JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on March 07, 2019, 10:39:49 PM
-
I would like to try another approach to find out if it was even possible to set up Oswald as the patsy for the Kennedy murder. For the time being, I am purposely leaving the Tippit murder out of it because that could have been an unrelated or a spur of the moment matter. Whenever you try to discuss the possibility of Oswald having been framed, the immediate response from the LNs is that a conspiracy to frame Oswald would have required the involvement of thousands of people and I don't really believe that's true. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that Oswald was an innocent bystander. For him to be framed for this crime (if that's what happened) he would have needed to be involved at least to some extend in some scheme.
It seems to me that the main focus of framing Oswald would have to be through manipulation of the physical evidence. In the Kennedy murder, the principal piece of physical evidence is the rifle, so if a case is to be made that Oswald was framed, how did they do it?
Are the microfilm copy of the order form and envelope authentic? And if so, who wrote them? If they are not authentic, how were they able to use a P.O. box in Oswald's name? If they are authentic, could Oswald have been manipulated into ordering that right and so on? If the order was authentic and filled by Klein's, who received the rifle?
I would be interested in your honest opinions. Having said that, I have no interest in biased denials that a frame up never happened. If, at the end of the day, the conclusion is that framing Oswald was simply too difficult to do, then so be it, but such a conclusion should be reached after the discussion and not at the beginning of it.
So, let's start here; knowing what physical evidence is available, how would you have set up Oswald?
-
I would like to try another approach to find out if it was even possible to set up Oswald as the patsy for the Kennedy murder. For the time being, I am purposely leaving the Tippit murder out of it because that could have been an unrelated or a spur of the moment matter. Whenever you try to discuss the possibility of Oswald having been framed, the immediate response from the LNs is that a conspiracy to frame Oswald would have required the involvement of thousands of people and I don't really believe that's true. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that Oswald was an innocent bystander. For him to be framed for this crime (if that's what happened) he would have needed to be involved at least to some extend in some scheme.
It seems to me that the main focus of framing Oswald would have to be through manipulation of the physical evidence. In the Kennedy murder, the principal piece of physical evidence is the rifle, so if a case is to be made that Oswald was framed, how did they do it?
Are the microfilm copy of the order form and envelope authentic? And if so, who wrote them? If they are not authentic, how were they able to use a P.O. box in Oswald's name? If they are authentic, could Oswald have been manipulated into ordering that right and so on? If the order was authentic and filled by Klein's, who received the rifle?
I would be interested in your honest opinions. Having said that, I have no interest in biased denials that a frame up never happened. If, at the end of the day, the conclusion is that framing Oswald was simply too difficult to do, then so be it, but such a conclusion should be reached after the discussion and not at the beginning of it.
So, let's start here; knowing what physical evidence is available, how would you have set up Oswald?
Martin, please consider my proposed scenario.... ( I've posted it many times) Where by Lee assumed that he was going to be made to appear that he had taken a shot at JFK but missed, and then had fled to Cuba. Where Lee thought he would be welcomed because Castro hated JFK after the embargo and blockade of Cuba. And that was the primary goal for Lee Oswald.....The infiltration of Cuba.....
This scenario answers all of your questions....
Yes, Lee ordered a carcano from Kleins ...and the paper trail is real. (However the assassinationof JFK wasn't even in the wind at that time...Lee and DeM were working to make it appear the Lee had tried to shoot Walker who also was a foe of Castro..... The same basic MO for both scams.....
Lee was working a make believe scenario while Hoover was pulling his strings and arranging for killers to be there to take advantage of the young, naive, patriotic sucker.
-
If you discard all the ridiculous chaff (like "he left his wedding ring behind") that passes for evidence, you're not left with much. It's a weak, tainted and circumstantial case. It really boils down to trying to connect the C2766 rifle to the assassination that then trying to connect Oswald to the rifle. Trying to connect Oswald to the rifle is:
- The Klein's order blank.
Nothing here even needs to be the result of any framing. Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific, biased, and subjective (even more so in 1964), but especially from a few block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon. The HSCA panel even admitted that this is tenuous. And we only heard from the prosecution whose job it was to "convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin", and conveniently the original film was "lost".
- Oswald had access to the PO box listed on Klein's order blank.
But there is no record of shipment, delivery, or pickup by Oswald or anyone else. An assumption must be made without evidence that Oswald picked up a rifle nevertheless. Falsifying this would just require either handwriting "C2766" on a copy of a legitimate order, changing the address and/or name on a copy of a legitimate order (and then "losing" the film), and/or finding a legitimate order and dummying up an ID card with that name on it. It would take a single person in each case.
- A partial palm-print turned up a week later in Washington that Carl Day claimed he lifted from the rifle on the night of 11/22.
We've gone over all of the contradictions in Day's account, but this would take Day either knowingly fabricating evidence (which is not uncommon among police in general and the 1963 Dallas PD in particular), or Latona misidentifying a legitimate print (fingerprint identification is also biased and subjective and the FBI has a history of that too, eg. Brandon Mayfield). Again, only one person necessary.
- Howard Brennan said he could identify the shooter, then couldn't identify the shooter, then could identify the shooter
The problems with eyewitness accounts being unreliable are well known (see the work of Elizabeth Loftus and others) -- especially so in Brennan's case because he had a livelong pattern of embellishing his story more and more every time he told it, and he was tainted by seeing news reports. Doesn't require a knowing framing agent, just human error.
- Oswald was pictured in the backyard photos with a rifle that may or may not have been the same rifle.
Also doesn't require anybody to knowingly forge or alter a photo, since the identity of the rifle is nowhere near conclusive.
Is there anything else that actually connects that particular rifle to Oswald?
Let's not forget that there is not much that connects that particular rifle to the assassination either. It was found in the building that some witnesses thought shots came from.
-
If you discard all the ridiculous chaff (like "he left his wedding ring behind") that passes for evidence, you're not left with much. It's a weak, tainted and circumstantial case. It really boils down to trying to connect the C2766 rifle to the assassination that then trying to connect Oswald to the rifle. Trying to connect Oswald to the rifle is:
- The Klein's order blank.
Nothing here even needs to be the result of any framing. Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific, biased, and subjective (even more so in 1964), but especially from a few block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon. The HSCA panel even admitted that this is tenuous. And we only heard from the prosecution whose job it was to "convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin", and conveniently the original film was "lost".
- Oswald had access to the PO box listed on Klein's order blank.
But there is no record of shipment, delivery, or pickup by Oswald or anyone else. An assumption must be made without evidence that Oswald picked up a rifle nevertheless. Falsifying this would just require either handwriting "C2766" on a copy of a legitimate order, changing the address and/or name on a copy of a legitimate order (and then "losing" the film), and/or finding a legitimate order and dummying up an ID card with that name on it. It would take a single person in each case.
- A partial palm-print turned up a week later in Washington that Carl Day claimed he lifted from the rifle on the night of 11/22.
We've gone over all of the contradictions in Day's account, but this would take Day either knowingly fabricating evidence (which is not uncommon among police in general and the 1963 Dallas PD in particular), or Latona misidentifying a legitimate print (fingerprint identification is also biased and subjective and the FBI has a history of that too, eg. Brandon Mayfield). Again, only one person necessary.
- Howard Brennan said he could identify the shooter, then couldn't identify the shooter, then could identify the shooter
The problems with eyewitness accounts being unreliable are well known (see the work of Elizabeth Loftus and others) -- especially so in Brennan's case because he had a livelong pattern of embellishing his story more and more every time he told it, and he was tainted by seeing news reports. Doesn't require a knowing framing agent, just human error.
- Oswald was pictured in the backyard photos with a rifle that may or may not have been the same rifle.
Also doesn't require anybody to knowingly forge or alter a photo, since the identity of the rifle is nowhere near conclusive.
Is there anything else that actually connects that particular rifle to Oswald?
Let's not forget that there is not much that connects that particular rifle to the assassination either. It was found in the building that some witnesses thought shots came from.
Everybody knows him now..
;)
-
Martin, please consider my proposed scenario.... ( I've posted it many times) Where by Lee assumed that he was going to be made to appear that he had taken a shot at JFK but missed, and then had fled to Cuba. Where Lee thought he would be welcomed because Castro hated JFK after the embargo and blockade of Cuba. And that was the primary goal for Lee Oswald.....The infiltration of Cuba.....
This scenario answers all of your questions....
Walt, even if this scenario answers all my questions, it's still highly speculative and not really what I was looking for. You see, your scenario goes to motive where I am looking for how the framing of Oswald (if that's what happened) was actually done.
Yes, Lee ordered a carcano from Kleins ...and the paper trail is real.
If we assume that the paper trail is real and Oswald did order the rifle, then how does that relate to him being framed?
(However the assassinationof JFK wasn't even in the wind at that time...Lee and DeM were working to make it appear the Lee had tried to shoot Walker who also was a foe of Castro..... The same basic MO for both scams.....
Lee was working a make believe scenario while Hoover was pulling his strings and arranging for killers to be there to take advantage of the young, naive, patriotic sucker.
So, if I understand you correctly it is your opinion that ordering the rifle was not part of Oswald being framed for the Kennedy murder but merely that it came in handy.
-
If you discard all the ridiculous chaff (like "he left his wedding ring behind") that passes for evidence, you're not left with much. It's a weak, tainted and circumstantial case. It really boils down to trying to connect the C2766 rifle to the assassination that then trying to connect Oswald to the rifle. Trying to connect Oswald to the rifle is:
- The Klein's order blank.
Nothing here even needs to be the result of any framing. Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific, biased, and subjective (even more so in 1964), but especially from a few block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon. The HSCA panel even admitted that this is tenuous. And we only heard from the prosecution whose job it was to "convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin", and conveniently the original film was "lost".
- Oswald had access to the PO box listed on Klein's order blank.
