JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Paul May on March 10, 2019, 03:00:06 AM

Title: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 10, 2019, 03:00:06 AM
Unknown source


* If I may be as blunt as those who characterize Lone Nutters (and me in particular) as hopeless, unworthy dolts:  I am very, very familiar with conspiracy communities and the dynamics of how they operate.  There is a point at which conspiracy thinking becomes so irrational, so credulous, so divorced from reality, that it is a species of mental illness.  I don?t characterize all conspiracy theorists in this manner, but this illness is rampant on these forums, up to and including some of the most prominent and active posters.  It is screamingly obvious to me, and I don?t think I?m uniquely discerning.  I assume that others who have not descended into this madness can see it as well.  As DVP keeps pointing out, when the entire conspiracy scenario hinges on every damn document being faked or altered, every agency from the CIA to the Postal Service being corrupt, everyone from the President to the janitor being in on the conspiracy, LHO of all people being an innocent ?patsy," every gap in the record being filled in with raw conspiracy speculation ? well, sorry, but you?ve descended into madness.  There?s no polite way to say it.  The sin of participants such as myself is that we live in the real world, where humans and agencies are sloppy, fallible and error-prone, where most things are at least pretty much as they seem to be, where successful conspiracies are neither elaborate nor convoluted, and where common sense and logic are valued.

Can we stop the "patsy" silliness now?  He said he was a patsy of the DPD, who had arrested him only because he was a known defector.  He said this to a crowd of reporters.  Yet when he was interrogated by the DPD, FBI, Secret Service and Postal Service, he said NOTHING about being anyone's patsy or even vaguely suggesting he'd been duped into some role in an assassination conspiracy.  Never has no much mileage been derived from nothing.  The conspiracy community has become like some crazy parrot who thinks he's going to get crackers if he keeps squawking "patsy."



Humor me here:  Oswald was a troubled youth from a troubled childhood whose Marxist "working man" fantasies began at the age of 15; who followed his two brothers into the military because there were no other options to escape the mother from hell; who as a Marine had engaged in some unusual activities (the high-dollar Japanese hostess, the plane photos in the duffle bag, the in-your-face interest in the USSR, the conversations with a fellow Marine about joining the revolution in Cuba); who said that he had begun formulating his defection plan more than a year before he carried it out; who got himself sent home early for an entirely bogus reason (Mom's health); who almost immediately left Mom and entered the USSR via the very route that would ensure the least delay or chance for snafus (Helsinki); who put on a comical show at the American Embassy; who made a half-hearted suicide attempt when it appeared he would have to go home; who wrote comical I'm-a-Russian-now letters back to Mom and Robert; who quickly became disaffected with the Marxist utopia and began ridiculing the very things the Soviets held dearest; who engaged in sit-down strikes and stole military-sensitive parts to try to make "grenades" in his apartment (and asked his best friend's advice about the chemicals to use), conduct that would've caused the typical radio factory worker to be shot or sent to Siberia; who showed utterly no interest in any of the sensitive things the KGB dangled in front of him to test whether he might be a U.S. operative; who had decided to return to the U.S. and wrote the U.S. Embassy barely a year and a half after his arrival; who married Marina six weeks after meeting her and assuring her and her MVD uncle that he was fully committed to staying in the USSR; who greatly complicated his request to return the U.S. by marrying Marina; who, in the KGB's extensive monitoring of his apartment, never showed himself to be anything other than a harmless, troubled young man; who returned to the U.S. a completely different and more angry man (according to Marina); who saw his marriage collapse, who lived in nothing but abject poverty, and who could never rise above a minimum-wage job despite his delusions of grandeur; who shifted his dreams to Cuba and engaged in a series of activities to make those dreams come true, including a nothing-short-of-bizarre visit to Mexico City.
THAT Oswald - THAT is your portrait of a CIA false defector/operative???  Hey, I don't doubt that the CIA and KGB had a "keen operational interest" in Oswald, as in:  "WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS GUY UP TO, because we've never seen anything like it?"  (The KGB said as much:  Oswald's behavior was so completely at odds with a false defector that they thought he might be part of some weird new program.)  What I think he was up to was "being Oswald."
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: David Von Pein on March 10, 2019, 06:29:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I think he was up to was "being Oswald."

I agree. Very much so. ....

"Lee Harvey Oswald was a first-rate, bona fide kook. And he killed President John F. Kennedy, by himself, when he was afforded the perfect opportunity on November 22, 1963. Knowing Oswald (who we know for an absolute fact had murder in his veins, via the attempt on General Edwin Walker's life 7 months earlier), it would probably have been criminal (from Oswald's POV) to have allowed such a golden opportunity to pass him by when the President of the country he hated conveniently drove right by the Texas School Book Depository at 11 MPH. How often does a chance like that drive by your workplace doorstep (in an open-top convertible, no less)? It's almost as if Oswald was daring HIMSELF to take those shots at the President." -- David Von Pein; September 11, 2007

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TIBzsb7K4II/AAAAAAAAFOg/rOqYK4J4FSo/s580/XX.+Quoting+Common+Sense+Blog+Logo.png) (http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com)
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Mark Ulrik on March 10, 2019, 11:44:26 AM
The author is, btw, Lance Payette who posts occasionally in the Ed Forum.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 10, 2019, 01:23:38 PM

Well, it is interesting to note that the two guys (Aleksey Kulak and Ivan Obyedkov) who, with the help of a probable Russian telephone impersonator of Oswald (Nikolai Leonov), planted the USSR-protecting WW III Virus in Oswald's CIA file were both dudes whom FBI and CIA, respectively, thought were secretly working for it but were, in fact, triple-agents loyal to the Kremlin. 

It's also interesting to note that in Moscow, the KGB started feeding undercover FBI agent Morris Childs "a line," about an hour after Oswald had been arrested, when two Russian functionaries burst into a meeting and ended up telling Childs (whom they'd ostensibly not expected to brief) in perfect English that the KGB had had nothing to do with the former radar operator during the two and one-half years he'd lived in the USSR.

Not to mention certain other assassination-related Ruskie shenanigans over the years, such as (as was revealed in the most recent batch of National Archives releases) that the FBI informant "Shamrock" (Boris Orekhov) -- who told The Bureau in 1967 that, immediately after the assassination, the KGB had commenced a six-month investigation which determined that ... gasp ... right-wing oilmen in the U.S. had conspired to assassinate JFK -- was himself a triple-agent, loyal to the Kremlin.

https://www-nationalreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nationalreview.com/2007/10/lucky-stars-ion-mihai-pacepa/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2F2007%2F10%2Flucky-stars-ion-mihai-pacepa%2F

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS:  More on "Shamrock" / Orekhov here:
https://amp-usatoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1018691001?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2F01%2F10%2Fjfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane%2F1018691001%2F
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Robert Reeves on March 10, 2019, 02:11:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree. Very much so. ....

"Lee Harvey Oswald was a first-rate, bona fide kook. And he killed President John F. Kennedy, by himself, when he was afforded the perfect opportunity on November 22, 1963. Knowing Oswald (who we know for an absolute fact had murder in his veins, via the attempt on General Edwin Walker's life 7 months earlier), it would probably have been criminal (from Oswald's POV) to have allowed such a golden opportunity to pass him by when the President of the country he hated conveniently drove right by the Texas School Book Depository at 11 MPH. How often does a chance like that drive by your workplace doorstep (in an open-top convertible, no less)? It's almost as if Oswald was daring HIMSELF to take those shots at the President." -- David Von Pein; September 11, 2007

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TIBzsb7K4II/AAAAAAAAFOg/rOqYK4J4FSo/s580/XX.+Quoting+Common+Sense+Blog+Logo.png) (http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com)

Quote
Lee Harvey Oswald was a first-rate, bona fide kook. And he killed President John F. Kennedy, by himself

You want that to be true. Which is weird. It's genuinely hard to fathom what your motive is - I think of all the people I've seen participating on JFK related forums you are the most rabid 'lone nutter'. To say you passionately believe Oswald is the lone nut would be an understatement. I think even Paul is on the record as having not ruled out completely someone else was involved. The motivation to just defend the theory Oswald acted alone is weird. Unreasonable, even.

Quote
Knowing Oswald (who we know for an absolute fact had murder in his veins, via the attempt on General Edwin Walker's life 7 months earlier), it would probably have been criminal (from Oswald's POV) to have allowed such a golden opportunity to pass him by when the President of the country he hated conveniently drove right by the Texas School Book Depository at 11 MPH

You paint a picture of Oswald excitedly salivating at the prospect of shooting JFK dead. But yet, the frothing at the mouth nutcase Oswald, you paint a picture of, instead of shooting JFK at the easiest and most obvious opportunity from Main onto N Houston. He calmly waits until the limo turns onto Elm, misses his first shot ... frantically seeking to kill JFK, Oswald hurries a reload (as the limo gets further away ... 80 yards or so further down Elm), he missed the head shot! again, with increased pressure ratcheting down upon himself Oswald frantically reloading his weapon knowing he's facing very stiff odds to get the opportunity to re-sight on the target and squeeze the trigger *had the SS been doing their job in protecting JFK the limo should have been floored engaging the fast exit gearing* but somehow Oswald manages this task - but only manages to shot JFK in the back. WTF, Oswald get it done! surely someone will take control of the situation and give the order to save JFK's life and get the duck (quack) out of there! Surely the highly professional SS will enact their training and evacuate the VIP from the scene at the sounds of shots fired? But wait, the limo driver Greer has found the time to turn his head around to face JFK and only when JFK's the head explodes, in front of his eyes, only then is Greer prepared to pull away quick sharp. The tension was building! Oswald, carried out his own personal mission, defied his self-made ever-increasing odds (by letting the limo take the turn onto Elm) ... he somehow kept his cool ... made sure (eventually) that JFK doesn't get out of dealey plaza alive! Oswald didn't even break a sweat, apparently.

So many reasonable eyewitnesses stated hearing: BANG ... BANG/BANG. The two final shots on top of each other.

What's your theory about that, David? *knows there's a perfectly scripted reply* so don't bother - just wondering if there's anything inside your soul that has an opinion, a personal view, of how the final two shots that so many people within earshot seem to recall hearing. Do you have any theories about how these two shots could have come from Oswald? Do you totally rule out the possibility someone else fired another shot? doesn't something inside you wonder how so many people could have got it wrong hearing 2 shots together, in quick succession (impossible for a bolt-action) as you know.

Do you have any personal opinions on the JFK assassination David? you parrot almost every opinion, some say scripted, reply for lone nutters.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 10, 2019, 02:25:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, it is interesting to note that FBI's Aleksey Kulak and CIA's Ivan Obyedkov, probably with the scripted help of Russian telephone impersonator and Cuban-visa-application-photo-provider Nikolai Leonov, planted the USSR-protecting WW III Virus in Oswald's CIA file were dudes whom FBI and CIA, respectively, thought were secretly working for it but were, in fact, triple-agents loyal to the Kremlin. 

