russian....Then it would have been duly recorded and it would have entered the evidence stream that was created to frame the patsy, and the letter would have been certified evidence ....
I would not be a bit surprised that our dear Ruthie the innocent Good Samaritan had suggested that the police search through the Russian books before she departed so that she would (Deliberately) not be there when the police discovered the letter.
When she discovered that the police had not found the letter, she took the book to the police so that they could give the book to Marina ( who needed that book like she needed a snorkel and swim fins)
-
If the Police had found the letter on the book written in Russian....Then it would have been duly recorded and it would have entered the evidence stream that was created to frame the patsy, and the letter would have been certified evidence ....
I would not be a bit surprised that our dear Ruthie the innocent Good Samaritan had suggested that the police search through the Russian books before she departed so that she would (Deliberately) not be there when the police discovered the letter.
When she discovered that the police had not found the letter, she took the book to the police so that they could give the book to Marina ( who needed that book like she needed a snorkel and swim fins)
So the note was in the book when the DPD searched and they didn't find it? That will come as news to Caprio. Why hide it in a book to begin with if the intent of your fantasy conspirators was that it be found? Why not just stick it among some of Oswald's possessions? Why attempt to frame Oswald for another assassination to begin with? Not necessary with the mountain of evidence against him in the JFK assassination. But if you were going to do that via a note, why not make it more explicit and directly reference Walker? It doesn't add up as a frame attempt. By the time the note was found, Oswald was already dead and the authorities were satisfied with his guilt in the JFK assassination. No need to link him to any other crime. It would have been risky and unnecessary if Oswald were not the Walker shooter.
-
Navarro, You apparently can't even understand your own post.....
We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson. Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, (siren) black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks.
Wanted for investigation for assault to murder on a police officer: A white male; approximately thirty; about five foot eight; slender build; has black hair; a white jacket; a white shirt and dark trousers. The suspect last seen running west on Jefferson from 400 East Jefferson. 1:24[/i]
Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.
Question:.....Mr Navarro, What was the color of the shirt of the man who shot JD Tippit? What was the color of the shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing in the Texas Theater?
I'll add the following description from the DPD dispatch of 1:28 PM CST:
"Stand by. Notify 1 that officer involved in this shooting, Officer J.D. Tippit, we believe, was pronounced DOA at Methodist 1:28 p.m.
4 (Deputy Chief of Police N.T. Fisher)
Is there any indication that it has any connection with this other shooting?
Dispatcher
Well, the descriptions on the suspect are similar and it is possible.
4
Thank you."
Mr. Cakebread. Are white shirts permanently affixed to the body?
-
So the note was in the book when the DPD searched and they didn't find it? That will come as news to Caprio. Why hide it in a book to begin with if the intent of your fantasy conspirators was that it be found? Why not just stick it among some of Oswald's possessions? Why attempt to frame Oswald for another assassination to begin with? Not necessary with the mountain of evidence against him in the JFK assassination. But if you were going to do that via a note, why not make it more explicit and directly reference Walker? It doesn't add up as a frame attempt. By the time the note was found, Oswald was already dead and the authorities were satisfied with his guilt in the JFK assassination. No need to link him to any other crime. It would have been risky and unnecessary if Oswald were not the Walker shooter.
So the note was in the book when the DPD searched and they didn't find it?
Who knows??... Perhaps Mrs Good Samaritan, Ruthie....
Why hide it in a book to begin with if the intent of your fantasy conspirators was that it be found?
Duh!.... If the note had been discovered by happenstance during a police search there would have been a mystery and conjecture about where the note had originated which would have necessitated the questioning of Marina about the note. ( which is exactly what happened....OTOH ...If Ruthie had presented the note, obviously she would have been questioned about how she had came into possession of the note. By pretending that she didn't know that the note was there and was merely delivering a book that Marina needed ( like a snorkel mask) and as a good Samaritan she eliminated herself as having any knowledge of the note.
Why attempt to frame Oswald for another assassination to begin with?
HUH?? What other assassination?
Not necessary with the mountain of evidence against him in the JFK assassination.
"Mountain" of evidence against him.... The "mountain" was very similar to that mountain range in Kansas....Which most Kansans' usually referred to as gopher mounds.... The evidence against Lee was very weak and flimsy, just as J' Edgar Hoover and Nick Katzenbach acknowledged when they drafted the memo in which Hoover had directed LBJ ... "We must create a letter or memo for the Pissant public in which we can hoodwink the Pissants into believing that Lee Oswald was a lunatic who shot our beloved President for no reason at all.
Hoover had informed LBJ that they had a very weak case against the patsy, Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald......
By the time the note was found, Oswald was already dead and the authorities were satisfied with his guilt in the JFK assassination. No need to link him to any other crime. It would have been risky and unnecessary if Oswald were not the Walker shooter.
That's simply Bull stuff.... At the time the note surfaced, The FBI needed to open the questioning of Marina about the Walker hoax....A German Newspaper had spilled the beans that Walker had called the paper's editor about 12 hours after the murder of JFK and told the editor that the man in the custody of the Dallas police was the guy who had tried to shoot him on April 10, of 1963. So the fat was in the fire....and Hoover was desperate to make damned sure that the public knew that Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald was a killer...( even though he hadn't killed anybody)
-
Translation...
"I cannot provide testimony (or any document) which shows that the officers literally shook the pages of each book."
Translation:
Brown CANNOT show that the alleged note that NEVER mentions Walker was in any book inside Ruth Paine's house as claimed by his beloved WC.
-
And think about the counternarrative being implied here. For some reason RP and the sinister conspirators fabricate this evidence but for some inexplicable reason don't put it in a place and time where the authorities will find it during the search. Afterward they stick it in a random book and hope they do. Quite a plan. And then they don't mention Walker in the note. Is that how anyone would go about trying to link Oswald to the Walker shooting? LOL.
***Shifting of the Burden Alert***
The diehard WC endorsers CANNOT support the WC's claim (What else is new?) about the alleged note so they go off on tangents about the CTers instead to distract.
Why can't they ever support the WC's claims? LOL indeed.
-
Richard, that's just too much common sense for Caprio and Cakebread. You're going to make their heads explode. Be careful.
Please point out the common sense in his nonsensical reply.
-
Please point out the common sense in his nonsensical reply.
It is beyond your ability to comprehend.
-
Richard, that's just too much common sense for Caprio and Cakebread. You're going to make their heads explode. Be careful.
-
***Shifting of the Burden Alert***
The diehard WC endorsers CANNOT support the WC's claim (What else is new?) about the alleged note so they go off on tangents about the CTers instead to distract.
Why can't they ever support the WC's claims? LOL indeed.
This one is pretty easy. If your fantasy conspirators wanted the note found, why hide it? If they wanted the note to implicate Oswald in the Walker attempt, why not be more explicit about that in the note? There is no shifting of the burden. The facts confirm the note was in the book and written by Oswald. You are the one claiming some type of nonsensical framing of Oswald after he was already dead and the authorities were satisfied with his guilt. It doesn't add up as a frame attempt. There was no need for the note or any apparent need to associate Oswald with the Walker attempt to frame him for the JFK assassination. You apparently have no explanation for this series of events in the context of your fantasy and are the one trying to distract from your silly claims.