But there is no record of shipment, delivery, or pickup by Oswald or anyone else. An assumption must be made without evidence that Oswald picked up a rifle nevertheless. Falsifying this would just require either handwriting "C2766" on a copy of a legitimate order, changing the address and/or name on a copy of a legitimate order (and then "losing" the film), and/or finding a legitimate order and dummying up an ID card with that name on it. It would take a single person in each case.
- A partial palm-print turned up a week later in Washington that Carl Day claimed he lifted from the rifle on the night of 11/22.
We've gone over all of the contradictions in Day's account, but this would take Day either knowingly fabricating evidence (which is not uncommon among police in general and the 1963 Dallas PD in particular), or Latona misidentifying a legitimate print (fingerprint identification is also biased and subjective and the FBI has a history of that too, eg. Brandon Mayfield). Again, only one person necessary.
- Howard Brennan said he could identify the shooter, then couldn't identify the shooter, then could identify the shooter
The problems with eyewitness accounts being unreliable are well known (see the work of Elizabeth Loftus and others) -- especially so in Brennan's case because he had a livelong pattern of embellishing his story more and more every time he told it, and he was tainted by seeing news reports. Doesn't require a knowing framing agent, just human error.
- Oswald was pictured in the backyard photos with a rifle that may or may not have been the same rifle.
Also doesn't require anybody to knowingly forge or alter a photo, since the identity of the rifle is nowhere near conclusive.
Is there anything else that actually connects that particular rifle to Oswald?
Let's not forget that there is not much that connects that particular rifle to the assassination either. It was found in the building that some witnesses thought shots came from.
If you discard all the ridiculous chaff (like "he left his wedding ring behind") that passes for evidence, you're not left with much. It's a weak, tainted and circumstantial case.
I agree
- The Klein's order blank.
Nothing here even needs to be the result of any framing. Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific, biased, and subjective (even more so in 1964), but especially from a few block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon. The HSCA panel even admitted that this is tenuous. And we only heard from the prosecution whose job it was to "convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin", and conveniently the original film was "lost".
If we assume that the order form was indeed falsified, it would nevertheless have had to enter Klein's system to produce the remainder of the paper trail, wouldn't it? Or do you think it's possible that both order form and the subsequent documents were falsified and added to Klein's records after the fact? And would that not make it part of a cover up rather than framing Oswald in advance?
- Oswald had access to the PO box listed on Klein's order blank.
But there is no record of shipment, delivery, or pickup by Oswald or anyone else. An assumption must be made without evidence that Oswald picked up a rifle nevertheless. Falsifying this would just require either handwriting "C2766" on a copy of a legitimate order, changing the address and/or name on a copy of a legitimate order (and then "losing" the film), and/or finding a legitimate order and dummying up an ID card with that name on it. It would take a single person in each case.
I agree that the only document available that even remotely suggests a rifle being shipped to Oswald's P.O. box is Waldman 7, but in order to generate a legitimate order (if that's what Waldman 7 is) and to later add "C2766" in handwriting, wouldn't one need to order a rifle from Klein's first? Or do you consider it possible that they used another, completely unrelated, legitimate order and altered it? If so, it could only have been done by the FBI, in which case one wonders again if it was done as part of the framing of Oswald in advance or as part of the cover up after the fact. The thing that bothers me about the latter option is that it would require the involvement or participation, at least to some extent, of the FBI agents that visited Klein's and checked their records.
- A partial palm-print turned up a week later in Washington that Carl Day claimed he lifted from the rifle on the night of 11/22.
We've gone over all of the contradictions in Day's account, but this would take Day either knowingly fabricating evidence (which is not uncommon among police in general and the 1963 Dallas PD in particular), or Latona misidentifying a legitimate print (fingerprint identification is also biased and subjective and the FBI has a history of that too, eg. Brandon Mayfield). Again, only one person necessary.
It seems to me that the fingerprint matter relates more to the cover up, where they had to sell Oswald's guilt to the public, rather than the framing of Oswald before the fact. I don't really see Day being part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald, but I do think it is possible he used Oswald's convenient death to fabricate evidence to support a very weak circumstantial case.
- Oswald was pictured in the backyard photos with a rifle that may or may not have been the same rifle.
Also doesn't require anybody to knowingly forge or alter a photo, since the identity of the rifle is nowhere near conclusive.
True, but getting Oswald to pose with a rifle and revolver that were not his own must have served some purpose. So, how did they get him to do it and what was it for? And if you get Oswald to pose with those weapons then you already have him involved, maybe unwittingly, in something, so why not go the extra step and simply have him order the rifle (and perhaps the revolver also) under the same pretense? In any event, if you assume that Oswald was set up, you can't really seperate IMO the Klein's transaction from the BY photos as the photos would be insignificant without the documentation of purchase.
The whole thing doesn't really make any sense, because the interrogation reports tell us that Oswald denied owning a rifle and Marina, in her Day 1 affidavit, did the same, yet we have Marina taking pictures of Oswald holding a rifle and we have Oswald allegedly ordering a rifle. Food for thought.....
-
The framing IMO began on Sunday night on live TV when Dan Rather described the Zapruder film to the nation (but of course the nation never saw that film publicly until 1975). In it, he described how he fell forward when he was hit in the head, leaving out the back and to the left motion. I know any number of people are going to disagree with this "back and to the left" movement as signifying that it was caused by a frontal shot.
I have high-speed videos of men whose heads are in the same position as Kennedy's and they both take high-powered shots to the back of the head - neither of them go back and to the left like Kennedy did. But the point being, someone told Rather to keep it simple when he, as a reporter, "described" what he saw.
Oswald was already dead at this point when Rather went on TV, so it's very easy to manipulate the story and we have proof of that with the Katzenbach memo. No films or photos needed to be faked as it's much easier to manipulate the record by a bunch of lawyers, suppressing or not interviewing witnesses who go against the grain of the official story, showcasing those who do, interrupting witness testimony and injecting statements that kind of change the shape of the testimony, and so on.
Further, no body alteration and throwing his body into the cargo of AF1 and being picked up by a thrumming helicopter to be squirreled away and altered by mad doctors with scalpels at the ready was needed as well as all of the other nonsense. This was all created by "esteemed" authors to make a buck and to shovel their bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns to the many suckers out there.
We must also include Oswald's own statements - he said he was a patsy; he said the BYP were fake and in time he could prove it; he said he was out front during the P parade (corroborated by two people now); a co-worker testified that LHO asked him what the ruckus was about before the shooting. And it's very, very possible he was caught on camera standing in the front vestibule moments after the shooting.
And to Walt Cakebread - your silly story about Oswald being told he was going to take a potshot at Kennedy is an old one. I remember reading that way back in the early 70s. It's a silly story. Oswald was no dummy and I think it'd be next to impossible to get anyone to go along with a ridiculous caper like that.
Ruth Payne got him the job there. Who had all of this additional paperwork on him afterward?
I invite you to go here:
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Distaso-CA.htm
This is the closing argument by the district attorney during the Scott Peterson case. I know - WTF are you posting this for as it's got nothing to do with JFK. But take a while to read it. In it, I love the parts where this guy says over and over again, "It makes no sense. It's unreasonable."
Then apply this thinking to the JFK case. Is it reasonable, for example, to expect a guy to fire world-class shots at the president, dodge a bunch of boxes and hide his weapon and then be down on the 2nd floor calm and collected drinking a soft drink when he's seen there 90 seconds afterward? And so on and so forth.
-
Walt, even if this scenario answers all my questions, it's still highly speculative and not really what I was looking for. You see, your scenario goes to motive where I am looking for how the framing of Oswald (if that's what happened) was actually done.
If we assume that the paper trail is real and Oswald did order the rifle, then how does that relate to him being framed?
So, if I understand you correctly it is your opinion that ordering the rifle was not part of Oswald being framed for the Kennedy murder but merely that it came in handy.
If we assume that the paper trail is real and Oswald did order the rifle, then how does that relate to him being framed?
Hoover had Lee under surveillance ( Postal inspector Holmes admitted that he was an FBI informant) because he believed that Lee was a turncoat traitor and a commie ....So he knew that Lee had received a rifle from Kleins, and he knew where to find the paperwork.... When he learned that the rifle had been purchased as a stage prop for the BY photo and as a throw down gun after the bullet was fired through Walker's window he hoped that Lee would succeed in escaping to Cuba.... And good riddance.
You may recall that George De M made a late night call at the Oswald's apt on the night of April 13, 1963. George wanted to know where his carcano was....and Lee told him that it was still under the brush pile near Walker's house.... George told him to go and bring it back because, their scheme had fizzled he wanted to get rid the rifle. Lee went out to Turtle Creek and brought the rifle to the apartment the next day. I believe that Lee returned the rifle to De M later in the week and De M took it to a pawn shop before he departed Dallas on April 19 bound for Washington DC. Where he spent a few days before leaving the country ......
Hoover knew where the rifle had been pawned....and he knew that Lee was a naive gullible sucker who could easily be set up as an assassin when the time was ripe.
-
If we assume that the order form was indeed falsified, it would nevertheless have had to enter Klein's system to produce the remainder of the paper trail, wouldn't it? Or do you think it's possible that both order form and the subsequent documents were falsified and added to Klein's records after the fact? And would that not make it part of a cover up rather than framing Oswald in advance?
Mr Weidmann, this is an extremely important observation!
In order to answer the question, 'How to frame Oswald?', we must break the question down into two distinct phases:
1. How were the JFK assassination conspirators to frame Oswald as X?
2. How were the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators to frame Oswald as the lone nut shooter?
We will lose our way if we assume that 'X = the lone nut shooter'!