It's also interesting to note that in Moscow, the KGB started feeding undercover FBI agent Morris Childs "a line," about an hour after Oswald had been arrested, when two Russian functionaries burst into a meeting and ended up telling Childs (whom they'd ostensibly not expected to brief) in perfect English that the KGB had had nothing to do with the former radar operator during the two and one-half years he'd lived in the USSR.

Not to mention certain other assassination-related Ruskie shenanigans over the years, such as (as was revealed in the most recent batch of National Archives releases) that the FBI informant "Shamrock" (Boris Orekhov) -- who told The Bureau in 1967 that, immediately after the assassination, the KGB had commenced a six-month investigation which determined that ... gasp ... the U.S. "military-industrial complex" had conspired to assassinate JFK -- was himself a triple-agent, loyal to the Kremlin.

https://www-nationalreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nationalreview.com/2007/10/lucky-stars-ion-mihai-pacepa/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2F2007%2F10%2Flucky-stars-ion-mihai-pacepa%2F

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS:  More on "Shamrock" / Orekhov here:
https://amp-usatoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1018691001?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2F01%2F10%2Fjfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane%2F1018691001%2F

edited and bumped

Addendum: What the last article, above, (and the Mitrokhin File) says about Mark Lane should make one wonder if journalist Mary Woodward really did tell him what he claimed she had -- that shots seemed to her to have come from the Grassy Knoll ...
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 10, 2019, 03:30:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree. Very much so. ....

"Lee Harvey Oswald was a first-rate, bona fide kook. And he killed President John F. Kennedy, by himself, when he was afforded the perfect opportunity on November 22, 1963. Knowing Oswald (who we know for an absolute fact had murder in his veins, via the attempt on General Edwin Walker's life 7 months earlier), it would probably have been criminal (from Oswald's POV) to have allowed such a golden opportunity to pass him by when the President of the country he hated conveniently drove right by the Texas School Book Depository at 11 MPH. How often does a chance like that drive by your workplace doorstep (in an open-top convertible, no less)? It's almost as if Oswald was daring HIMSELF to take those shots at the President." -- David Von Pein; September 11, 2007

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TIBzsb7K4II/AAAAAAAAFOg/rOqYK4J4FSo/s580/XX.+Quoting+Common+Sense+Blog+Logo.png) (http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com)

Mr Howard wrote:  I originally made 5 examples but only 3 were successful. In turn I sold one of the successful examples to Stanley J. Szerszen.?

Turns out Mr Howard was able to duplicate CE 399 three times with five cartridges....  Good Lord... How many men did he shoot?    Did he really shoot 10 men to create the conditions under which we are told CE 399 was created?   WHO believes this?    Is there a single LNer who will step up and defend CE 399 ??   

How about you Von P??   
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 10, 2019, 11:40:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The author is, btw, Lance Payette who posts occasionally in the Ed Forum.

Thanks Mark.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 10, 2019, 11:44:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You want that to be true. Which is weird. It's genuinely hard to fathom what your motive is - I think of all the people I've seen participating on JFK related forums you are the most rabid 'lone nutter'. To say you passionately believe Oswald is the lone nut would be an understatement. I think even Paul is on the record as having not ruled out completely someone else was involved. The motivation to just defend the theory Oswald acted alone is weird. Unreasonable, even.

You paint a picture of Oswald excitedly salivating at the prospect of shooting JFK dead. But yet, the frothing at the mouth nutcase Oswald, you paint a picture of, instead of shooting JFK at the easiest and most obvious opportunity from Main onto N Houston. He calmly waits until the limo turns onto Elm, misses his first shot ... frantically seeking to kill JFK, Oswald hurries a reload (as the limo gets further away ... 80 yards or so further down Elm), he missed the head shot! again, with increased pressure ratcheting down upon himself Oswald frantically reloading his weapon knowing he's facing very stiff odds to get the opportunity to re-sight on the target and squeeze the trigger *had the SS been doing their job in protecting JFK the limo should have been floored engaging the fast exit gearing* but somehow Oswald manages this task - but only manages to shot JFK in the back. WTF, Oswald get it done! surely someone will take control of the situation and give the order to save JFK's life and get the duck (quack) out of there! Surely the highly professional SS will enact their training and evacuate the VIP from the scene at the sounds of shots fired? But wait, the limo driver Greer has found the time to turn his head around to face JFK and only when JFK's the head explodes, in front of his eyes, only then is Greer prepared to pull away quick sharp. The tension was building! Oswald, carried out his own personal mission, defied his self-made ever-increasing odds (by letting the limo take the turn onto Elm) ... he somehow kept his cool ... made sure (eventually) that JFK doesn't get out of dealey plaza alive! Oswald didn't even break a sweat, apparently.

So many reasonable eyewitnesses stated hearing: BANG ... BANG/BANG. The two final shots on top of each other.

What's your theory about that, David? *knows there's a perfectly scripted reply* so don't bother - just wondering if there's anything inside your soul that has an opinion, a personal view, of how the final two shots that so many people within earshot seem to recall hearing. Do you have any theories about how these two shots could have come from Oswald? Do you totally rule out the possibility someone else fired another shot? doesn't something inside you wonder how so many people could have got it wrong hearing 2 shots together, in quick succession (impossible for a bolt-action) as you know.

Do you have any personal opinions on the JFK assassination David? you parrot almost every opinion, some say scripted, reply for lone nutters.

Correct Robert.  I am on record stating Oswald shot and killed JFK on his own. Whether he was doing so on behalf of another or institution, we will never know.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 11, 2019, 12:17:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You want that to be true. Which is weird. It's genuinely hard to fathom what your motive is - I think of all the people I've seen participating on JFK related forums you are the most rabid 'lone nutter'. To say you passionately believe Oswald is the lone nut would be an understatement. I think even Paul is on the record as having not ruled out completely someone else was involved. The motivation to just defend the theory Oswald acted alone is weird. Unreasonable, even.

You paint a picture of Oswald excitedly salivating at the prospect of shooting JFK dead. But yet, the frothing at the mouth nutcase Oswald, you paint a picture of, instead of shooting JFK at the easiest and most obvious opportunity from Main onto N Houston. He calmly waits until the limo turns onto Elm, misses his first shot ... frantically seeking to kill JFK, Oswald hurries a reload (as the limo gets further away ... 80 yards or so further down Elm), he missed the head shot! again, with increased pressure ratcheting down upon himself Oswald frantically reloading his weapon knowing he's facing very stiff odds to get the opportunity to re-sight on the target and squeeze the trigger *had the SS been doing their job in protecting JFK the limo should have been floored engaging the fast exit gearing* but somehow Oswald manages this task - but only manages to shot JFK in the back. WTF, Oswald get it done! surely someone will take control of the situation and give the order to save JFK's life and get the duck (quack) out of there! Surely the highly professional SS will enact their training and evacuate the VIP from the scene at the sounds of shots fired? But wait, the limo driver Greer has found the time to turn his head around to face JFK and only when JFK's the head explodes, in front of his eyes, only then is Greer prepared to pull away quick sharp. The tension was building! Oswald, carried out his own personal mission, defied his self-made ever-increasing odds (by letting the limo take the turn onto Elm) ... he somehow kept his cool ... made sure (eventually) that JFK doesn't get out of dealey plaza alive! Oswald didn't even break a sweat, apparently.

So many reasonable eyewitnesses stated hearing: BANG ... BANG/BANG. The two final shots on top of each other.

What's your theory about that, David? *knows there's a perfectly scripted reply* so don't bother - just wondering if there's anything inside your soul that has an opinion, a personal view, of how the final two shots that so many people within earshot seem to recall hearing. Do you have any theories about how these two shots could have come from Oswald? Do you totally rule out the possibility someone else fired another shot? doesn't something inside you wonder how so many people could have got it wrong hearing 2 shots together, in quick succession (impossible for a bolt-action) as you know.

Do you have any personal opinions on the JFK assassination David? you parrot almost every opinion, some say scripted, reply for lone nutters.

'Some say scripted'

LOL
... and 'people are saying' I suppose. Brilliant detective work!

Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 11, 2019, 01:34:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correct Robert.  I am on record stating Oswald shot and killed JFK on his own. Whether he was doing so on behalf of another or institution, we will never know.

So you agree, it could have been a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 11, 2019, 03:21:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'Some say scripted'

LOL
... and 'people are saying' I suppose. Brilliant detective work!

Robert Reeves wrote;... doesn't something inside you wonder how so many people could have got it wrong hearing 2 shots together, in quick succession (impossible for a bolt-action) as you know.

And for you information Mr Crapman .... Robert is correct.    The vast majority of the witnesses said that the last two shots were so close together that they were nearly superimposed on each other.   And several witnesses said that they thought that an automatic rifle was being fired because of the short time span between the gun shots.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: David Von Pein on March 12, 2019, 12:07:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think of all the people I've seen participating on JFK related forums, you are the most rabid 'lone nutter'. To say you passionately believe Oswald is the lone nut would be an understatement. I think even Paul [May] is on the record as having not ruled out completely someone else was involved.

And I'm also "on the record" saying that very same thing....

"Let's face it, we can never know with 100% certainty that someone didn't urge Oswald on in the days leading up to 11/22/63. I think it's very unlikely that anyone did aid him in any fashion at all, but as Ken [Rahn] said, the door should be left open just a small crack, because it's just not possible to prove this particular "negative" to a 100% certainty (mainly thanks to a man named Jacob Rubenstein, who certainly didn't do the world any favors by walking down that basement ramp on Sunday)." -- David Von Pein; July 29, 2007

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Lqqr6tcsNTI/vr2MBvBoBEkJ


Quote from: Robert Reeves
So many reasonable eyewitnesses stated hearing: BANG ... BANG/BANG. The two final shots on top of each other. .... Do you have any theories about how these two shots could have come from Oswald? Do you totally rule out the possibility someone else fired another shot? Doesn't something inside you wonder how so many people could have got it wrong hearing 2 shots together, in quick succession (impossible for a bolt-action) as you know?

But as much as conspiracy theorists hate to face this fact, there is a flip side to the "bunched together" witnesses, which is a "flip side" that most CTers have decided to just totally ignore. (See link below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710.html

As I document above, there were several witnesses who said the shots were "evenly spaced". But to hear CTers tell it, the ONLY witnesses that exist are the "bunched together" witnesses.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 12, 2019, 12:27:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And I'm also "on the record" saying that very same thing....

"Let's face it, we can never know with 100% certainty that someone didn't urge Oswald on in the days leading up to 11/22/63. I think it's very unlikely that anyone did aid him in any fashion at all, but as Ken [Rahn] said, the door should be left open just a small crack, because it's just not possible to prove this particular "negative" to a 100% certainty (mainly thanks to a man named Jacob Rubenstein, who certainly didn't do the world any favors by walking down that basement ramp on Sunday)." -- David Von Pein; July 29, 2007

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Lqqr6tcsNTI/vr2MBvBoBEkJ


But as much as conspiracy theorists hate to face this fact, there is a flip side to the "bunched together" witnesses, which is a "flip side" that most CTers have decided to just totally ignore. (See link below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710.html

As I document above, there were several witnesses who said the shots were "evenly spaced". But to hear CTers tell it, the ONLY witnesses that exist are the "bunched together" witnesses.

there were several witnesses who said the shots were "evenly spaced". But to hear CTers tell it, the ONLY witnesses that exist are the "bunched together" witnesses.


