Not really outside though is it.
We don't have Oswalds exact words though. Hosty might have taken Oswald up wrong.
Oswald might have said he looked outside, which Hosty might have taken up as Oswald actually being outside.
We don't have Oswalds exact words though. Hosty might have taken Oswald up wrong.
Oswald might have said he looked outside, which Hosty might have taken up as Oswald actually being outside.
Oswald was a liar and manipulator. He’d have been a wonderful GOP candidate for POTUS.
Oswald claimed:
1 - To have eaten his lunch on 1st floor
2 - Then went outside to watch P. parade
3 - Then went up to get coke (which is when Baker and Truly encountered him)
Sure, Oswald was a liar and maybe "in on it", but he didn't realize he was being set up as the pasty and never took a shot. The conspirators would never have relied on Oswald alone to do the job. Otherwise, how could Baker have encountered him calmly having a coke on the 1st floor after he had just shot the POTUS, wiped ALL the prints off his rifle, ditched it, then scrambled downstairs and bought a coke in <1.5 mins? Baker noted that he wasn't winded after flying down 5 flights of stairs. Was that possible if he was a lone nut assassin or was he a patsy that got double-crossed? Which is more likely and why?
Oswald claimed:
1 - To have eaten his lunch on 1st floor
2 - Then went outside to watch P. parade
3 - Then went up to get coke (which is when Baker and Truly encountered him)
Thought it had been shown he only needed to walk briskly.
Not if he had to wipe ALL his prints off the rifle 1st.
How long would that take?
If Oswald needed to walk briskly without wiping off his prints then any extra time would have quickened his pace. There were no smeared prints on the rifle, they were wiped off clean or were never there in the 1st place. Since I don't believe Oswald smuggled the rifle into the TSBD in a paper bag or reassembled it or fired it or planted it, my guess is the latter. Seems more probable to me. Conspirators would never have relied on the patsy to stage the crime scene and take the shots and ditch the rifle and leave behind 3 hulls on the floor in a tight group near the SN window. That was Fritz's job. The actual shooter used a more reliable weapon that resembled a Carcano, such as a Mauser.
But you said he'd have to fly and do more than a brisk walk if he had to wipe all his prints off the rifle, so I presumed you knew how long that would take. No?
If Oswald needed to walk briskly without wiping off his prints then any extra time would have quickened his pace. There were no smeared prints on the rifle, they were wiped off clean or were never there in the 1st place. Since I don't believe Oswald smuggled the rifle into the TSBD in a paper bag or reassembled it or fired it or planted it, my guess is the latter. Seems more probable to me. Conspirators would never have relied on the patsy to stage the crime scene and take the shots and ditch the rifle and leave behind 3 hulls on the floor in a tight group near the SN window. That was Fritz's job. The actual shooter used a more reliable weapon that resembled a Carcano, such as a Mauser.
1 minute, at least. So what is double a brisk walk?
Is that a guesstimate?
Do you require a precise number of seconds?
-- MWT ;)
The suggestion was that stopping to wipe tye finger prints from the rifle would mean Oswald would have to fly down the stairs. Seems reasonable to question that don't you think?
How many seconds "plus or minus" do you require for "a good estimate" as to how long it took Oswald to do yadda yadda yadda?
Ten?
Fifteen?
Thirty?
Sixty?
-- MWT ;)
How much time do you think it took Oswald to get to the Second Floor Lunch Room from The Sniper's Lair?
A minute?
Minute and a half?
Two?
-- MWT ;)
How much time do you think it took Oswald to get to the Second Floor Lunch Room from The Sniper's Lair?
A minute?
Minute and a half?
Two?
-- MWT ;)
Completely edited.
-- MWT ;)
PS You don't know? You want him to tell YOU?
I didn't make the suggestion, so yes of course. A fact to back up the suggestion.
What would be a realist answer, as far as you're concerned?
-- MWT ;)
It was so nice to not have Graves around to do his Graves Gallop for the last several months. We'll see how long he lasts before being sent to posting jail yet again.
An accurate one.
How do you define "accurate estimate" in this context?
1) Something that tends to implicate Oswald?
2) Something that tends to exonerate Oswald?
-- MWT ;)
Neither.
Then how will you know if it's accurate?
-- MWT ;)
You keep asking questions, trying to deflect from what is quite a simple point, that a suggestion was made (not by you) that stopping to wipe finger prints from the rifle would mean Oswald needed to fly down the stairs rather than take a brisk walk. I am asking for a fact to support that suggestion. If you can't provide one I'm not sure why you are commenting or what you are trying to achieve.