Thumb1:
-
We must also include Oswald's own statements - he said he was a patsy; he said the BYP were fake and in time he could prove it; he said he was out front during the P parade (corroborated by two people now); a co-worker testified that LHO asked him what the ruckus was about before the shooting. And it's very, very possible he was caught on camera standing in the front vestibule moments after the shooting.
Mr Walton, it is most unusual----------and genuinely refreshing------------to see someone reconsider their position on an issue when confronted with new evidence!
Thumb1:
-
The frame up would require the following:
1) Frazier's sister has to move near Ruth Paine. Frazier has to move in and obtain a job at the TSBD. So two families.
2) Paine has to get Marina to live with her. So Oswald's wife.
3) Marina has to agree to move in with Paine.
4) Paine has to become aware of the job opening at the TSBD.
5) Oswald has to agree to apply and take the job. Add Truly.
6) Truly has to agree to hire Oswald and retain him until the assassination.
7) Oswald has to agree to remain on (his job history is not the most dependable) and show up on the day of the assassination. Add Oswald.
8) JFK has to come to Dallas during the appropriate time frame. Add JFK and members of his government.
9) Oswald has to order or an elaborate hoax has to be arranged to forge documents, pictures and force witnesses including his own wife and employees of Klein's to confirm that he ordered and received a specific rifle with a unique serial number. Add Klein's and witnesses that confirm Oswald possessed a rifle.
10) the motorcade has to pass the TSBD. That brings in the SS into the plot since they make that decision.
11) Oswald has to be somehow convinced to make an unplanned trip to the location where his rifle is stored the night before the assassination. He has to carry a large package the next morning or Frazier and his sister must lie about this.
12) A multitude of evidence has to be planted at the TSBD unnoticed by anyone including the gun, bullet casings, bag. Oswald's prints have to be found on many incriminating items. So the DPD and FBI are involved. Somehow the conspirators have to ensure Oswald is not in a location where someone can give him an alibi at the moment of the assassination. No easy task. Add more people.
13) There are allegations that someone is turning the power off in the building for some unspecified purpose (didn't happen but some CTers claim it did). So add another person.
14) You would need someone to actually assassinate JFK if it wasn't Oswald. So add at least one assassin who somehow gets away completely unnoticed. So likely had assistance. Add more people.
15) Somehow the conspirators have to ensure that no one has a picture or film of the real assassin. Add a team in DP.
16) Any evidence such as bullets or bullet fragments that don't come from Oswald's rifle have to be recovered and replaced. Add a team that has access to the body, any wounded person or other such evidence for the medical procedures etc. Somehow coerce the medical folks to lie. Add dozens more.
17) Add a team to kill Oswald after the assassination that involves recruiting a person willing to go to jail for the rest of their lives. Coordinate the murder of Oswald including getting access to do it. Hope that he doesn't screw it up or talk after the fact. Add dozens more to arrange Ruby's act and control what he says in custody for however long he lives.
18) Ensure everyone at the DPD, FBI or involved in any subsequent official investigation is on board with the plan. Add folks to cover up for decades to the present day if paranoid CTers are to be believed including somehow controlling the media.
Grand total. A cast of thousands from various walks of life including random citizens, family members, state and federal law enforcement, doctors, politicians, a team with a multitude of assignments before, during and after the assassination etc. The alternative is that Oswald put his gun in a bag, found a shooting location, and pulled the trigger. As the evidence confirms.
-
RICHARD SMITH: Grand total. A cast of thousands from various walks of life including random citizens, family members, state and federal law enforcement, doctors, politicians, a team with a multitude of assignments before, during and after the assassination etc. The alternative is that Oswald put his gun in a bag, found a shooting location, and pulled the trigger. As the evidence confirms.
***
LOL, this is funny. I always thought that CTers had wacky theories but I've learned something new here.
Oswald never got his day in court because, you know, according to this pristine evidence you mention, Jack Ruby was being patriotic and wanted to save poor Jackie the grief of coming back to Dallas to testify. That's a real confirmation of the evidence alright. LOL
-
RICHARD SMITH: Grand total. A cast of thousands from various walks of life including random citizens, family members, state and federal law enforcement, doctors, politicians, a team with a multitude of assignments before, during and after the assassination etc. The alternative is that Oswald put his gun in a bag, found a shooting location, and pulled the trigger. As the evidence confirms.
***
LOL, this is funny. I always thought that CTers had wacky theories but I've learned something new here.
Oswald never got his day in court because, you know, according to this pristine evidence you mention, Jack Ruby was being patriotic and wanted to save poor Jackie the grief of coming back to Dallas to testify. That's a real confirmation of the evidence alright. LOL
Yes, facts are difficult things when applied to fantasy. The JFK assassination is unique in many respects that shed light on the absurdity of it being a planned event involving the framing of Oswald. In a planned scenario, for example, it would be much simpler to move your patsy to the target instead of the reverse. But here the President of the United States must be moved into a position from which Oswald can assassinate him with all the complexity and uncertainty that entails. It takes the involvement of numerous people from all walks of life to put Oswald in his job at the TSBD and ensure the president comes to Dallas and drives by that building.
All somehow centered around the Mr. Magoo-like cooperation of a flightly loon like Oswald who might quit any day or not show up and blow the whole complex frame up. It's laughable Bigfoot nonsense to suggest that all the machinations necessary to put Oswald in the TSBD and then bring JFK to him would have been planned and manipulated by someone. And that doesn't even get into pulling the assassination off with someone else and covering that up. It's not just framing Oswald, but also committing the assassination, covering that up, and then killing Oswald in police custody and then covering that up. And then covering up those in the know forever. Absurd.
-
The framing IMO began on Sunday night on live TV when Dan Rather described the Zapruder film to the nation (but of course the nation never saw that film publicly until 1975). In it, he described how he fell forward when he was hit in the head, leaving out the back and to the left motion. I know any number of people are going to disagree with this "back and to the left" movement as signifying that it was caused by a frontal shot.
I have high-speed videos of men whose heads are in the same position as Kennedy's and they both take high-powered shots to the back of the head - neither of them go back and to the left like Kennedy did. But the point being, someone told Rather to keep it simple when he, as a reporter, "described" what he saw.
Oswald was already dead at this point when Rather went on TV, so it's very easy to manipulate the story and we have proof of that with the Katzenbach memo. No films or photos needed to be faked as it's much easier to manipulate the record by a bunch of lawyers, suppressing or not interviewing witnesses who go against the grain of the official story, showcasing those who do, interrupting witness testimony and injecting statements that kind of change the shape of the testimony, and so on.
Further, no body alteration and throwing his body into the cargo of AF1 and being picked up by a thrumming helicopter to be squirreled away and altered by mad doctors with scalpels at the ready was needed as well as all of the other nonsense. This was all created by "esteemed" authors to make a buck and to shovel their bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns to the many suckers out there.
We must also include Oswald's own statements - he said he was a patsy; he said the BYP were fake and in time he could prove it; he said he was out front during the P parade (corroborated by two people now); a co-worker testified that LHO asked him what the ruckus was about before the shooting. And it's very, very possible he was caught on camera standing in the front vestibule moments after the shooting.
And to Walt Cakebread - your silly story about Oswald being told he was going to take a potshot at Kennedy is an old one. I remember reading that way back in the early 70s. It's a silly story. Oswald was no dummy and I think it'd be next to impossible to get anyone to go along with a ridiculous caper like that.
Ruth Payne got him the job there. Who had all of this additional paperwork on him afterward?
I invite you to go here:
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Distaso-CA.htm
This is the closing argument by the district attorney during the Scott Peterson case. I know - WTF are you posting this for as it's got nothing to do with JFK. But take a while to read it. In it, I love the parts where this guy says over and over again, "It makes no sense. It's unreasonable."
Then apply this thinking to the JFK case. Is it reasonable, for example, to expect a guy to fire world-class shots at the president, dodge a bunch of boxes and hide his weapon and then be down on the 2nd floor calm and collected drinking a soft drink when he's seen there 90 seconds afterward? And so on and so forth.
The framing IMO began on Sunday night on live TV when Dan Rather described the Zapruder film to the nation
Michael,
I agree that Oswald's death made a cover up easier but I seriously doubt that it would have been possible to frame him without some pre-assassination preparations to set him up. In this thread I would like to focus on the rifle purchase and I can't really see how a mere cover up could have arranged a paper trail for the rifle purchase that quickly. In other words, if Oswald was indeed framed there is more to it than just a cover up after the fact.
-
Mr Weidmann, this is an extremely important observation!
In order to answer the question, 'How to frame Oswald?', we must break the question down into two distinct phases:
1. How were the JFK assassination conspirators to frame Oswald as X?
2. How were the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators to frame Oswald as the lone nut shooter?
We will lose our way if we assume that 'X = the lone nut shooter'!
Thumb1:
Agreed
-
The framing IMO began on Sunday night on live TV when Dan Rather described the Zapruder film to the nation
Michael,
I agree that Oswald's death made a cover up easier but I seriously doubt that it would have been possible to frame him without some pre-assassination preparations to set him up. In this thread I would like to focus on the rifle purchase and I can't really see how a mere cover up could have arranged a paper trail for the rifle purchase that quickly. In other words, if Oswald was indeed framed there is more to it than just a cover up after the fact.
Maybe the rifle really was bought by him? Maybe Mr Oswald really did shoot (at?) General Walker?
Plenty of CTers----e.g. Mr A. Marsh----have no problem with this idea.
If they are right, then all one would need posit is conspirators who knew about the rifle and where it was kept.
They would also know how well and truly screwed Mr Oswald would be when his rifle was discovered at the scene of the crime!
Thumb1:
-
The frame up would require the following:
1) Frazier's sister has to move near Ruth Paine. Frazier has to move in and obtain a job at the TSBD. So two families.
2) Paine has to get Marina to live with her. So Oswald's wife.
3) Marina has to agree to move in with Paine.