So, if we agree there are witnesses for both scenarios, how do you determine which ones to believe?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: David Von Pein on March 12, 2019, 12:34:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, if we agree there are witnesses for both scenarios, how do you determine which ones to believe?

Well, for starters, we can utilize all of the OTHER evidence in the case (in conjunction with the "earwitness" testimony).

E.G.,

The THREE shells on the sixth floor.

And the incredibly low percentage of witnesses who said they heard shots coming from MORE THAN JUST ONE general location (front vs. rear).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-806.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 12, 2019, 12:58:35 AM
 
Quote
The THREE shells on the sixth floor.

 Ho Hum.... "Humor me"-- a good name for this thread.
 
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 12, 2019, 12:58:46 AM
Boom>click-click x3
evenly spaced

Ping x3

-Harold Norman

Like it or not
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 12, 2019, 01:04:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Boom>click-click x3
evenly spaced

Ping x3

-Harold Norman

Like it or not

Funny how he reenacted that differently over the years.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 12, 2019, 03:35:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Funny how he reenacted that differently over the years.
Quote
We discussed the shots, and where they had come from and decided we better go down stairs. We walked down the stairs to the first floor and did not see anyone else on the stairway as we went down. From the time of the shots until we started down-stairs was about five minutes.
Affidavit Dec 4 '63 [two weeks later]
Shots above his floor. Stood around watching everybody running around the street from the west window vantage. Had a chat about the shots. Without any further scrutiny or analysis casually strides down the stairs ...does not see anyone [well thankfully?]     
 
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 12, 2019, 09:18:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, for starters, we can utilize all of the OTHER evidence in the case (in conjunction with the "earwitness" testimony).

E.G.,

The THREE shells on the sixth floor.

And the incredibly low percentage of witnesses who said they heard shots coming from MORE THAN JUST ONE general location (front vs. rear).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-806.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html


None of this really supports a conclusion about how the shots were spaced.

Your argument is based on the assumptions that there were indeed only three shots fired, that all three shells found in the 'sniper's nest' were actually fired during the assassination and the fact that more (ear-) witnesses (which you yourself call unreliable to begin with) said one thing instead of another, when in fact a larger group of people saying one thing doesn't automatically make them right just because they are in the majority.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 12, 2019, 02:35:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Funny how he reenacted that differently over the years.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

Yes indeed....  Ol Hank the hero who, was actually right there and heard the bolt being operated, and the boom of the discharge, and the clack of the bolt being pulled to the rear,  has added a bit to his embroidery work over the decades....  Ol Hero Hank's  memory must have slipped because in mimicking the sounds of the rifle being fired with his mouth he has completely forgotten that he also swore that he heard the clink of the spent shells hitting the floor....  Which indicates that he's a prevaricator...  Because he originally came on stage and into the lime light by saying that he'd heard the shells falling on the floor above his head ( Even though the shells were much closer to Bonnie Ray Williams head)    The tale about hearing the shells is what got him on stage....  Then afterwards he embroidered THE REST OF THE STORY.......

If a person actually experience something it's in their memory banks.....  Hank didn't hear any of what he says he heard.....He's simply a liar...and LBJ's cover up committee was encouraging him.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember whether or not you said anything to the men then as to whether or not you heard anything from above you?
Mr. NORMAN. Only I think I remember saying that I thought I could hear the shell hulls and the ejection of the rifle. I didn't tell I think I hear anybody moving, you know.
Mr. BALL. But you thought, do you remember you told the men then that you thought you heard the ejection of the rifle?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And shells on the floor?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Falling?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did anybody say anything as to where they thought the shots came from?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, I don't recall of either one of them saying they thought where it came from.
Mr. BALL. But You did?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And you said you thought it came from where?
Mr. NORMAN. Above where we were, above us.
Mr. BALL. Did you see any dust or dirt falling?
Mr. NORMAN. I didn't see any falling but I saw some in Bonnie Ray Williams hair.
Mr. BALL. Did anybody say anything about it?
Mr. NORMAN. I believe Jarman told him that it was in his hair first. Then I, you know, told him it was and I believe Jarman told him not to brush it out his hair but I think he did anyway.
Mr. BALL. After that happened, what did you do?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we ran to the farthest window facing the expressway.
Mr. BALL. The farthest window, is that right?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Or did you hear any elevator operator
Mr. NORMAN. No; I don't recall.
Mr. BALL. Going up or down?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; I don't recall anyone.

Mr. BALL. You did make a statement later to the Secret Service, didn't you?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. I have here a document 493, which is a copy of a statement made by this witness, which I now mark 493.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 493, for identification.)
Mr. BALL. The document that I have here shows the date 4th of December 1963. Do you remember having made a statement to Mr. Carter, Special Agent of the Secret Service, on that day?
Mr. NORMAN. I can't remember the exact date but I believe I remember Mr. Carter.
Mr. BALL. I want to call your attention to one part of the statement and I will ask you if you told him that:
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the bolt action of the rifle. I also saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me."
Did you make that statement to the Secret Service man?
Mr. NORMAN. I don't remember making a statement that I knew the shots came from directly above us. I didn't make that statement. And I don't remember saying I heard several seconds later. I merely told him that I heard three shots because I didn't have any idea what time it was.
Mr. BALL. I see. Did you tell them that you heard the bolt action of the rifle?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And that you heard the expended cartridges fall to the floor?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; I heard them making a sound.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember Friday that we conducted an experiment to see whether or not you could hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. From the sixth floor?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And where did you put yourself in order to conduct the experiment?
Mr. NORMAN. In the same window. I may not have been in the same position but I was in the same window.
Mr. BALL. The same window?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And that window was open?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And the window, was the window on the sixth floor also open?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir; they told me it was open. I didn't see it.
Mr. BALL. And a Secret Service man went upstairs with a rifle, didn't he?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did you hear on the fifth floor?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, I heard the same sound, the sound similar. I heard three something that he dropped on the floor and then I could hear the rifle or whatever he had up there.
Mr. BALL. You could hear the rifle, the sound of an ejection?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear the sound of the bolt going back and forth?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir; I sure did.
Mr. BALL. You could hear it clearly, could you?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 12, 2019, 06:12:48 PM
Nothing about hearing cartridges hitting the floor in the earliest interview.

(https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0083a.gif)
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 14, 2019, 07:10:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing about hearing cartridges hitting the floor in the earliest interview.

Was that statement Q&A





Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 14, 2019, 01:38:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing about hearing cartridges hitting the floor in the earliest interview.

(https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0083a.gif)

Nothing about hearing cartridges hitting the floor in the earliest interview.

That's right!....  And I believe that IF ? Mr Norman had actually heard the sound of shells hitting the floor in conjunction with the sounds of a rifle bolt being operated and the boom of the discharge....He wouldn't have been standing there scratching his head and wondering what he'd heard....He would probably said something like "Hey! ...There's someone firing a rifle right above us.... Let's get outta here"....

Norman didn't start talking about shells hitting the floor until the FBI questioned the three stooges a couple of days after the coup d e'tat.  They "re-enacted" the THEORY  about the shooting while Hero Hank was on the fifth floor straining to hear the sounds they were making in "re-enacting the shooting"   That's when the sounds were actually introduced into Hank's memory banks.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on March 14, 2019, 02:12:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You want that to be true. Which is weird. It's genuinely hard to fathom what your motive is - I think of all the people I've seen participating on JFK related forums you are the most rabid 'lone nutter'. To say you passionately believe Oswald is the lone nut would be an understatement. I think even Paul is on the record as having not ruled out completely someone else was involved. The motivation to just defend the theory Oswald acted alone is weird. Unreasonable, even.

You paint a picture of Oswald excitedly salivating at the prospect of shooting JFK dead. But yet, the frothing at the mouth nutcase Oswald, you paint a picture of, instead of shooting JFK at the easiest and most obvious opportunity from Main onto N Houston. He calmly waits until the limo turns onto Elm, misses his first shot ... frantically seeking to kill JFK, Oswald hurries a reload (as the limo gets further away ... 80 yards or so further down Elm), he missed the head shot! again, with increased pressure ratcheting down upon himself Oswald frantically reloading his weapon knowing he's facing very stiff odds to get the opportunity to re-sight on the target and squeeze the trigger *had the SS been doing their job in protecting JFK the limo should have been floored engaging the fast exit gearing* but somehow Oswald manages this task - but only manages to shot JFK in the back. WTF, Oswald get it done! surely someone will take control of the situation and give the order to save JFK's life and get the duck (quack) out of there! Surely the highly professional SS will enact their training and evacuate the VIP from the scene at the sounds of shots fired? But wait, the limo driver Greer has found the time to turn his head around to face JFK and only when JFK's the head explodes, in front of his eyes, only then is Greer prepared to pull away quick sharp. The tension was building! Oswald, carried out his own personal mission, defied his self-made ever-increasing odds (by letting the limo take the turn onto Elm) ... he somehow kept his cool ... made sure (eventually) that JFK doesn't get out of dealey plaza alive! Oswald didn't even break a sweat, apparently.

So many reasonable eyewitnesses stated hearing: BANG ... BANG/BANG. The two final shots on top of each other.

What's your theory about that, David? *knows there's a perfectly scripted reply* so don't bother - just wondering if there's anything inside your soul that has an opinion, a personal view, of how the final two shots that so many people within earshot seem to recall hearing. Do you have any theories about how these two shots could have come from Oswald? Do you totally rule out the possibility someone else fired another shot? doesn't something inside you wonder how so many people could have got it wrong hearing 2 shots together, in quick succession (impossible for a bolt-action) as you know.

Do you have any personal opinions on the JFK assassination David? you parrot almost every opinion, some say scripted, reply for lone nutters.

Ever been to the Plaza, Robert?  Ever lit a firecracker there?  It is an echo chamber....... chamber.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 14, 2019, 02:34:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing about hearing cartridges hitting the floor in the earliest interview.

(https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0083a.gif)

Ol Hero Hank is an amazing guy....  He said he heard the first shot ...So he stuck his head out of the window and looked up toward the sixth floor roof then he heard two more shots after he pulled his head back in the window.  Since the total ET for all of the shots was less than ten seconds.....Ol Hero Hank had reflexes that were faster than Superman.  And....Hank in the affidavit says that two additional shots were fired after he pulled his head back inside the window. The Tom Dillard Telephoto  shot shows our Hero looking down toward Houston street with a puzzled look on his face....

(https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0083a.gif)

Norman is one of the LNer's Heroes .....   because his prevaricating was instrumental in the framing of Lee Oswald.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2019, 09:32:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was that statement Q&A

Was the Bookhout report about Randle's estimate of the size of the package she saw a "statement Q&A"?

Just asking?..
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 15, 2019, 03:20:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you agree, it could have been a conspiracy.

Conspiracy cannot be eliminated to a 100% certainty yet I?ve seen no hard credible evidence for it in 56 years.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 15, 2019, 08:44:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Conspiracy cannot be eliminated to a 100% certainty yet I?ve seen no hard credible evidence for it in 56 years.

All it takes not to see "hard credible" evidence is to dismiss whatever is being offered as not credible.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Richard Smith on March 15, 2019, 01:23:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing about hearing cartridges hitting the floor in the earliest interview.

That's right!....  And I believe that IF ? Mr Norman had actually heard the sound of shells hitting the floor in conjunction with the sounds of a rifle bolt being operated and the boom of the discharge....He wouldn't have been standing there scratching his head and wondering what he'd heard....He would probably said something like "Hey! ...There's someone firing a rifle right above us.... Let's get outta here"....

Norman didn't start talking about shells hitting the floor until the FBI questioned the three stooges a couple of days after the coup d e'tat.  They "re-enacted" the THEORY  about the shooting while Hero Hank was on the fifth floor straining to hear the sounds they were making in "re-enacting the shooting"   That's when the sounds were actually introduced into Hank's memory banks.

Great example of CTer dishonesty.  Noting that there is "nothing about cartridges hitting the floor" to cast doubt on Norman's account when his statement clearly indicates that "he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him."  Norman believes the shots came from above him to such an extent that he actually looks up to see what is going on and, incredibly, for this reason (checking where he believes the shots came from) his account is then further discounted because in Walt's subjective opinion he should have acted differently.  LOL.  We also know that other witnesses see a rifle sticking out of the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination to corroborate his account.  And why would he lie about any of this?  Add yet another potential member to the large conspiracy these same CTers deny they are claiming while falsely and dishonestly suggesting that everyone lied to implicate Oswald.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 15, 2019, 01:47:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Conspiracy cannot be eliminated to a 100% certainty yet I?ve seen no hard credible evidence for it in 56 years.

Maybe you should open your eyes.......
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 15, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Conspiracy cannot be eliminated to a 100% certainty yet I?ve seen no hard credible evidence for it in 56 years.

As the old saying goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 15, 2019, 05:33:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As the old saying goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Waiting for your killer & conspiracy to show up...
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Robert Reeves on March 16, 2019, 12:09:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ever been to the Plaza, Robert?  Ever lit a firecracker there?  It is an echo chamber....... chamber.

Nope, I've NOT been to Dealey Plaza. I get what you're saying -- but gut instincts tell me there's legit honesty coming from those that testified to hearing the fatal head shot *sequence* in quick-succession ... on top on each other ... David Von Pein's *few* witness accounts of hearing equal spacing shots fired I just feel uncomfortable accepting - as fact - because I know I can't trust certain personalities testimony in the JFK assassination. I admit bias. I believe there was significant intimidation/manipulation targeted towards those that strayed from the narrative of the FBI/Warren Report. Won't even pretend otherwise, I am easily written off as being affected by confirmation bias. - that those that publicly spoke of the fatal head shot coming *audibly* in a tightly-spaced-grouping-of-shots are more compelling to me.

Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 17, 2019, 02:35:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe you should open your eyes.......

The late Gary Mack sums it up nicely:  ?there may have been a conspiracy to kill JFK, but I cannot prove it nor can anybody else?.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 17, 2019, 04:17:42 AM
Oswald may have killed JFK, but I cannot prove it nor can anyone else.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Tom Scully on March 17, 2019, 05:29:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The late Gary Mack sums it up nicely:  ?there may have been a conspiracy to kill JFK, but I cannot prove it nor can anybody else?.

Was it meaningless coincidence Marina was unavailable for nearly 15 years immediatetly after her husband's death?
There seemed serious efforts to prevent either of the Oswald couple from timely, extensive Q&A in front of news cameras.

https://newspaperarchive.com/van-nuys-valley-news-sep-11-1977-p-51/
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Marina15yearsPriscillaPerryKnowlton.jpg)

The circumstances, mysterious, troubled former USMC, former defector to the U.S.S.R., performs flawlessly between 7:00 am
and the late afternoon discovery of revolver rounds and a bus transfer, still on his person.

The official report amounts to LN transports sniper rifle without arousing suspicion, to the TSBD via neighbor and co-worker Frazier,
and across the parking lot and into the TSBD, secreting the rifle on the sixth floor. The LN manages around the unusually active floor
laying crew temporarily assigned to resurface the sixth floor. A sniper's perch comprised of boxes of books is set up during the lunch
break, but not before a coworker returns to finish his lunch and leave, and not too late to miss the pass-by of the POTUS targeted.

The rifle reportedly was debagged and reassembled before three shots were fired as rapidly and accurately as would be expected
after some recent practice and extraordinary nerve and composure.
After exiting the perch of boxes, the LN again secretes the rifle, then leaves the floor, still unobserved, showing up near the beginning of
the Baker and Truly team up to dash through the TSBD, floor by floor.

The LN slips out of the TSBD, and exhibiting no particular urgency, makes his way to his rented room, changes or doesn't change out
of his work clothes, exits concealing his revolver with a jacket later recovered at TSBD (huh? Does it only sound like that happened, or...?)
and is soon in a deadly confrontation with a police officer 0.8 mile from Oswald's room, accomplished between 12:20 rifle reassembly
and 1:15 pm escape from the Tippit murder scene.

A jacket found along the LN escape route ended at the Texas Theater proves untraceable despite attached dry cleaning tag. No source
linking the rifle ammunition to the LN or to the rifle was ever determined.

If you are of the school in which alumni make their own luck, The LN enjoyed much luck and concealed the source of the rifle's sling,
in addition to the bullets and possibly the stripper clip? The record describes the LN going through initial booking, obviously with
undetected revolver rounds and bus transfer. The LN also spends his first, or longer, incarcerated hour not noticing he is carrying
undetected revolver bullets and bus transfer.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Michael Walton on March 17, 2019, 09:08:41 AM
QUOTE: "The rifle reportedly was debagged and reassembled before three shots ..."

The reassembled rifle performs flawlessly with no chance for the suspected assassin to perform any test firing to ensure the rifle and scope are correctly aligned.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 17, 2019, 09:15:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Waiting for your killer & conspiracy to show up...

Waiting for your evidence that Oswald did it to show up.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Michael Walton on March 17, 2019, 01:49:49 PM
Hey, Bill Chapman...

What's the point of a conspiracy if the killers do not want to be caught - duh!

And besides, as a Kennedy hater, your eyes and mind are quite clouded. I think in other circles they call it "biased."

Take care, Bill.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 17, 2019, 02:37:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The late Gary Mack sums it up nicely:  ?there may have been a conspiracy to kill JFK, but I cannot prove it nor can anybody else?.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Mr May.....  Gary Mack was wrong.....There definitely was a conspiracy to murder JFK, and blame a hapless James Bond wanna-be for the murder.    The plot was anchored at the highest levels of the US government and they used the horrific threat of nuclear war and "national Security"to dupe us pissants  into accepting their lies.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 17, 2019, 10:01:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All it takes not to see "hard credible" evidence is to dismiss whatever is being offered as not credible.
Thumb1: (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Clapping.gif)
That statement is so profound that I bookmarked it !!
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 17, 2019, 10:07:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hey, Bill Chapman... as a Kennedy hater, your eyes and mind are quite clouded. I think in other circles they call it "biased."
OK ...This is a British/Irish thing right?
 
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 18, 2019, 01:41:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  Lee Harvey Oswald was a first-rate, bona fide kook...he killed President John F. Kennedy, 
A kook because he killed Kennedy [supposedly] He killed Kennedy [supposedly] because he was a kook...Why? because [supposedly] he killed Kennedy. Seriously, here is the facts--- the cops had never heard of Oswald before but in less than an hour and a half they were absolutely convinced that he was a cold blooded killer. 48 hours later, he was silenced forever.
 
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Richard Smith on March 18, 2019, 01:38:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A kook because he killed Kennedy [supposedly] He killed Kennedy [supposedly] because he was a kook...Why? because [supposedly] he killed Kennedy. Seriously, here is the facts--- the cops had never heard of Oswald before but in less than an hour and a half they were absolutely convinced that he was a cold blooded killer. 48 hours later, he was silenced forever.

Why would the cops have needed to have "heard of Oswald" before the assassination to be convinced he was a "cold blooded killer"?  He fled the scene of the JFK assassination and was implicated in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later (the only DPD officer killed within a couple year span).  The murder of a police officer in broad daylight was so rare that it likely was related to the assassination.  They didn't need Sherlock Holmes to reach that conclusion as even journalists that heard reports of a murdered police officer immediately thought it was related.  So once they had Oswald as a suspect on the Tippit murder, they knew he was a potential suspect in the JFK assassination which the investigation quickly confirmed.   It is silly to suggest that there was something odd about Oswald being deemed the suspected assassin after his arrest in the Tippit murder.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 18, 2019, 06:28:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
... even journalists that heard reports of a murdered police officer immediately thought it was related.   
That is a very good point. Thanks for that insight. Yeah...the hunt was on huh?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 19, 2019, 04:33:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The murder of a police officer in broad daylight was so rare that it likely was related to the assassination.

That?s a ridiculous non-sequitur ? even for you.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2019, 05:47:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hey, Bill Chapman...

What's the point of a conspiracy if the killers do not want to be caught - duh!

And besides, as a Kennedy hater, your eyes and mind are quite clouded. I think in other circles they call it "biased."

Take care, Bill.

LOL

Where do you get the idea that I'm a Kennedy 'hater'
It's you guys who are supporting the prime suspect
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 19, 2019, 12:13:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL

Where do you get the idea that I'm a Kennedy 'hater'
It's you guys who are supporting the prime suspect

I think you mean your prime suspect...
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2019, 07:09:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you mean your prime suspect...

You think a lot of things, don't you.. 56 years worth, in fact.
And yet, no replacement for 'my' prime suspect
Why is that, John?

Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay... you can go.
Mr. Oswald: [SMIRK]
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 19, 2019, 08:22:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You think a lot of things, don't you.. 56 years worth, in fact.
And yet, no replacement for 'my' prime suspect
Why is that, John?

Because your "prime suspect" isn't just the answer by default.

McAdams: Oswald did it.
Mr. Chapman: Prime suspect!
Everyone else: [SMIRK]
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Tom Scully on March 19, 2019, 08:58:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You think a lot of things, don't you.. 56 years worth, in fact.
And yet, no replacement for 'my' prime suspect
Why is that, John?
.....
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2019, 09:10:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because your "prime suspect" isn't just the answer by default.

McAdams: Oswald did it.
Mr. Chapman: Prime suspect!
Everyone else: [SMIRK]

Because your "prime suspect" isn't just the answer by default.
>>> What, too soon?