4) Paine has to become aware of the job opening at the TSBD.
5) Oswald has to agree to apply and take the job. Add Truly.
6) Truly has to agree to hire Oswald and retain him until the assassination.
7) Oswald has to agree to remain on (his job history is not the most dependable) and show up on the day of the assassination. Add Oswald.
8) JFK has to come to Dallas during the appropriate time frame. Add JFK and members of his government.
9) Oswald has to order or an elaborate hoax has to be arranged to forge documents, pictures and force witnesses including his own wife and employees of Klein's to confirm that he ordered and received a specific rifle with a unique serial number. Add Klein's and witnesses that confirm Oswald possessed a rifle.
10) the motorcade has to pass the TSBD. That brings in the SS into the plot since they make that decision.
11) Oswald has to be somehow convinced to make an unplanned trip to the location where his rifle is stored the night before the assassination. He has to carry a large package the next morning or Frazier and his sister must lie about this.
12) A multitude of evidence has to be planted at the TSBD unnoticed by anyone including the gun, bullet casings, bag. Oswald's prints have to be found on many incriminating items. So the DPD and FBI are involved. Somehow the conspirators have to ensure Oswald is not in a location where someone can give him an alibi at the moment of the assassination. No easy task. Add more people.
13) There are allegations that someone is turning the power off in the building for some unspecified purpose (didn't happen but some CTers claim it did). So add another person.
14) You would need someone to actually assassinate JFK if it wasn't Oswald. So add at least one assassin who somehow gets away completely unnoticed. So likely had assistance. Add more people.
15) Somehow the conspirators have to ensure that no one has a picture or film of the real assassin. Add a team in DP.
16) Any evidence such as bullets or bullet fragments that don't come from Oswald's rifle have to be recovered and replaced. Add a team that has access to the body, any wounded person or other such evidence for the medical procedures etc. Somehow coerce the medical folks to lie. Add dozens more.
17) Add a team to kill Oswald after the assassination that involves recruiting a person willing to go to jail for the rest of their lives. Coordinate the murder of Oswald including getting access to do it. Hope that he doesn't screw it up or talk after the fact. Add dozens more to arrange Ruby's act and control what he says in custody for however long he lives.
18) Ensure everyone at the DPD, FBI or involved in any subsequent official investigation is on board with the plan. Add folks to cover up for decades to the present day if paranoid CTers are to be believed including somehow controlling the media.
Grand total. A cast of thousands from various walks of life including random citizens, family members, state and federal law enforcement, doctors, politicians, a team with a multitude of assignments before, during and after the assassination etc. The alternative is that Oswald put his gun in a bag, found a shooting location, and pulled the trigger. As the evidence confirms.
As predicted in the OP
I would like to try another approach to find out if it was even possible to set up Oswald as the patsy for the Kennedy murder. For the time being, I am purposely leaving the Tippit murder out of it because that could have been an unrelated or a spur of the moment matter. Whenever you try to discuss the possibility of Oswald having been framed, the immediate response from the LNs is that a conspiracy to frame Oswald would have required the involvement of thousands of people and I don't really believe that's true. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that Oswald was an innocent bystander. For him to be framed for this crime (if that's what happened) he would have needed to be involved at least to some extend in some scheme.
So, here we have Richard, with a bunch of flawed hyperbole strawman arguments which don't hold water and nothing of any substance to add to the topic of this thread.
Bye Richard... take your fancy story elsewhere. Thumb1:
-
The framing IMO began on Sunday night on live TV when Dan Rather described the Zapruder film to the nation (but of course the nation never saw that film publicly until 1975). In it, he described how he fell forward when he was hit in the head, leaving out the back and to the left motion. I know any number of people are going to disagree with this "back and to the left" movement as signifying that it was caused by a frontal shot.
I have high-speed videos of men whose heads are in the same position as Kennedy's and they both take high-powered shots to the back of the head - neither of them go back and to the left like Kennedy did. But the point being, someone told Rather to keep it simple when he, as a reporter, "described" what he saw.
Oswald was already dead at this point when Rather went on TV, so it's very easy to manipulate the story and we have proof of that with the Katzenbach memo. No films or photos needed to be faked as it's much easier to manipulate the record by a bunch of lawyers, suppressing or not interviewing witnesses who go against the grain of the official story, showcasing those who do, interrupting witness testimony and injecting statements that kind of change the shape of the testimony, and so on.
Further, no body alteration and throwing his body into the cargo of AF1 and being picked up by a thrumming helicopter to be squirreled away and altered by mad doctors with scalpels at the ready was needed as well as all of the other nonsense. This was all created by "esteemed" authors to make a buck and to shovel their bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns to the many suckers out there.
We must also include Oswald's own statements - he said he was a patsy; he said the BYP were fake and in time he could prove it; he said he was out front during the P parade (corroborated by two people now); a co-worker testified that LHO asked him what the ruckus was about before the shooting. And it's very, very possible he was caught on camera standing in the front vestibule moments after the shooting.
And to Walt Cakebread - your silly story about Oswald being told he was going to take a potshot at Kennedy is an old one. I remember reading that way back in the early 70s. It's a silly story. Oswald was no dummy and I think it'd be next to impossible to get anyone to go along with a ridiculous caper like that.
Ruth Payne got him the job there. Who had all of this additional paperwork on him afterward?
I invite you to go here:
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Distaso-CA.htm
This is the closing argument by the district attorney during the Scott Peterson case. I know - WTF are you posting this for as it's got nothing to do with JFK. But take a while to read it. In it, I love the parts where this guy says over and over again, "It makes no sense. It's unreasonable."
Then apply this thinking to the JFK case. Is it reasonable, for example, to expect a guy to fire world-class shots at the president, dodge a bunch of boxes and hide his weapon and then be down on the 2nd floor calm and collected drinking a soft drink when he's seen there 90 seconds afterward? And so on and so forth.
I have high-speed videos of men whose heads are in the same position as Kennedy's and they both take high-powered shots to the back of the head - neither of them go back and to the left like Kennedy did. But the point being, someone told Rather to keep it simple when he, as a reporter, "described" what he saw.
Link to those films.
Name the 'someone' who told Rather what to say
-
The framing IMO began on Sunday night on live TV when Dan Rather described the Zapruder film to the nation
Michael,
I agree that Oswald's death made a cover up easier but I seriously doubt that it would have been possible to frame him without some pre-assassination preparations to set him up. In this thread I would like to focus on the rifle purchase and I can't really see how a mere cover up could have arranged a paper trail for the rifle purchase that quickly. In other words, if Oswald was indeed framed there is more to it than just a cover up after the fact.
Fwiw....I'm convinced that Lee did order a carcano and the one sent to PO Box 2915 had the serial number C 2766..... And it is possibly the same rifle that is now in the national archives....but not necessarily...... Even I could create a carcano with that serial number. It would have been a piece- o- cake for an intelligence org, like the CIA or the FBI. The point is.... The plotter's didn't need the carcano that was sent from Kleins.....They could have easily created a duplicate.
-
As predicted in the OP
So, here we have Richard, with a bunch of flawed hyperbole strawman arguments which don't hold water and nothing of any substance to add to the topic of this thread.
Bye Richard... take your fancy story elsewhere. Thumb1:
Martin running from the facts. Shocking. I read here every single day that anyone who provided evidence against Oswald lied and/or might be part of the plot to frame him. But then they run from the obvious implication of a large conspiracy due to the absurdity of it. Very amusing that there is dim recognition that the implication of their theories having any validity would be absurd. So contrarians like Martin always want to have it both ways even if inconsistent. Everyone is suspect but they won't acknowledge the direct implication of their suspicion because it is laughable. Imagine a Ruth Paine suburban Quaker housewife and master plotter behind the assassination!
-
Martin running from the facts. Shocking.
I would say that Agent Smith has a flair for dramatics....but he doesn't.
-
Frame-Up Tips for Dummies
1) Don't plant Oswald behind the motorcade and then claim the shots came from the front
2) See #1
-
My opinion currently is that if it is possible that Jack Dougherty took the West elevator down passing by Baker and Truly AND also Dorothy Garner, and the elevator not seen moving, that is it therefore EQUALLY possible that 1 or 2 shooters from the 6th floor could have done likewise.
Since Jack Dougherty 's elevator trip and subsequent apparent conversation with Eddie Piper is NOT confirmed by either Piper NOR by Troy West, then its EQUALLY possible that Troy West and Piper did not see a shooter or shooters upon reaching 1st floor on that same elevator.
The time of this descent by either Jack or the shooter(s) from 6th floor must have been only after Truly had looked up the shaft as late as 70 sec post shots, before he and Baker went up the staircase. Its possible the West elevator could have come down passing the 2nd floor landing in the 15 second interval of time Baker and Truly are engaged with Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. However, the top of the elevator should have been visible when Truly/Baker leave lunchroom and cross past the shaft.
This leaves that the West elevator came down JUST AS Baker and Truly have ascended about half way up the 2nd floor staircase. The time therefore would be about 1 minute 50 sec post shots, when West elevator is passing by the 2nd floor landing, and it stops at about 2 min post shots on the 1st floor, as Baker and Truly go past the elevator shaft on the 3rd floor, thus not seeing or hearing elevator or cables moving, OR seeing top of elevator when they passed by the shaft on 2nd floor landing.
I
-
Martin running from the facts. Shocking. I read here every single day that anyone who provided evidence against Oswald lied and/or might be part of the plot to frame him. But then they run from the obvious implication of a large conspiracy due to the absurdity of it. Very amusing that there is dim recognition that the implication of their theories having any validity would be absurd. So contrarians like Martin always want to have it both ways even if inconsistent. Everyone is suspect but they won't acknowledge the direct implication of their suspicion because it is laughable. Imagine a Ruth Paine suburban Quaker housewife and master plotter behind the assassination!
Martin running from the facts.
This could have some meaning if you only had a basic understanding of what a fact really is. Since you don't, there isn't much more to say.
-
I would say that Agent Smith has a flair for dramatics....but he doesn't.
Indeed.... hyperbole and strawman arguments are more his game.
But to some extend completely understandable as it lines up perfectly with the LN strategy of presenting anything else but 'Oswald did it alone' as an absurdity by blowing the whole thing out of all proportions.
-
There are some weaknesses in lining up a bunch of facts to show how impossible it would have been for the framesters to put it all together.
If LHO was framed, why do we have to sign on to the argument that he was framed to shoot JFK from the TSBD? Maybe LHO was being groomed/framed to shoot JFK (or someone else) from a location unknown to us? Then, his hiring at the TSBD would be a fortuitous circumstance which is exactly what the LNs claim it was in the first place.
-
Indeed.... hyperbole and strawman arguments are more his game.
But to some extend completely understandable as it lines up perfectly with the LN strategy of presenting anything else but 'Oswald did it alone' as an absurdity by blowing the whole thing out of all proportions.
All you lot have to do is prove that even one person other than your shooter(s) knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
-
My problem with the pre event set up of Oswald is the MC riifle with misaligned scope. The only way to really explain that is to suggest the conpirators, haviing waited until the very last night, of Thursday night in the middle of the night, to steal the rifle, thus having not much time to test fire it, and thus realize the scope was wildly off in the elevation, without the shim undere the mount to correct for that.
This presumes of course that Oswald actually DID order the riifle, and the FBI and or CIA knew he had the rifle, possibly thru information from Georger DeMorhenschildt, and or Mrs Paine who imo,were very likely CIA "assets" at the least, and had been assigned to observer Oswald as a potential USSR spy returning to USA with another potential USSR spy, his wife, Marinna. The rifle may have been actually used by Oswald to shoot one shot at Walker, and once that became known, probably by DeMorhenshildt, that's when the pre set up really begins.
If this is the correct scenario, then the reason not to have stolen the rifle from Oswald, until that VERY NIGHT, or in the very early hours of Friday morning, was to minimize the risk that Oswald would discover his rifle missing. This applies to his boarding house as well, which is also where Oswald may have kept his rifle instead of in the Paines garage.
Perhaps the reason for Oswald to be wishing to return to his boarding room after the shooting, apparently asap, is that it was to check to see if his worst suspicion were true, that his rifle may have been stolen. Upon finding that to be true, is why aOSwald DEPARTED in haste, from his boarding room, with a revolver, and his original destination may have been towards Jack Rubys house, rather than the Texas Theater.
.
-
All you lot have to do is prove that even one person other than your shooter(s) knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
'' you lot'' LOL
-
There are some weaknesses in lining up a bunch of facts to show how impossible it would have been for the framesters to put it all together.
If LHO was framed, why do we have to sign on to the argument that he was framed to shoot JFK from the TSBD? Maybe LHO was being groomed/framed to shoot JFK (or someone else) from a location unknown to us? Then, his hiring at the TSBD would be a fortuitous circumstance which is exactly what the LNs claim it was in the first place.
There are some weaknesses in lining up a bunch of facts to show how impossible it would have been for the framesters to put it all together.
Indeed.
If LHO was framed, why do we have to sign on to the argument that he was framed to shoot JFK from the TSBD?
We don't. Or at least, I don't.
Maybe LHO was being groomed/framed to shoot JFK (or someone else) from a location unknown to us?
Could be?. but, if we speculate further, there may well not have been a specific mark in play at the time of the rifle purchase.
Then, his hiring at the TSBD would be a fortuitous circumstance which is exactly what the LNs claim it was in the first place.
It's possible
-
Martin running from the facts.
This could have some meaning if you only had a basic understanding of what a fact really is. Since you don't, there isn't much more to say.
Here's my 'basic understanding' of this particular fact: You lot yet have to prove that anyone other than the shooter(s) knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
-
My problem with the pre event set up of Oswald is the MC riifle with misaligned scope. The only way to really explain that is to suggest the conpirators, haviing waited until the very last night, of Thursday night in the middle of the night, to steal the rifle, thus having not much time to test fire it, and thus realize the scope was wildly off in the elevation, without the shim undere the mount to correct for that.
This presumes of course that Oswald actually DID order the riifle, and the FBI and or CIA knew he had the rifle, possibly thru information from Georger DeMorhenschildt, and or Mrs Paine who imo,were very likely CIA "assets" at the least, and had been assigned to observer Oswald as a potential USSR spy returning to USA with another potential USSR spy, his wife, Marinna. The rifle may have been actually used by Oswald to shoot one shot at Walker, and once that became known, probably by DeMorhenshildt, that's when the pre set up really begins.
If this is the correct scenario, then the reason not to have stolen the rifle from Oswald, until that VERY NIGHT, or in the very early hours of Friday morning, was to minimize the risk that Oswald would discover his rifle missing. This applies to his boarding house as well, which is also where Oswald may have kept his rifle instead of in the Paines garage.
Perhaps the reason for Oswald to be wishing to return to his boarding room after the shooting, apparently asap, is that it was to check to see if his worst suspicion were true, that his rifle may have been stolen. Upon finding that to be true, is why aOSwald DEPARTED in haste, from his boarding room, with a revolver, and his original destination may have been towards Jack Rubys house, rather than the Texas Theater.
Zeon,
The only evidence to link the MC rifle found at the TSBD to Oswald is a micro film photo copy of an order form. The only evidence to link the rifle to the killing of Kennedy are the bullet C399 (which has no credible chain of custody) and some bullet fragments allegedly found in the limo at the Secret Service garage in Washington by unauthorised personal (who had no business searching the car) and subsequently given to the FBI agents who came to examine the car.
With this in mind, I'm not even convinced that C2766 was fired at all on 11/22/63.
-
Here's my 'basic understanding' of this particular fact: You lot yet have to prove that anyone other than the shooter(s) knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
Oh boy... the broken record returns....
You really think that you are being really, really clever here and on to something, right?
Why don't you prove that Oswald knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day? By trying to do so, you will perhaps understand how stupid your question is.... and that btw is a fact!
-
Oh boy... the broken record returns....
You really think that you are being really, really clever here and on to something, right?
Why don't you prove that Oswald knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day? By trying to do so, you will perhaps understand how stupid your question is.... and that btw is a fact!
So you can't prove any conspiracy. Got it.
Point out where I laid the blame on Oswald. I clearly said 'the shooter(s)'
-
So you can't prove any conspiracy. Got it.
Point out where I laid the blame on Oswald. I clearly said 'the shooter(s)'
Great, you didn't mean Oswald and I never claimed that I wanted to prove a conspiracy or even that there was one. Thumb1:
Too bad that you jumped to a conclusion again, but hey, you can't win them all?..
But it's good of you to at least acknowledge that you can't prove Oswald knew there was going to be a murder that day. Could be that it might take you a bit more time to understand that with this in mind your question is just silly.
-
Great, you didn't mean Oswald and I never claimed that I wanted to prove a conspiracy or even that there was one. Thumb1:
Too bad that you jumped to a conclusion again, but hey, you can't win them all?..
But it's good of you to at least acknowledge that you can't prove Oswald knew there was going to be a murder that day. Could be that it might take you a bit more time to understand that with this in mind your question is just silly.
Feel free to name your shooter
As for me, I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably killed Kennedy
From your OP:
I would like to try another approach to find out if it was even possible to set up Oswald as the patsy for the Kennedy murder.
>>> Pretty sure it would take a conspiracy to set up a patsy
Yeah, you're not interested in a conspiracy and don't care who the assassin was (or was that an Iacoletti declaration)
The fence sitter troll trick of attempting to avoid naming names.
-
'' you lot'' LOL
There you go again, attempting to separate yourself from the CT conspiracy-monger roiling masses.
Lord Haughty-Weidmann the Condescender
-
Feel free to name your shooter
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably killed Kennedy
From your OP:
I would like to try another approach to find out if it was even possible to set up Oswald as the patsy for the Kennedy murder.
>>> Pretty sure it would take a conspiracy to set up a patsy
Yeah, you're not interested in a conspiracy and don't care who the assassin was (or was that an Iacoletti declaration)
The fence sitter troll trick of not having to name names.
Once again you show everybody what a shallow fool you are.
I would like to try another approach to find out if it was even possible to set up Oswald as the patsy for the Kennedy murder.
>>> Pretty sure it would take a conspiracy to set up a patsy
Only ''pretty sure''? Of course it takes a conspiracy to set up a patsy!
And so, finding out it if was even possible to set up Oswald, by consequence will also provide a clue to whether a conspiracy was possible/likely or not.
Yeah, you're not interested in a conspiracy and don't care who the assassin was (or was that an Iacoletti declaration)
I never said that I was not interested in a conspiracy (if there was one). You confuse me with yourself who has no interest whatsoever in a conspiracy, even if there was one! Unlike you, I have no horse in this race. I just want to find out what really happened. If that means Oswald did it alone, so be it and if it means it was a conspiracy after all, that's ok with me as well.
The fence sitter troll trick of not having to name names.
Says the weasel who never goes beyond ''I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably killed Kennedy''
-
There you go again, attempting to separate yourself from the CT conspiracy-monger roiling masses.
Lord Haughty-Weidmann the Condescender
I don't have to separate myself from anything since I was never part of anything in the first place.
The fact that fools like you, Chappy the court jester, can not differentiate between people advancing conspiracy theories (including some extremely crazy ones) and those who are merely interested in finding out what really happened doesn't mean I belong to some group. It just means that people like you are shallow enough to paint everybody with the same brush.
Btw as it is your only purpose to distract discussion away from the topic of the OP, I will be, from now on, ignoring your posts in this thread that do not deal with the actual topic. Now why don't you just run and try to disrupt another thread with your nonsense?