Mr. McADAMS: Oswald did it.
Mr. CHAPMAN: Probably [;D]
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. McAdams: Oswald did it.
Mr. Chapman: Probably [;D]

Mr. McAdams: Oswald did it.
Mr. Chapman: Probably [;D]
Everyone else: ??????
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2019, 09:22:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. McAdams: Oswald did it.
Mr. Chapman: Probably [;D]
Everyone else: ??????

Everyone else: ??????
That's right, two of you: Mr. Weidmann and Mr. Iacoletti
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2019, 09:43:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Everyone else: ??????
That's right, two of you: Mr. Weidmann and Mr. Iacoletti

Oh well, as long as you are sure that Oswald probably did it.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 22, 2019, 01:33:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Mr May.....  Gary Mack was wrong.....There definitely was a conspiracy to murder JFK, and blame a hapless James Bond wanna-be for the murder.    The plot was anchored at the highest levels of the US government and they used the horrific threat of nuclear war and "national Security"to dupe us pissants  into accepting their lies.

Opinion, unsupported by ANY hard, credible evidence.  The perfect example of a conspiracy advocate seeking confirmation bias.  IOW, a cliche?.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 22, 2019, 01:35:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thumb1: (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Clapping.gif)
That statement is so profound that I bookmarked it !!

Interesting.  What?s been offered to prove this conspiracy in 56 years?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 22, 2019, 03:32:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Opinion, unsupported by ANY hard, credible evidence.  The perfect example of a conspiracy advocate seeking confirmation bias.  IOW, a cliche?.

Pssssst Mr May.... Have you ever heard of the HSCA ?.....  Are you aware that they used "hard, credible evidence" and they concluded that there was a conspiracy behind the coup d e'tat.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 23, 2019, 12:39:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Interesting.  What?s been offered to prove this conspiracy in 56 years?

Hello Mr May!

Perhaps you can explain the below for us?

Thank you! Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 23, 2019, 12:44:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Interesting.  What?s been offered to prove this conspiracy in 56 years?
Someone should produce a Paul May doll. You pull the string and it asks the same question over and over again ... day after day.....month after month for 56 years.
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 24, 2019, 01:54:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Someone should produce a Paul May doll. You pull the string and it asks the same question over and over again ... day after day.....month after month for 56 years.
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)

I?ll stop asking the question when it?s answered. I believe it?s safe to say you cannot answer it. Why would u be any different than any other conspiracy nut? 56 years and you lunatics cannot produce an alternative to the events of that day.  Know how stupid you sound? Apparently not.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 24, 2019, 02:03:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pssssst Mr May.... Have you ever heard of the HSCA ?.....  Are you aware that they used "hard, credible evidence" and they concluded that there was a conspiracy behind the coup d e'tat.

Once again Walt, you either lie deliberately or more likely still know nothing about the case. At all. The HSCA, agreed with the WC that Oswald shot POTUS. THE HSCA NEVER said it was a conspiracy. They said it was a probable conspiracy but....they could not prove it. No different than what Gary Mack stated. Not one human being in 56 years has PROVEN a conspiracy.  So Walt, keep screaming coup like the maniac you are and after you?ve left this life, people will remember you likely ?as the nut? who screamed ?CONSPIRACY? and just kept lying his entire life.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 24, 2019, 05:16:06 AM
 Not one human being in 56 years has PROVEN that Oswald did it either, so what?s the difference?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 24, 2019, 06:54:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hello Mr May!

Perhaps you can explain the below for us?

Thank you! Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

Bumped for Mr May, who seems to have missed it the first time!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 24, 2019, 07:11:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Once again Walt, you either lie deliberately or more likely still know nothing about the case. At all. The HSCA, agreed with the WC that Oswald shot POTUS. THE HSCA NEVER said it was a conspiracy. They said it was a probable conspiracy but....they could not prove it. No different than what Gary Mack stated. Not one human being in 56 years has PROVEN a conspiracy.  So Walt, keep screaming coup like the maniac you are and after you?ve left this life, people will remember you likely ?as the nut? who screamed ?CONSPIRACY? and just kept lying his entire life.

Once again Walt, you either lie deliberately or more likely still know nothing about the case.
In making a statement like this you merely expose your ignorance.... Because there are many in this forum who disagree with you...

And I know without any doubt that Lee Oswald DID NOT fire that carcano from the sixth floor window. I know that as sure as the sun rises and sets every day....
 And I doubt that he fired any weapon from anyplace in Dealy Plaza ......   
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 25, 2019, 01:29:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not one human being in 56 years has PROVEN that Oswald did it either, so what?s the difference?

Huge difference. History has recorded Oswald as the assassin. Try reading non fiction as opposed to conspiracy theory. You may learn something.  Nah, you won?t.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 25, 2019, 01:33:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bumped for Mr May, who seems to have missed it the first time!  Thumb1:

And this minor piece of nothing means what to you?  The relevance is?  You believe this singular piece of nonsense offsets EVERY piece of physical evidence proving Oswald as the sole shooter?  I hope you?re kidding but I know you?re not.  That?s your sickness.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 25, 2019, 01:37:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Once again Walt, you either lie deliberately or more likely still know nothing about the case.
In making a statement like this you merely expose your ignorance.... Because there are many in this forum who disagree with you...

And I know without any doubt that Lee Oswald DID NOT fire that carcano from the sixth floor window. I know that as sure as the sun rises and sets every day....
 And I doubt that he fired any weapon from anyplace in Dealy Plaza ......

You know without any doubt huh?  So, you believe somebody other than Oswald shot Kennedy?  Well Walt, belief is something one has in the absence of actual evidence.  Belief contains bias.  Belief is always seeking out confirmation.  Yes, this is a conspiracy forum.  That?s why you?re here Walt, is it not?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 01:40:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And this minor piece of nothing means what to you?  The relevance is?  You believe this singular piece of nonsense offsets EVERY piece of physical evidence proving Oswald as the sole shooter?  I hope you?re kidding but I know you?re not.  That?s your sickness.

 :D

This 'minor piece of nothing', Mr May, is an official DPD document pertaining to the submission and release of two items of physical evidence:

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

Kindly take note of the dates on this document, and then explain to us where you believe these 2 curtain rods came from.

Thank you!  Thumb1:

Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 25, 2019, 01:46:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

This 'minor piece of nothing', Mr May, is an official DPD document pertaining to the submission and release of two items of physical evidence:

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

Kindly take note of the dates on this document, and then explain to us where you believe these 2 curtain rods came from.

Thank you!  Thumb1:

So, a cop or cops got dates wrong. What is YOUR point? What do YOU believes this proves?  What to YOU is the relevance?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 01:53:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, a cop or cops got dates wrong. What is YOUR point? What do YOU believes this proves?  What to YOU is the relevance?

Mr May, are you arguing that Lieutenant J. C. Day got both dates on this document wrong?

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

What possible reason could you have for making such an extraordinary, evidence-denying claim?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 25, 2019, 02:01:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr May, are you arguing that Lieutenant J. C. Day got both dates on this document wrong?

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

What possible reason could you have for making such an extraordinary, evidence-denying claim?

 Thumb1:

Mr.Ford, my question, which you keep avoiding is:  what do you believe this is ?evidence? of?  A simple question I would think as you?ve posted it numerous times.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 02:07:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr.Ford, my question, which you keep avoiding is:  what do you believe this is ?evidence? of?  A simple question I would think as you?ve posted it numerous times.

Mr May, it is clearcut evidence that
-------------2 curtain rods were submitted for fingerprinting against Mr Oswald's prints 8 days before 2 curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage
-------------these same 2 curtain rods were not signed out of the DPD crime lab until the day after 2 curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage.

What possible reason do you have to make the kooky claim that Lieutenant J. C. Day got both dates on this form wrong?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 25, 2019, 02:16:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr May, it is clearcut evidence that
-------------2 curtain rods were submitted for fingerprinting against Mr Oswald's prints 8 days before 2 curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage
-------------these same 2 curtain rods were not signed out of the DPD crime lab until the day after 2 curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage.

What possible reason do you have to make the kooky claim that Lieutenant J. C. Day got both dates on this form wrong?

 Thumb1:

What is the origin of this form and what did Day say about it?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 02:23:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What is the origin of this form and what did Day say about it?

Origin: official DPD files: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337461/?q=%22curtain%20rods%22

As far as I am aware, Lieutenant Day was never questioned about this form. Thankfully, his signature and handwriting, as well as Agent Howlett's signature, verify its authenticity. As of course does the fact that it is part of the official DPD archive.

Now! We're still waiting for you to explain your grounds for making the kooky claim that Lieutenant Day got both dates on the form wrong.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 25, 2019, 02:28:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Origin: official DPD files: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337461/?q=%22curtain%20rods%22

As far as I am aware, Lieutenant Day was never questioned about this form. Thankfully, his signature and handwriting, as well as Agent Howlett's signature, verify its authenticity. As of course does the fact that it is part of the official DPD archive.

Now! We're still waiting for you to explain your grounds for making the kooky claim that Lieutenant Day got both dates on the form wrong.

 Thumb1:

So, the question is:  why is this material to the case against Oswald?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 02:33:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, the question is:  why is this material to the case against Oswald?

 :D

So, the question is: why did you claim that both of the dates on this official Crime Scene Search Section form are wrong? What grounds did you have for pushing such an extraordinary notion?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 25, 2019, 06:14:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Huge difference. History has recorded Oswald as the assassin. Try reading non fiction as opposed to conspiracy theory. You may learn something.  Nah, you won?t.

?History has recorded?.  :D

What does that even mean?

Try reading non-fiction as opposed to the Warren Report. You may learn something. Nah, you won?t.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 25, 2019, 06:15:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And this minor piece of nothing means what to you?  The relevance is?  You believe this singular piece of nonsense offsets EVERY piece of physical evidence proving Oswald as the sole shooter?

All ZERO of them?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 25, 2019, 06:18:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, a cop or cops got dates wrong.

And you know these dates are wrong, how exactly?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 10:44:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you know these dates are wrong, how exactly?

It's almost as though Mr May can't justify such an extraordinary claim!
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on March 25, 2019, 11:19:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's almost as though Mr May can't justify such an extraordinary claim!

why don't you just talk about what went on in the middle ages?  tis' far more interesting, am so jealous the wealthy had such a good time.  back in the day.  but oswald killed kennedy, tis' true without lying, certain and most true...... sorry, hermes.  and kennedy's tale has already been written, though not cast in (Oliver) stone, perhaps....... sigh+
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Richard Smith on March 25, 2019, 01:30:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr.Ford, my question, which you keep avoiding is:  what do you believe this is ?evidence? of?  A simple question I would think as you?ve posted it numerous times.

Alan just posts the form over and over noting that March 15 comes before March 23 as though that proves something.  He appears to be contending that Oswald took curtain rods to the TSBD on Nov. 22.  Those rods were found by some unknown person and the authorities then successfully suppressed them to promote the conclusion that Oswald carried a rifle instead of curtain rods in his bag.  For some inexplicable reason that Alan refuse to address, the same authorities who successfully suppress these curtain rods in an effort to frame Oswald then decided bring them to light five months later to test them for Oswald's prints!  LOL.  And conveniently fill out this form to document the evidence they have gone to great pains to suppress.  Oswald helps them out by, again inexplicably, denying not only that he had any curtain rods but that he even carried a long bag that morning.  Alan apparently refuses to acknowledge that perhaps Ruth Paine brought the curtain rods in her garage to the notice of the WC or DPD before her interview and that they were taken from her garage to check Oswald's story to Frazier that he had gone there for curtain rods.  Then replaced in the garage for the purpose of her testimony.   The fact that the form contains the same WC exhibit number referenced in Paine's later testimony is consistent with that narrative and if there were any doubt Ruth Paine herself confirms these curtain rods were taken from her garage and that they had been there since the assassination (i.e. they were not recovered elsewhere). 
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 01:49:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alan apparently refuses to acknowledge that perhaps Ruth Paine brought the curtain rods in her garage to the notice of the WC or DPD before her interview and that they were taken from her garage to check Oswald's story to Frazier that he had gone there for curtain rods.  Then replaced in the garage for the purpose of her testimony.

 :D

Nice try, Mr Smith!

Unfortunately.... you fail. Yet again!

The 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March were not signed back out until 24 March.

On the evening of 23 March, Agent Howlett found 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage.

Now! Attend closely to what I am about to say:

23 March comes before 24 March.

Therefore the 2 curtain rods which Agent Howlett removed from the Paine garage cannot be the same 2 curtain rods he had submitted 8 days earlier for fingerprinting.

If you're still struggling to get your brain around these simple facts, I can but invite you to take out your calculator and verify for yourself that-----------

2 + 2 = 4

Perhaps Mr May now understands all this, which would explain his decision to crawl back under his rock!

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 02:00:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
?History has recorded?.  :D

What does that even mean?

Try reading non-fiction as opposed to the Warren Report. You may learn something. Nah, you won?t.

History has recorded that Mr May is not merely a gullible fool, he is a coward as well. When he finds that he can't actually defend one of his own extraordinary claims, he turns tail and.... runs away!

 :D
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 25, 2019, 05:22:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alan apparently refuses to acknowledge that perhaps Ruth Paine brought the curtain rods in her garage to the notice of the WC or DPD before her interview and that they were taken from her garage to check Oswald's story to Frazier that he had gone there for curtain rods.  Then replaced in the garage for the purpose of her testimony. 

Does this lame excuse hypothesis make any sense to anybody? What would be the point of (or the need to) replace them in the garage for her testimony and then have her lie about them being there since the assassination? Or are you suggesting that the police took them out of her garage without her knowledge?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 25, 2019, 05:52:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Once again Walt, you either lie deliberately or more likely still know nothing about the case.
In making a statement like this you merely expose your ignorance.... Because there are many in this forum who disagree with you...

And I know without any doubt that Lee Oswald DID NOT fire that carcano from the sixth floor window. I know that as sure as the sun rises and sets every day....
 And I doubt that he fired any weapon from anyplace in Dealy Plaza ......

I know that as sure as the sun rises and sets every day....
>>> The catch is that you get east & west mixed up
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 06:23:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Does this lame excuse hypothesis make any sense to anybody? What would be the point of (or the need to) replace them in the garage for her testimony and then have her lie about them being there since the assassination? Or are you suggesting that the police took them out of her garage without her knowledge?

Mr Smith's lame excuse hypothesis also rests on the incredibly stupid simply incredible idea that it had occurred to not a single person in law enforcement------DPD, FBI, SS------in the hours and days and weeks following the assassination to check whether Ms Paine had any curtain rods in her home. No! Instead it's left to Ms Paine to pick up the phone months later and say, 'Gentlemen, it might interest you to know that I have some curtain rods in my garage from before the assassination. You must have missed them during your several searches of the property'. And they look at each other and say, 'Hey, that's interesting------we should get them fingerprinted. That way we can prove absolutely nothing of relevance to the case! But let's take them from the garage in secret and then return them in secret and lie to the Warren Commission about what we're doing. That would be another really effective way of achieving absolutely nothing!'

 ::)
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Richard Smith on March 26, 2019, 01:09:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr Smith's lame excuse hypothesis also rests on the incredibly stupid simply incredible idea that it had occurred to not a single person in law enforcement------DPD, FBI, SS------in the hours and days and weeks following the assassination to check whether Ms Paine had any curtain rods in her home. No! Instead it's left to Ms Paine to pick up the phone months later and say, 'Gentlemen, it might interest you to know that I have some curtain rods in my garage from before the assassination. You must have missed them during your several searches of the property'. And they look at each other and say, 'Hey, that's interesting------we should get them fingerprinted. That way we can prove absolutely nothing of relevance to the case! But let's take them from the garage in secret and then return them in secret and lie to the Warren Commission about what we're doing. That would be another really effective way of achieving absolutely nothing!'

 ::)

You think my hypothesis is "stupid" when your crazy narrative has the authorities successfully suppressing curtain rods to avoid having them ever associated with Oswald but then five months later voluntarily bringing them to light to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints!  LOL.  Why would they do that?  And conveniently filling out a form to document the testing of the very curtains rods that they want to cover up.   Whew.  And Oswald himself denies the fairy tale you are spinning.  He confirmed that he had no curtain rods.  Paine confirms these rods were from her garage and even your form notes the WC exhibit number given to them.   That is the single dumbest theory I've read here in a very long time.  And that is saying a lot. 
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 26, 2019, 04:36:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You think my hypothesis is "stupid" when your crazy narrative has the authorities successfully suppressing curtain rods to avoid having them ever associated with Oswald but then five months later voluntarily bringing them to light to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints!

 :D

What is it with you and strawman arguments, Mr Smith? I never said what you say I said!

Now listen up, I'm going to play nice here and talk you through this incredibly complex matter one more time!  Thumb1:

The Crime Scene Search Section form tells us that
-------------as of 7.30pm 23 March 1964--------------
there were 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Get your calculator out, Mr Smith, and press '2'!  Thumb1:

We know from the on-the-record testimony of Ms Paine in Irving, Texas on 23 March 1964 that
-------------as of 7.30pm 23 March 1964--------------
there were 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage.

Press '+ 2' on your calculator, Mr Smith!  Thumb1:

Well done, sir, you're doing an outstanding job!

Now press '='!  Thumb1:

What number has just popped up on your calculator screen, Mr Smith?

Did I create the hard evidence yielding this number? Nope! I'm just reporting it. It's there for all to see on the official Crime Scene Search Section form.

So there's no point attacking me. All that does is draw renewed attention to your utter, total, embarrassing inability to explain the hard evidence away!

 :D
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2019, 10:52:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What is it with you and strawman arguments, Mr Smith? I never said what you say I said!

That's what "Richard" does.  He will strawman you to death instead of responding to what you actually say.  He doesn't care about anomalies or discrepancies with the purported evidence.  He doesn't even represent the evidence accurately.

We don't know what Oswald denied or confirmed, and besides, "Richard" thinks that Oswald was a liar -- except when he wasn't.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Alan Ford on March 26, 2019, 11:48:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's what "Richard" does.  He will strawman you to death instead of responding to what you actually say.  He doesn't care about anomalies or discrepancies with the purported evidence.  He doesn't even represent the evidence accurately.

We don't know what Oswald denied or confirmed, and besides, "Richard" thinks that Oswald was a liar -- except when he wasn't.

Some folks believe these guys are paid disinformationalists. But I don't buy it. No one in their right mind would pay for such an outlandishly incompetent debater as Mr Smith!  :D
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 29, 2019, 12:13:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some folks believe these guys are paid disinformationalists. But I don't buy it. No one in their right mind would pay for such an outlandishly incompetent debater as Mr Smith!  :D

Lol. Cannot make this s?t up. Those with ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to support a conspiracy in 56 years calls one using simple common sense and actual evidence incompetent. Conspiracy theory is a disease and Ford missed his vaccinations.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2019, 12:20:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lol. Cannot make this s?t up. Those with ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to support a conspiracy in 56 years calls one using simple common sense and actual evidence incompetent. Conspiracy theory is a disease and Ford missed his vaccinations.

Paulie is getting upset?.. Maybe a round of golf will calm him down.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 29, 2019, 12:22:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Paulie is getting upset?.. Maybe a round of golf will calm him down.

The exact type of response one expects from an idiot who breathes conspiracy.  See DiEugenio.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2019, 12:25:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The exact type of response one expects from an idiot who breathes conspiracy.  See DiEugenio.

It's the only response you deserve.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 29, 2019, 12:50:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Paulie is getting upset?.. Maybe a round of golf will calm him down.

Way healthier than getting one's relaxation out of a bottle, I hear*. And not cost the taxpayers $3m+ every time he heads out to his favourite course.

*How are Tom, Jack, and Jim these days, btw?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2019, 12:54:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Way healthier than getting one's relaxation out of a bottle, I hear*. And not cost the taxpayers $3m+ every time he heads out to his favourite course.

*How are Tom, Jack, and Jim these days, btw?

Oh, look how charming? Billy wants to join in...  :D
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 29, 2019, 12:58:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, look how charming? Billy wants to join in...  :D

Paulie? Billy?  The conspiracy community must be cringing each time this clown posts.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2019, 01:00:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Paulie? Billy?  The conspiracy community must be cringing each time this clown posts.

I actually know for a fact that they are laughing?. as they should when clowns like you are involved

You are entertaining for a little while but you will never be any more than that
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 29, 2019, 01:05:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I actually know for a fact that they are laughing?. as they should when clowns like you are involved

A fact? Must be the same type of ?fact? you need for a conspiracy in the JFK event.  One more non existent fact. This is to damn easy lol.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2019, 01:11:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A fact? Must be the same type of ?fact? you need for a conspiracy in the JFK event.  One more non existent fact. This is to damn easy lol.

I don't need any fact for a conspiracy?. it's all the same to me. I just want to know what really happened.

So, you just show me a "fact" that Oswald is guilty and acted alone and I'll gladly accept it.... but you can't, can you now?

You've got nothing more than hot air and a bad attitude, but that's already well known fact for anybody who you've been in contact with.

You are getting pretty tiresome with your overinflated ego and your inability to even defend the crap you believe in.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 29, 2019, 01:20:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't need any fact for a conspiracy?. it's all the same to me. I just want to know what really happened.

So, you just show me a "fact" that Oswald is guilty and acted alone and I'll gladly accept it.... but you can't, can you now?

You've got nothing more than hot air and a bad attitude, but that's already well known fact for anybody who you've been in contact with.