-
Once again you show everybody what a shallow fool you are.
>>> The shallow fools are those that claim the all evidence is faked, planted or altered in some way. The uber-fools are those who claim there's no evidence at all.
Only ''pretty sure''? Of course it takes a conspiracy to set up a patsy!
>>> Pretty sure: Meant sarcastically. It's an urban thang
And so, finding out it if was even possible to set up Oswald, by consequence will also provide a clue to whether a conspiracy was possible/likely or not.
>>> ProbablyOswald was behind the motorcade and would have really needed magic bullets to make it appear he was shooting from the front.
>>Yeah, you're not interested in a conspiracy and don't care who the assassin was (or was that an Iacoletti declaration)
I never said that I was not interested in a conspiracy (if there was one). You confuse me with yourself who has no interest whatsoever in a conspiracy, even if there was one! Unlike you, I have no horse in this race. I just want to find out what really happened. If that means Oswald did it alone, so be it and if it means it was a conspiracy after all, that's ok with me as well.
>>> Everybody comes to these forums looking for a conspiracy. Including we LNers. Haven't hit pay dirt quite yet. Too soon I guess...
>>The fence sitter troll trick of not having to name names.
Says the weasel who never goes beyond ''I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably killed Kennedy''
>>> Again: Meant sarcastically. Anyway, the WC arrived at 'probable'... the HSCA at 'likely'. Others here declare Oswald either innocent or framed. Nothing supporting those notions has been proven AFAIK
-
CHAPMAN: I have high-speed videos of men whose heads are in the same position as Kennedy's and they both take high-powered shots to the back of the head - neither of them go back and to the left like Kennedy did. But the point being, someone told Rather to keep it simple when he, as a reporter, "described" what he saw.
Link to those films.
Name the 'someone' who told Rather what to say
****
I still have the video. It's amazing when you see it but I'd rather not post it here as it's extremely gruesome. Last time I posted it on another forum I was reported, even though the crybaby that reported me didn't have any problem whatsoever posting Kennedy's death photos over and over and over again.
Look around on erog sites (spell that word the other way and you'll get it). Meanwhile, trust me when I say that when you see those shots and JFK side by side, the back and to the left makes no sense unless some type of shot was fired in front of the car.
You're missing the larger point about Rather. *WHY* did he report it that way? Why not be honest about it. He obviously wasn't, which is the crux of this entire case - the honest, vigorous pursuit of what really happened that day.
-
I don't have to separate myself from anything since I was never part of anything in the first place.
>>> Sounds like you would never join anything that would have you as a member
The fact that fools like you, Chappy the court jester, can not differentiate between people advancing conspiracy theories (including some extremely crazy ones) and those who are merely interested in finding out what really happened doesn't mean I belong to some group. It just means that people like you are shallow enough to paint everybody with the same brush.
>>> You're merely interested in arguing for sake of same
Btw as it is your only purpose to distract discussion away from the topic of the OP, I will be, from now on, ignoring your posts in this thread that do not deal with the actual topic. Now why don't you just run and try to disrupt another thread with your nonsense?
>>> :'( That's like a kid taking his basketball and running home to mama because he can't have his way.
-
CHAPMAN: I have high-speed videos of men whose heads are in the same position as Kennedy's and they both take high-powered shots to the back of the head - neither of them go back and to the left like Kennedy did. But the point being, someone told Rather to keep it simple when he, as a reporter, "described" what he saw.
Link to those films.
Name the 'someone' who told Rather what to say
****
I still have the video. It's amazing when you see it but I'd rather not post it here as it's extremely gruesome. Last time I posted it on another forum I was reported, even though the crybaby that reported me didn't have any problem whatsoever posting Kennedy's death photos over and over and over again.
Look around on erog sites (spell that word the other way and you'll get it). Meanwhile, trust me when I say that when you see those shots and JFK side by side, the back and to the left makes no sense unless some type of shot was fired in front of the car.
You're missing the larger point about Rather. *WHY* did he report it that way? Why not be honest about it. He obviously wasn't, which is the crux of this entire case - the honest, vigorous pursuit of what really happened that day.
The shooter would have been equally knocked backwards
-
Sorry Bill. Not according to the video. Two people - count them two - are murdered - one right after the other - with near identical shots to the back of the head from very close range by a high powered automatic rifle. It's so horrible that one's head splits open just like you see in the Z film. And when that video is put side by side with the Z film at 313, the results are quite dramatic.
Meanwhile, aren't you just the least bit curious...do you ever just ask yourself how someone can pull off the shooting feat LHO was accused of, hurry up and hide the gun, go down to the second floor, fish change out of his pocket, calmly sit down and eat his cheese sandwich and fruit and sip his soft drink 90 seconds after it all happened? Or do you have some hidden agenda, perhaps you don't like the Kennedys for whatever reason and, therefore, he doesn't "deserve" a truthful and vigorous investigation of his death?
Even Castro questioned this remarkable shooting feat in a speech he gave just days after the murder.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cH2u4tEZ7KM/T1nsM3Dy72I/AAAAAAAAA_U/FuBkJjExprs/s1600/an-inconvenient-truth7.jpg)
-
To Martin W - here's some good info about the Klein order etc
http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
-
Feel free to name your shooter
As for me, I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably killed Kennedy
Ah yes, the great jurisprudential principle, 'Better to blame a named innocent man than an unnamed guilty one'! :D
-
There are some weaknesses in lining up a bunch of facts to show how impossible it would have been for the framesters to put it all together.
If LHO was framed, why do we have to sign on to the argument that he was framed to shoot JFK from the TSBD? Maybe LHO was being groomed/framed to shoot JFK (or someone else) from a location unknown to us? Then, his hiring at the TSBD would be a fortuitous circumstance which is exactly what the LNs claim it was in the first place.
In 1961, Abraham Bolden became the first African-American to serve on the Presidential Protective Division of the Secret Service. Bolden saw this as the highest honor as he admired John F. Kennedy for being a president who truly wanted to help the black people of America. Other Secret Service agents disagreed, both with Bolden and his opinion of JFK. He was called the ?n? word numerous times and in the years leading up to 11/22/63, he overheard other agents saying ?that bastard has to die,? regarding President Kennedy.
https://medium.com/@SwordOfCamelot/abraham-bolden-the-secret-service-and-the-jfk-assassination-3f4e61e294ba
Kennedy's days were numbered. If it wasn't Dallas, it would have been somewhere else with a lone assassin behind the trigger.
There were a few of those.
-
Indeed.... hyperbole and strawman arguments are more his game.
But to some extend completely understandable as it lines up perfectly with the LN strategy of presenting anything else but 'Oswald did it alone' as an absurdity by blowing the whole thing out of all proportions.
How exactly is it "hyperbole" and "strawman" when in almost every single instance in which there is evidence of Oswald's guilt (and there is a mountain) you imply it is the product of fakery or lies? How and why could all this evidence exist from a wide variety of different sources including Oswald's wife, acquaintances, random witnesses he encountered on 11.22, state and federal law enforcement, Klein's, medical folks, and WC investigators. Just the number of people that would have to be involved in a frame up alone would be mind boggling and date back years before the assassination. That doesn't even get into the assassination itself. If they were framing Oswald, then presumably more people would have to pull off the assassination and cover up whoever pulled the trigger. And then someone has to arrange killing Oswald while in custody. No easy task. They have to recruit someone willing to go to jail for the rest of his life and make sure he keeps quiet. But you want to eat your cake and have it too. Everyone is suspect but you refuse to acknowledge that vast nature of the conspiracy that necessitates.
-
How exactly is it "hyperbole" and "strawman" when in almost every single instance in which there is evidence of Oswald's guilt (and there is a mountain) you imply it is the product of fakery or lies? How and why could all this evidence exist from a wide variety of different sources including Oswald's wife, acquaintances, random witnesses he encountered on 11.22, state and federal law enforcement, Klein's, medical folks, and WC investigators. Just the number of people that would have to be involved in a frame up alone would be mind boggling and date back years before the assassination. That doesn't even get into the assassination itself. If they were framing Oswald, then presumably more people would have to pull off the assassination and cover up whoever pulled the trigger. And then someone has to arrange killing Oswald while in custody. No easy task. They have to recruit someone willing to go to jail for the rest of his life and make sure he keeps quiet. But you want to eat your cake and have it too. Everyone is suspect but you refuse to acknowledge that vast nature of the conspiracy that necessitates.
Just the number of people that would have to be involved in a frame up alone would be mind boggling and date back years before the assassination.
Thank you for proving the point I was making. Thumb1:
-
Just the number of people that would have to be involved in a frame up alone would be mind boggling and date back years before the assassination.
Thank you for proving the point I was making. Thumb1:
It's a straightforward question. Why so scared? Maybe you could help us by clarifying which evidence against Oswald that you accept as genuine (i.e. not the product of fakery or lies). It must be most everything since you are now running from a claim of a large conspiracy. How about the documentation that confirms Oswald ordered and was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number? Genuine or not? Don't jump ahead to whether this proves Oswald pulled the trigger. Just whether Oswald ordered, paid for, and was sent a specific rifle as confirmed by the documentation. The same rifle that ends up on the 6th floor.
-
It's a straightforward question. Why so scared? Maybe you could help us by clarifying which evidence against Oswald that you accept as genuine (i.e. not the product of fakery or lies). It must be most everything since you are now running from a claim of a large conspiracy. How about the documentation that confirms Oswald ordered and was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number? Genuine or not? Don't jump ahead to whether this proves Oswald pulled the trigger. Just whether Oswald ordered, paid for, and was sent a specific rifle as confirmed by the documentation. The same rifle that ends up on the 6th floor.
Show us the time-stamped bank endorsement stamps, Mr Smith!