Totality of circumstantial evidence and Oswald?s consciousness of guilt are two issues conspiracy nuts can not over come. Those are the facts. Your own ignorance in stating a direct evidence case is stronger one more time shows those reading this exchange understand your inability to reason critically and demonstrates once again your total ignorance of the evidence in this case. You seek confirmation bias as the majority of ignorant people do. You cannot even garner support on this thread.  How pathetic are you ?Marty?.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2019, 01:37:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Totality of circumstantial evidence and Oswald?s consciousness of guilt are two issues conspiracy nuts can not over come. Those are the facts. Your own ignorance in stating a direct evidence case is stronger one more time shows those reading this exchange understand your inability to reason critically and demonstrates once again your total ignorance of the evidence in this case. You seek confirmation bias as the majority of ignorant people do. You cannot even garner support on this thread.  How pathetic are you ?Marty?.

bla bla bla   

More of the same arrogant "I know better and you are ignorant" crap. What isn't there is just one straight forward argument to support your case.

Don't you ever get tired of yourself?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 29, 2019, 01:45:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
bla bla bla   

More of the same arrogant "I know better and you are ignorant" crap. What isn't there is just one straight forward argument to support your case.

Don't you ever get tired of yourself?

Last response.  I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s who actually knew the evidence and disputed said evidence.  They could propose no argument for conspiracy and said so.  You?re to effen stupid to even consider that. You?re a clown who with each posting demonstrates to ALL your desire to waste peoples time. I know longer play that game. I prefer golf.  It?s more challenging.  Good riddance.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2019, 01:51:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Last response.  I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s who actually knew the evidence and disputed said evidence.  They could propose no argument for conspiracy and said so.  You?re to effen stupid to even consider that. You?re a clown who with each posting demonstrates to ALL your desire to waste peoples time. I know longer play that game. I prefer golf.  It?s more challenging.  Good riddance.

I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s 

Sure you have.. there is just no trace of it anywhere on line

They could propose no argument for conspiracy and said so.

So what? Is it your pathetic argument that - even it was true - that means that "Oswald did it alone" wins by default?

I know longer play that game. I prefer golf.  It?s more challenging.  Good riddance.

And yet you are still here, posting crap on a frequent basis.... very believable? and btw, you don't even know how to play golf.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 29, 2019, 02:18:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s 

Sure you have.. there is just no trace of it anywhere on line

They could propose no argument for conspiracy and said so.

So what? Is it your pathetic argument that - even it was true - that means that "Oswald did it alone" wins by default?

I know longer play that game. I prefer golf.  It?s more challenging.  Good riddance.

And yet you are still here, posting crap on a frequent basis.... very believable? and btw, you don't even know how to play golf.

You and Caprio, two pathological liars.  I?ll prove it once more.  You state above I?m a ?frequent? poster.  You and I joined this forum within two days of one another.  Since,I have posted 194 times. You?ve posted 1,093 times. Once again demonstrates your inability to do even mundane research. You so obviously lack the basics in knowing/understand what constitutes research.  So stop lying already.....Caprio jr.  May...OUT.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2019, 09:00:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You and Caprio, two pathological liars.  I?ll prove it once more.  You state above I?m a ?frequent? poster.  You and I joined this forum within two days of one another.  Since,I have posted 194 times. You?ve posted 1,093 times. Once again demonstrates your inability to do even mundane research. You so obviously lack the basics in knowing/understand what constitutes research.  So stop lying already.....Caprio jr.  May...OUT.


The difference between you and I is (and always has been) that I am only active on this board and I have a posting average of less than 3 posts a day. You, on the other hand, have been (and probably still are) obsessed with this case for 50+ years. Remember this;

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Last response.  I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s who actually knew the evidence and disputed said evidence.


The fact that you post less than I is hardly surprising either, since you have hardly anything interesting to say.


You so obviously lack the basics in knowing/understand what constitutes research.

And yet, when I challenged you to a live debate where you could have demostrated your supposed superior knowledge, you made up weak excuses and ran as fast as you could?.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 29, 2019, 02:11:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The difference between you and I is (and always has been) that I am only active on this board and you have been (and probably still are) all over the place, displaying a 50+ year old obsession. Remember this;


You so obviously lack the basics in knowing/understand what constitutes research.

And yet, when I challenged you to a live debate where you could have demostrated your supposed superior knowledge, you made up excuses and ran as fast as you could

Paul May ( who someday learn to reason) Wrote:  ..."Totality of circumstantial evidence and Oswald?s consciousness of guilt are two issues conspiracy nuts can not over come. Those are the facts."

So, Paul believes that CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE and Lee Oswald's CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT  ( what ever that means?) are two issues that he can stand on in complete faith ....   And Paul calls them FACTS.   This clearly demonstrates that Paul doesn't know FACTS from FIGS..... and he has the audacity to call those who refuse to believe nonsense as... "conspiracy nuts".

Lee Oswald's CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT .....   could Paul believe that Lee clearly telling reporters that he did not shoot anybody an indication that he was guilty?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2019, 06:33:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Totality of circumstantial evidence and Oswald?s consciousness of guilt are two issues conspiracy nuts can not over come. Those are the facts.

?Consciousness of guilt? isn?t a ?fact?, it?s confirmation bias. Pot, kettle.

Quote
Your own ignorance in stating a direct evidence case is stronger one more time shows those reading this exchange understand your inability to reason critically and demonstrates once again your total ignorance of the evidence in this case. You seek confirmation bias as the majority of ignorant people do. You cannot even garner support on this thread. 

Of course a direct evidence case is stronger. Circumstantial evidence is all judgment calls and assumptions.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2019, 06:38:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You state above I?m a ?frequent? poster.  You and I joined this forum within two days of one another.  Since,I have posted 194 times.

Why have you even posted 194 times if you ?no longer play that game??
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on March 30, 2019, 06:50:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The late Gary Mack sums it up nicely:  ?there may have been a conspiracy to kill JFK, but I cannot prove it nor can anybody else?.
Wow! I am so impressed that you would choose a genius to quote from like Gary "I changed my mind more than a woman" Mack. How long did it take you to dig that one up? Be honest
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 30, 2019, 06:52:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why have you even posted 194 times if you ?no longer play that game??

Why do you routinely ask the dumbest questions on this forum?  And that?s saying something.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 30, 2019, 07:00:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
?Consciousness of guilt? isn?t a ?fact?, it?s confirmation bias. Pot, kettle.

Of course a direct evidence case is stronger. Circumstantial evidence is all judgment calls and assumptions.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.  Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2019, 07:00:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do you routinely ask the dumbest questions on this forum?  And that?s saying something.

Why are you routinely unable to answer the dumbest questions on this forum?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2019, 07:09:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.

Not in this case.

Quote
Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.  Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence,

That is eyewitness testimony, just not of the crime, and has all the same problems.

Quote
or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission.

?Experts? are just as subject to bias and error as anyone else. In a real trial, this is tempered by having both sides present expert testimony.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on March 30, 2019, 09:13:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.  Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does
Too bad all the evidence was tainted.  You would think there would be more evidence other than LHO was in the DSBD that day.  If Oswald would have survived being shot I wonder how much he would have received for damages. What a terrible couple of days where two individuals were not protected appropriately, how embarrassing and I am sure you would agree.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Paul May on March 30, 2019, 09:11:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why have you even posted 194 times if you ?no longer play that game??

Addiction.  I love reading what you xxxxxx post. Just being honest.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2019, 10:17:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Addiction.  I love reading what you xxxxxx post. Just being honest.

So when you said you ?no longer play that game?, you didn?t really mean it?
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on March 31, 2019, 02:31:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Addiction.  I love reading what you xxxxxx post. Just being honest.
"Addiction" you shouldn't joke around considering the fact it was a group of old men who lured you in with their WC candy, kidnapped that lazy mind of yours and we still see they continue to do the thinking for you.
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Tom Scully on March 31, 2019, 04:01:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Addiction" you shouldn't joke around considering the fact it was a group of old men who lured you in with their WC candy, kidnapped that lazy mind of yours and we still see they continue to do the thinking for you.

Could you not consider the (disqualifying) unabashed hypocrisy of the evidentiary standards (if critics demonstrated any minimum evidentiary standards, aside from lip service)  the vocal critics of the Warren Report hold themselves to, compared to the dramatically higher evidentiary standards these same critics and those who came before them during these 55 years dismiss the WC for allegedly not maintaining during their inquiry and deliberations?

Quote
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-10/
Tom S.  December 29, 2015 at 7:57 pm

....As far as I have determined, and I would appreciate reading a comment from a better informed submitter,
J Gary Shaw has never furnished any evidence supporting his 1993 description of the contents of hospital records describing a head wound similar to a bullet wound.

All I could present was an image of Marcades?s death certificate. I chose this topic because I wonder what either ?community? requires in the way of actual evidence to base assumptions on.

What impresses Jfkfacts.org commenters? Why? How is your approach to this research similar or different from buying an expensive item
on Ebay or Craigslist, or a home or a used car?

A vocal critic of the WC report who time after time demonstrates no discipline when spewing poorly, or entirely unsupported opinions
or conclusions seems no more reasonable than a vocal supporter of the SBT.

The SBT is an extraordinary claim. Critics of the SBT as a reliable explanation of the number of shots and their effects generally have liitle
or no problems, for example, with the almost entirely unsubstantiated claims of the then used car salesman, James Tague.

My interactions with Paul May have been more limited than my familiarity with Putin's emerging puppet, Jim DiEugenio, but my
experiences dealing with both of them persuade me Paul May could meet the reasonable person standard. DiEugenio, OTOH, seems to
believe Trump is indeed a victim of a deep state conspiracy and Jim Garrison was, first and foremost an honest, ethical prosecutor thwarted in his investigation of Clay Shaw, et al, as well as in his prosecution of Shaw, by determined CIA interference and obstruction of justice.
Garrison "expert" DiEugenio responds to this li'l dilemna by attacking me personally instead of dealing reasonably with these curious
contradictions that clearly indicate Tague was not the only actor with the scruples of a used car salesman.

Paul May is not the problem. Relying on CT authors with a financial stake related to the popularity of their published books
to "inform" us, too often unchallenged, instead of doing the tedious work of our own meticulous fact checking is the core problem,
in my experience.

Does this not resemble false representation to a court?
Quote
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/806/603/1747985/
Russo v. Conde Nast Publications, 806 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. La. 1992)
US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - 806 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. La. 1992)
November 17, 1992
......
UNDISPUTED FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

In its January, 1992 issue, GQ Magazine published an article entitled "The Case Against Jim Garrison" (hereafter the "GQ article"). The GQ article was written by Nicholas B. Lemann, a New Orleans native and winner of numerous awards for his books and articles. The GQ article was a personal memoir[1] of Lemann's recollections of growing up in New Orleans during District Attorney Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw for allegedly conspiring to assassinate JFK.

The 1991 movie release, JFK sparked renewed interest in the assassination as well as the prosecution itself of Clay Shaw. The film was purportedly based on Garrison's book, On the Trail of Assassins, and sympathetically portrayed Garrison.