You can't even show us one, can you?
Just as you can't explain this!
(https://i.imgur.com/aFLn4jM.jpg)
:D
"Commit a crime, and the earth is made of glass. Some damning circumstance always transpires." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
-
Here's my 'basic understanding' of this particular fact: You lot yet have to prove that anyone other than the shooter(s) knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
Milteer knew this was in the making, and Walker knew too, that's why he took the flight for his alibi, he set up the shooting on himself in a similar fashion as part of this alibi, and it also played a part in framing the patsy.
The military who were dealing in WW2 weapons had people in Kleins as well, to manipulate pieces of paper work, is a piece of cake, bottom line is Oswald had no clue what happened on the day.
-
Show us the time-stamped bank endorsement stamps, Mr Smith!
You can't even show us one, can you?
Just as you can't explain this!
(https://i.imgur.com/aFLn4jM.jpg)
:D
"Commit a crime, and the earth is made of glass. Some damning circumstance always transpires." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Whew. You are in some type of compulsion disorder over that silly form you have posted a million times now. Stick to the appropriate thread on that one (which has already been answered by Ruth Paine - they are her curtain rods kept in her garage from the time of the assassination). Ironically, the relevant implication here is to add even more conspirators. I also put you down as believing the evidence that Oswald purchased and was sent a specific rifle from Klein's is the product of fakery. Thus, a multitude of more conspirators are added to the plot for this purpose including employees of Klein's. That cuts against the notion of a small conspiracy. The point is that you can't have it both ways taking issue with the evidence as being faked or the product of lies but then disputing that you are claiming that necessitates a large conspiracy. Someone would have to be involved in the faking of all this evidence which comes from a multitude of sources. A seemingly obvious point that can't be acknowledged due to the absurdity of its implications in a CTer fantasy.
-
[...] Ruth Paine - they are her curtain rods kept in her garage from the time of the assassination
Oh, Mr Smith, you are the gift that keeps on giving! You still believe that 23 March 1964 came before 15 March 1964!
See you over on the other thread, where you can resume getting annihilated by the evidence! :D
I also put you down as believing the evidence that Oswald purchased and was sent a specific rifle from Klein's is the product of fakery. Thus, a multitude of more conspirators are added to the plot for this purpose including employees of Klein's. That cuts against the notion of a small conspiracy. The point is that you can't have it both ways taking issue with the evidence as being faked or the product of lies but then disputing that you are claiming that necessitates a large conspiracy. Someone would have to be involved in the faking of all this evidence which comes from a multitude of sources. A seemingly obvious point that can't be acknowledged due to the absurdity of its implications in a CTer fantasy.
So you still can't show us the time-stamped bank endorsement stamps. Tks for confirming! Thumb1:
-
It's a straightforward question. Why so scared? Maybe you could help us by clarifying which evidence against Oswald that you accept as genuine (i.e. not the product of fakery or lies). It must be most everything since you are now running from a claim of a large conspiracy. How about the documentation that confirms Oswald ordered and was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number? Genuine or not? Don't jump ahead to whether this proves Oswald pulled the trigger. Just whether Oswald ordered, paid for, and was sent a specific rifle as confirmed by the documentation. The same rifle that ends up on the 6th floor.
How about the documentation that confirms Oswald ordered and was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number? Genuine or not?
That's what I am trying to determine in this thread, you fool. You would have known that if you had not been your usual disruptive self and had read the first couple of posts, in which actual discussion took place. Those would be the posts before the LNs got involved and f*cked it all up.
I'm not scared nor am I running from anything. I just don't want to deal with your hyperbolic crap and pathetic ''conclusions' .
Don't jump ahead to whether this proves Oswald pulled the trigger. Just whether Oswald ordered, paid for, and was sent a specific rifle as confirmed by the documentation. The same rifle that ends up on the 6th floor.
Says he while he jumps ahead himself!
-
How about the documentation that confirms Oswald ordered and was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number? Genuine or not?
That's what I am trying to determine in this thread, you fool. You would have known that if you had not been your usual disruptive self and had read the first couple of posts, in which actual discussion took place. Those would be the posts before the LNs got involved and f*cked it all up.
I'm not scared nor am I running from anything. I just don't want to deal with your hyperbolic crap and pathetic ''conclusions' .
Don't jump ahead to whether this proves Oswald pulled the trigger. Just whether Oswald ordered, paid for, and was sent a specific rifle as confirmed by the documentation. The same rifle that ends up on the 6th floor.
Says he while he jumps ahead himself!
Says he while he jumps ahead himself!
That's the LNer way.... It always has been.....The WR is a good example.
-
Milteer knew this was in the making, and Walker knew too, that's why he took the flight for his alibi, he set up the shooting on himself in a similar fashion as part of this alibi, and it also played a part in framing the patsy.
The military who were dealing in WW2 weapons had people in Kleins as well, to manipulate pieces of paper work, is a piece of cake, bottom line is Oswald had no clue what happened on the day.
So your opinion passes for proof in your universe.
Not back here on earth it doesn't..
-
So your opinion passes for proof in your universe.
Not back here on earth it doesn't..
He's also said the Royal Family, particularly the Queen of England, were behind the assassination. I did not make that up. I'm not that funny really.
Yes, the olde Southern segregationist/Royal family nexus. They've been behind everything for centuries.
-
How about the documentation that confirms Oswald ordered and was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number? Genuine or not?
That's what I am trying to determine in this thread, you fool. You would have known that if you had not been your usual disruptive self and had read the first couple of posts, in which actual discussion took place. Those would be the posts before the LNs got involved and f*cked it all up.
I'm not scared nor am I running from anything. I just don't want to deal with your hyperbolic crap and pathetic ''conclusions' .
Don't jump ahead to whether this proves Oswald pulled the trigger. Just whether Oswald ordered, paid for, and was sent a specific rifle as confirmed by the documentation. The same rifle that ends up on the 6th floor.
Says he while he jumps ahead himself!
What, too soon?
-
So your opinion passes for proof in your universe.
Not back here on earth it doesn't..
Says the guy who thinks that it means a damn thing what he?s 100% probably sure of...
-
Martin running from the facts.
This could have some meaning if you only had a basic understanding of what a fact really is. Since you don't, there isn't much more to say.
One of ?Richard??s favorite strawmen is to insist that framing Oswald would require that every single detail of everything that happened for months or years would have to have been intricately planned in advance and executed perfectly, instead of just opportunistically taking advantage (after the fact) of what did happen.
It would take one person with access to the evidence to frame somebody after the fact (especially a rhetorical, circumstantial case). It?s even possible to frame somebody who actually did commit the crime.
-
What a hoot. A bunch of conspiracy nuts AGAIN seeking confirmation bias with the same old 56 year old arguments. Richard Smith, common sense and actual evidence mean little to these wackos and you must realize this by now. I applaud your attempts Richard. You have patience rarely seen. Conspiracy nuts live for ?what if? scenarios. It?s the air they breathe.
-
What a hoot. A bunch of conspiracy nuts AGAIN seeking confirmation bias with the same old 56 year old arguments. Richard Smith, common sense and actual evidence mean little to these wackos and you must realize this by now. I applaud your attempts Richard. You have patience rarely seen. Conspiracy nuts live for ?what if? scenarios. It?s the air they breathe.
Whereas Lone Nutter nuts live for one and only one "what if" scenario, for the simple and sole reason that it's the officially approved one :D
-
And endorsed by history.
-
And endorsed by history.
You gullible fool! :D
-
You cannot prove a conspiracy case with ANY hard nor credible evidence in 56 years. Who?s the fool genius? Revel in your ignorance but why the need to share it? Dumb.
-
And endorsed by history.
Keep telling yourself that? maybe one day you will actually believe it.
-
You cannot prove a conspiracy case with ANY hard nor credible evidence in 56 years. Who?s the fool genius? Revel in your ignorance but why the need to share it? Dumb.
Says the guy who relies on a biased and cherry picking ''investigation'' that was so weak that they tried to hide the evidence for 75 years.
-
Says the guy who relies on a biased and cherry picking ''investigation'' that was so weak that they tried to hide the evidence for 75 years.
75 years? Dementia is awful.
-
75 years? Dementia is awful.
Yes, that's what they were counting on.
-
75 years? Dementia is awful.
Paul is confused about what Martin is talking about -- no doubt because he's fixated more on Caprio than on the case.
-
Says the guy who thinks that it means a damn thing what he?s 100% probably sure of...
Nothing but your own opinion means a damn thing to you.
-
Paul is confused about what Martin is talking about -- no doubt because he's fixated more on Caprio than on the case.
Your level of fixation on Paul May almost equals your weird obsession with the wedding ring
-
Paul is confused about what Martin is talking about -- no doubt because he's fixated more on Caprio than on the case.
Yes he does seem to be very fixated, why does Duncan not step in here and ban the A.H
-
Your level of fixation on Paul May almost equals your weird obsession with the wedding ring
The people with the weird wedding ring fixation are the ones who think that it?s evidence of anything.
-
The people with the weird wedding ring fixation are the ones who think that it?s evidence of anything.
Yep and the high probability that, he might not have even been in Irvine on the 21/11/63 to leave his ring behind.
The fact that Marina initially told reporters that the last time she saw Lee was the 14/22/63 and she said he was in high spirits.
Page 39 for the interview with life magazine 29/11/63
https://books.google.ie/books?id=U1IEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37&source=gbs_toc_r&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
How about the documentation that confirms Oswald ordered and was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number? Genuine or not?
That's what I am trying to determine in this thread, you fool. You would have known that if you had not been your usual disruptive self and had read the first couple of posts, in which actual discussion took place. Those would be the posts before the LNs got involved and f*cked it all up.
I'm not scared nor am I running from anything. I just don't want to deal with your hyperbolic crap and pathetic ''conclusions' .
Don't jump ahead to whether this proves Oswald pulled the trigger. Just whether Oswald ordered, paid for, and was sent a specific rifle as confirmed by the documentation. The same rifle that ends up on the 6th floor.
Says he while he jumps ahead himself!
I asked a simple, polite and straightforward question and you respond with nothing other than insults and profanity again. Is the documentation linking Oswald to the rifle genuine or not? If not, how many folks would be involved in the various forgeries of documents, pictures, and prints that link him to that specific rifle? That evidence comes from a variety of sources including Marina, Klein's, the DPD, FBI, and WC investigation. Seemingly a large number of different folks who would have to involved.
-
I asked a simple, polite and straightforward question and you respond with nothing other than insults and profanity again. Is the documentation linking Oswald to the rifle genuine or not? If not, how many folks would be involved in the various forgeries of documents, pictures, and prints that link him to that specific rifle? That evidence comes from a variety of sources including Marina, Klein's, the DPD, FBI, and WC investigation. Seemingly a large number of different folks who would have to involved.
It?s a loaded question. There?s nothing that ?confirms? that Oswald was sent anything.
And Marina doesn?t confirm anything about a Mannlicher-Carcano at all.
-
LILLIAN MOONEYHAM, Deputy District Court Clerk, 85th Court, Records Building, advised that she watched the Presidential Motorcade on November 22, 1963 from the windows of the court house. She, along with Mrs. ROSE CLARK and JEANETTE E. HOOKER, observed the Presidential Motorcade proceeding down Main Street from the window of Judge J. FRANK WILSON'S courtroom, overlooking Main Street.-----
----Mrs. MOONEYHAM estimated that it was about 4 to 5 minutes following the shots fired by the assassin that she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in a sixth floor window behind some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to Mrs. MOONEYHAM to be looking out of the window, however, the man was not close up to the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that Mrs. MOONEYHAM could not make out his features. She stated that she could give no description of this individual except to say that she is sure it was a man she observed, because the figure had on trousers. ---
----Mrs. MOONEYHAM stated that following the assassination of President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, she observed a re-enactment of the assassination on two separate occasions on one day, and it was her impression that the Presidential Motorcade was going slower than the re-enactment motorcade. She stated that it was her estimation that the Presidential car was going approximately five or six miles per hour at the time of the assassination----
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2098.htm
-
. . .
So, let's start here; knowing what physical evidence is available, how would you have set up Oswald?
I would need Oswald?s cooperation.
I would need him to see the importance of him appearing to be the assassin.
I would need him to leave the building as soon as possible.
I would need him to go get a handgun.
I would need him to go to an area where a policeman would be murdered.
I would need him to act suspiciously, to duck into a shoe store to attract attention, as a police car passed by.
Then to duck into a theater without paying to attract attention, as another police car passed by.
And to pull a gun on the first policeman to approach him in a theater.
In addition, there would be other work to be done.
But if one can get Oswald?s cooperation in all these things, then framing him would be pretty straight forward.
-
I would need Oswald?s cooperation.
I would need him to see the importance of him appearing to be the assassin.
I would need him to leave the building as soon as possible.
I would need him to go get a handgun.
I would need him to go to an area where a policeman would be murdered.
I would need him to act suspiciously, to duck into a shoe store to attract attention, as a police car passed by.
Then to duck into a theater without paying to attract attention, as another police car passed by.
And to pull a gun on the first policeman to approach him in a theater.
In addition, there would be other work to be done.
But if one can get Oswald?s cooperation in all these things, then framing him would be pretty straight forward.
None of this has anything to do with the question asked in the opening post, but I'll address it anyway.
I would need Oswald?s cooperation.
Would that be active participation or could it have been unwittingly?
I would need him to see the importance of him appearing to be the assassin.
It seems you are merely talking about active participation.....
I would need him to leave the building as soon as possible.
I would need him to go get a handgun.
I would need him to go to an area where a policeman would be murdered.
I would need him to act suspiciously, to duck into a shoe store to attract attention, as a police car passed by.
Then to duck into a theater without paying to attract attention, as another police car passed by.
And to pull a gun on the first policeman to approach him in a theater.
It seems that you think all of this would have needed to be scripted beforehand... why is that?
What if, the only thing really required of Oswald was to get to a meeting with a third party at the Texas Theater and everything else was staged to implicate him?
But if one can get Oswald?s cooperation in all these things, then framing him would be pretty straight forward.
Actually, if one can get Oswald's cooperation in all that, then framing wouldn't be necessary at all.
Perhaps you should try to step away for a moment from the "Oswald did it" mindset and rethink.
-
I would need Oswald?s cooperation.
Would that be active participation or could it have been unwittingly?
I would need him to see the importance of him appearing to be the assassin. have taken a shot at JFK.
It seems you are merely talking about active participation.....
I would need him to leave the building as soon as possible---- No problem....He was playing the role of a Communist Castro supporter who had tried to shoot JFK.
I would need him to go get a handgun. ---- No problem... His handler provided that in the theater.
I would need him to go to an area where a policeman would be murdered.---- BIG EFing PROBLEM .... an impossible task . He was at the rooming house a mile away @ 1:04.... Tippit was murdered at 1:06 .....
I would need him to act suspiciously, to duck into a shoe store to attract attention, as a police car passed by---- Utterly stupid.....
Then to duck into a theater without paying to attract attention, as another police car passed by.
And to pull a gun on the first policeman to approach him in a theater. If he had pulled a gun....He's have been shot down in a hail of lead... ( which is what the conspirators thought would happen because of the angry police mob that surrounded the theater after Tippit was gunned down.
It seems that you think all of this would have needed to be scripted beforehand... why is that?
What if, the only really required of Oswald was to get to a meeting with a third party ay the Texas Theater and everything else was staged to implicate him?
But if one can get Oswald?s cooperation in all these things, then framing him would be pretty straight forward.
Actually, if one can get Oswald's cooperation in all that, then framing wouldn't be necessary at all.
Perhaps you should try to step away for a moment from the "Oswald did it" mindset and rethink.
I would need him to leave the building as soon as possible---- No problem....He was playing the role of a Communist Castro supporter who had tried to shoot JFK.
I would need him to go get a handgun. ---- No problem... His handler provided that in the theater.
I would need him to go to an area where a policeman would be murdered.---- BIG EFing PROBLEM .... an impossible task . He was at the rooming house a mile away @ 1:04.... Tippit was murdered at 1:06 .....
I would need him to act suspiciously, to duck into a shoe store to attract attention, as a police car passed by---- Utterly stupid.....
Then to duck into a theater without paying to attract attention, as another police car passed by.
And to pull a gun on the first policeman to approach him in a theater. If he had pulled a gun....He's have been shot down in a hail of lead... ( which is what the conspirators thought would happen because of the angry police mob that surrounded the theater after Tippit was gunned down.
It seems that you think all of this would have needed to be scripted beforehand... why is that?
What if, the only really required of Oswald was to get to a meeting with a third party ay the Texas Theater and everything else was staged to implicate him?
But if one can get Oswald?s cooperation in all these things, then framing him would be pretty straight forward.
-
'' you lot'' LOL
"Chap-speak" [Probably has never stepped foot out of Twickenham]
-
"Chap-speak" [Probably has never stepped foot out of Twickenham]
I have British friends who use the term 'you lot', usually when addressing their little kids
You didn't even know the term until I schooled you
Twit
-
I have British friends who use the term 'you lot', usually when addressing their little kids
You didn't even know the term until I schooled you
Twit
I seriously doubt you have friends at all, British or otherwise?.
Twat
-
I have British friends who use the term 'you lot', usually when addressing their little kids
You didn't even know the term until I schooled you Twit
Wanker...[Tex-speak for wanker]. You couldn't school a mullet.
-
I would need him to leave the building as soon as possible.
I would need him to go get a handgun.
I would need him to go to an area where a policeman would be murdered.
I would need him to act suspiciously, to duck into a shoe store to attract attention, as a police car passed by.
Then to duck into a theater without paying to attract attention, as another police car passed by.
And to pull a gun on the first policeman to approach him in a theater.
Joe acts like all that stuff actually happened...
-
I seriously doubt you have friends at all, British or otherwise?.
Twat
:D
-
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2098.htm
LILLIAN MOONEYHAM, Deputy District Court Clerk, 85th Court, Records Building, advised that she watched the Presidential Motorcade on November 22, 1963 from the windows of the court house. She, along with Mrs. ROSE CLARK and JEANETTE E. HOOKER, observed the Presidential Motorcade proceeding down Main Street from the window of Judge J. FRANK WILSON'S courtroom, overlooking Main Street.-----
----Mrs. MOONEYHAM estimated that it was about 4 to 5 minutes following the shots fired by the assassin that she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in a sixth floor window behind some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to Mrs. MOONEYHAM to be looking out of the window, however, the man was not close up to the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that Mrs. MOONEYHAM could not make out his features. She stated that she could give no description of this individual except to say that she is sure it was a man she observed, because the figure had on trousers. ---
----Mrs. MOONEYHAM stated that following the assassination of President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, she observed a re-enactment of the assassination on two separate occasions on one day, and it was her impression that the Presidential Motorcade was going slower than the re-enactment motorcade. She stated that it was her estimation that the Presidential car was going approximately five or six miles per hour at the time of the assassination----
Lillian was ignored by the FBI. If she was correct about seeing a guy at the window after at least 3 minutes...then the idea that Oswald did it -flies right out of that 6th floor window :-\ It would lend credence to the FACT that the real assassins were safe within the confines of that floor without consternation of the authorities because they WERE the authorities. What can supplement all of that would be the reports from building company workers that various law enforcement types were lurking near the elevators... going up and down the stairs and so on. The Dallas Police were behind the assassination and Johnson and Hoover covered it up.