The GQ article published by Lemann took a different slant, expressing his view that Shaw's prosecution was built on flimsy evidence and was a tremendous embarrassment to the city.[2] The thrust of Lemann's article was his opinion countering that expressed by Stone in his film release JFK, to wit:.....
.....Not only is the Garrison-Stone case for the greater importance of the Kennedy assassination essentially a fantasy, its strange that they feel it has to be made at all.... Garrison and Stone are trying to make it into something more: the main turning point in American history which it wasn't. Garrison, for all these years, has been engaged in a witch-hunt, not a genuine attempt to solve a crime. Like all witch hunts, his has been based on the idea that some vast, mysterious evil has society in its grip. If the sense *605 of pervasive corruption isn't there, then Garrison's mission (and, even more, his method) somehow completely loses its aura of virtue.[3]
If Jim Garrison was a kettle, is Nicholas B. Lemann not a disingenuous scold, AKA a pot?

Quote
https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223
Tom S.   April 12, 2016 at 1:25 pm
Although I am credited as a contributor to Ms. Mellen?s book, ?Our Man in Haiti,? my entire body of research results influence me to share an opinion that the description of Joan Mellen in this article is overdone?.

She first met Jim Garrison just months after the Clay Shaw trial in 1969 and described interviewing more than 1200 people before publishing her book on Jim Garrison, ?Farewell to Justice.?

More than 30 years after she first met Jim Garrison and in addition to much other research and interviewing 1200 people, this was the crux and the emphasis of Joan Mellen?s presentation on the best supported CIA influences/interference on Garrison?s investigation and his prosecution of Clay Shaw.

Quote
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK?s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006. Tyler Weaver provided the introduction, and the interview was conducted by Rex Bradford.
??.
REX: I ? I think ?

JOAN: ? when Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people?.
versus.... Clay Shaw hired both former covert CIA agent David Baldwin and his friend Jesse Core, linked to CIA by authors Mellen
and DiEugenio. If DiEugenio is in any way a reasonable person, seeking verifiable facts, he would offer a reasonable analysis of these glaring contradictions, instead of confining his sparse responses to criticizing me personally.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why are these two CIA assets and back to back Trade Mart PR directors, David & Jesse, hired by Clay Shaw, seen here three
months apart in 1967, egging on Shaw and then Garrison in opposing directions?....
......
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvc/m_y25b9LkuA/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vuym6rw9doQ/Vrdqs-3WcEI/AAAAAAAACu0/OK-mVPFKpW0/s512-Ic42/BaldwinCousinDonaldCarpenterFootnote.jpg)
......
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Core%20Jesse/Item%2008.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonJessCoreVsShawAndBaldwinCRP.jpg)

Quote
Jim DiEugenio said:
12-08-2018 11:09 PM

Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.

But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland. I stopped reading his book when I saw how he covered up the military record of Thrasher who Shaw worked for.

Garrison's name and the name Mrs Harry Raworth, the mother of David and Edward Baldwin, appear in the 1968 obit of Harold Ziegler, father-in-law of Jim Garrison.:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Kre582h1clA/Vrfm1sEbqMI/AAAAAAAACwI/Ntga8jujLlU/s512-Ic42/HaroldZieglerObit072768.jpg)

David Baldwin's 1945 Wedding Announcement:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Re1QrWjF-Zs/Vrdin4bPz5I/AAAAAAAACuM/bDCs6dctaoE/s512-Ic42/DavidBaldwinWeddingDec1945.jpg)

Oliver Stone and co-screen writer Zachary Sklar were conned by Garrison, reunited before the movie, JFK was made, with his former wife,
Liz Ziegler, the first cousin of Mellen's "CIA people" brothers David and Edward Baldwin.
Quote
https://truthout.org/articles/the-oliver-stone-interview-part-ii-jfk/
The Oliver Stone Interview, Part II: JFK
BY Michael R Miller, Filmmaker's Diary
PUBLISHED November 14, 2013
...?I also wanted Cissy Spacek very much. Liz Garrison was the mother of six children and was raised in the Southern tradition. So you don?t cast some urbane Hollywood-type who?s going to give backtalk to Jim. Cissy brought something perfectly Southern and old fashioned to the part....
David Baldwin's wife Mildred Lyons Baldwin, happened to be step-sister of this gentleman, accused by Garrison as a distributor
of CIA funds to lawyers defending targets of Garrison's investigation.:
Quote
http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/orleans/obits/1/l-11.txt
......
003004   Lemann - Mildred Crumb Lyons Lemann, A Homemaker, Died Friday At Her Home In New Orleans. She
Was 94. Mrs. Lemann Was A Lifelong Resident Of New Orleans. She Served For Many Years As Chairman Of
The Music Library Fund Of The New Orleans Symphony. She Was In Charge Of The Children's Concerts
Performed By The Symphony. In 1929, She Worked At Metairie Park Country Day School, Where She
Coordinated The School's Non-Academic Activities. Survivors Include A Daughter, Mildred Lyons Baldwin;
A Sister, Ethel Crumb Brett; Two Stepsons, Thomas B. Lemann, And Stephen B. Lemann; Six Grandchildren;
And Four Great-Grandchildren. A Memorial Service Will Be Held Monday At 3 P.M. At The Chapel Of Trinity
Episcopal Church, 1329 Jackson Ave. Tharp-Sontheimer-Tharp Funeral Home, 4127 S. Claiborne Ave., Is In
Charge Of Arrangements. Times Picayune 01-14-1990
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zLIoQLayKsA/VrZ3SCcgfuI/AAAAAAAACts/zP4r1-Uw53o/s512-Ic42/LemannWDSUFCC022067.jpg)
Quote
....Stephen B Lemann announces appointment of Walter J Machann (aka Father Machann) : (July, 1965)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iqSsbVnCyuY/VunrPn_XVHI/AAAAAAAADS4/uUGdOF8zSPog_XJPZ5JJJ0HRhos7kRaAACCo/s512-Ic42/FatherMachannLemann072265.jpg)
The fact that neither Stone nor Sklar showed any indication that their most prominent critic at the time of the release of their
movie was the son of Thomas B Lemann, mentioned in the obit text directly above, seems proof of the hopeless dysfunction
Paul May is dismissed for pointing out.

Quote
JFK: The Book of the Film : the Documented Screenplay
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1557831270 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/JFK/GyskeQlVFfkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=lemann%27s+glib+charges&pg=PA345&printsec=frontcover)
Oliver Stone, ‎Zachary Sklar - 1992
FOUND INSIDE - PAGE 345
April 1992 GQ FOR THE DEFENSE Zachary Sklar Editor's note: Nicholas Lemann's essay "The Case Against Jim Garrison" [January] inspired ... Lemann's glib charges are so sweeping that it's impossible to respond to all of them in a letter.More
Quote
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/2/6/the-rise-and-fall-of-big/
The Rise and Fall of Big Jim G.
Politics
By Nicholas Lemann,
February 6, 1974
.....
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Lemann
Nicholas Lemann

Education   Metairie Park Country Day School, New Orleans
Alma mater   Harvard College, Massachusetts
Nicholas Berthelot Lemann is the Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and Dean Emeritus of the Faculty of Journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.[1] He has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1999.[2]...
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on April 03, 2019, 06:10:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Could you not consider the (disqualifying) unabashed hypocrisy of the evidentiary standards (if critics demonstrated any minimum evidentiary standards, aside from lip service)  the vocal critics of the Warren Report hold themselves to, compared to the dramatically higher evidentiary standards these same critics and those who came before them during these 55 years dismiss the WC for allegedly not maintaining during their inquiry and deliberations?

A vocal critic of the WC report who time after time demonstrates no discipline when spewing poorly, or entirely unsupported opinions
or conclusions seems no more reasonable than a vocal supporter of the SBT.

The SBT is an extraordinary claim. Critics of the SBT as a reliable explanation of the number of shots and their effects generally have liitle
or no problems, for example, with the almost entirely unsubstantiated claims of the then used car salesman, James Tague.

My interactions with Paul May have been more limited than my familiarity with Putin's emerging puppet, Jim DiEugenio, but my
experiences dealing with both of them persuade me Paul May could meet the reasonable person standard. DiEugenio, OTOH, seems to
believe Trump is indeed a victim of a deep state conspiracy and Jim Garrison was, first and foremost an honest, ethical prosecutor thwarted in his investigation of Clay Shaw, et al, as well as in his prosecution of Shaw, by determined CIA interference and obstruction of justice.
Garrison "expert" DiEugenio responds to this li'l dilemna by attacking me personally instead of dealing reasonably with these curious
contradictions that clearly indicate Tague was not the only actor with the scruples of a used car salesman.

Paul May is not the problem. Relying on CT authors with a financial stake related to the popularity of their published books
to "inform" us, too often unchallenged, instead of doing the tedious work of our own meticulous fact checking is the core problem,
in my experience.

Does this not resemble false representation to a court?If Jim Garrison was a kettle, is Nicholas B. Lemann not a disingenuous scold, AKA a pot?

versus.... Clay Shaw hired both former covert CIA agent David Baldwin and his friend Jesse Core, linked to CIA by authors Mellen
and DiEugenio. If DiEugenio is in any way a reasonable person, seeking verifiable facts, he would offer a reasonable analysis of these glaring contradictions, instead of confining his sparse responses to criticizing me personally.
Garrison's name and the name Mrs Harry Raworth, the mother of David and Edward Baldwin, appear in the 1968 obit of Harold Ziegler, father-in-law of Jim Garrison.:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Kre582h1clA/Vrfm1sEbqMI/AAAAAAAACwI/Ntga8jujLlU/s512-Ic42/HaroldZieglerObit072768.jpg)

David Baldwin's 1945 Wedding Announcement:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Re1QrWjF-Zs/Vrdin4bPz5I/AAAAAAAACuM/bDCs6dctaoE/s512-Ic42/DavidBaldwinWeddingDec1945.jpg)

Oliver Stone and co-screen writer Zachary Sklar were conned by Garrison, reunited before the movie, JFK was made, with his former wife,
Liz Ziegler, the first cousin of Mellen's "CIA people" brothers David and Edward Baldwin.David Baldwin's wife Mildred Lyons Baldwin, happened to be step-sister of this gentleman, accused by Garrison as a distributor
of CIA funds to lawyers defending targets of Garrison's investigation.:
The fact that neither Stone nor Sklar showed any indication that their most prominent critic at the time of the release of their
movie was the son of Thomas B Lemann, mentioned in the obit text directly above, seems proof of the hopeless dysfunction
Paul May is dismissed for pointing out.


Speaking of 'Putin's Puppet', Tom..... have you viewed the 'Russkie Today' interview with our friend Peter on 'the hawks' show?  Son of Ventura and Son of Stone have sure traded sides, as fathers Oliver and Jesse have.  And as the sitting president has.  Beyond the pale, sir.  Wait'll you see what happens next...... no, wait.......
Title: Re: Humor me
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 03, 2019, 10:44:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In practice, circumstantial evidence can ....
...also be arranged. He got set up.