You keep asking questions, trying to deflect from what is quite a simple point, that a suggestion was made (not by you) that stopping to wipe finger prints from the rifle would mean Oswald needed to fly down the stairs rather than take a brisk walk. I am asking for a fact to support that suggestion. If you can't provide one I'm not sure why you are commenting or what you are trying to achieve.
Let's Not forget that Before "flying down the stairs", Oswald had to travel Kitty-corner across the entire 6th floor from: (1) the Snipers Nest, to (2) the Hidey Slot, to (3) the Stairwell. There also were numerous stacks of books in addition to assorted bric-a-brac scattered all over/across that entire 6th Floor. Going from the Sniper's Nest and traveling Kitty-corner completely across the 6th Floor was not a simple Point A-To-Point B stroll.
You should be asking why flying down the stairs automatically makes you winded? Don't get hung up on semantics. My "guessitmate" that Oswald was moving quickly down the stairs was because approx. 90 seconds after the shots rang out, Oswald was encountered in the second-floor lunchroom by Dallas police officer Marrion L, who did not notice that Oswald was winded. Obviously I can't prove it was impossible for Oswald to have done that, only that IMO it was improbable. The onus is on you to rebuke my guessimate by demonstrating it was possible. Otherwise, I'm not married to it and it doesn't make Oswald a LN by default.
If you can take 3 shots, wipe down the rifle of all your prints, ditch it as shown in the Alyea film and get to the 2nd floor in 90 seconds I will concede that it was possible. But I still wouldn't believe that's how it went down because that's just 1 piece of evidence, of many, that casts doubt on Oswald being the shooter. So instead of tying myself into knots trying to make the LN narrative fit, I go with Occam's Razor and the patsy hypothesis fits like a glove. But that's JMHO, believe what you like.
Wasn't someone filmed doing it within a "workable" amount of time in a simulated setting?
One minute?
Minute-and-a-half?
(Going from memory, here.)
-- MWT ;)
Ah, yes. Here it is.
There is no onus on me because I've not make a suggestion or claim that it is possible. The onus is on those that make a suggestion.
Nick,
How long do you think it took Oswald to do the actual hiding of the carbine? Ten seconds?
How much longer did it take him to wipe down the carbine (even if he did that)? Another ten seconds?
If so, then he still had plenty of time to get to the Second Floor Lunch Room on a non-huffing and puffing way before Truly arrived on the second floor landing (followed by Baker), according to the video I posted above.
-- MWT ;)
That's the reenactment I was referring to. Completed in less than 50 seconds at a steady pace and not winded. Suggests that being seen on the second floor 90 seconds after the last shot would have been possible if this reenactment is accurate.
That rigged-from-start-to-finish 'reenactment' was exposed as bogus years ago. Wrong dimensions in the fake 'TSBD' building. The footage of the guy walking across the 'sixth floor' does not come from the cited attempt (they only had one camera in the building!) Standard Perry/Mack disinformation. BS:
Do you have any info on the dimensions issue please? Who debunked it? I wouldn't find the single camera thing an issue unless it was shown that at no point did the 'actor' do the complete journey in around 50 seconds. Just because they filmed different sections and edited them together wouldn't be an issue would it?
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/deeper-into-dave-perry
Thumb1:
Thanks, but it doesn't actually give any details of the dimensions being wrong - only says they were.
As I say, I don't see the editing together of sections of film to be an issue unless it was that at no point did the 'actor' do the journey in around 50 seconds.
No landings between stairwells!
He wasn't an actor, he was a fitness instructor. Go figure...
And the use of footage of him crossing the 'sixth floor' is highly manipulative--the viewer is led to believe the speed they see Mr Fitness Instructor walking is the speed that led to the 50-second result. "Gee, Oswald could have easily done it without breaking a sweat." Mission accomplished!
Once again, it's all an irrelevance ultimately, as it's 'reenacting' something that never happened in the first place. But it is educational on account of the insight it offers into how LN propaganda works Thumb1:
No landings between stairwells!
Fair enough. Any idea how much time this would add?
You don't believe it happened. Fair enough. You can believe what you wish of course.
Depends how fast our fitness instructor was running!
It's the conclusion to which the evidence leads.
Ask yourself: Why did Mr Oswald's claim (as clearly stated in Agent Hosty's 11/22 notes) to have visited that lunchroom prior to the assassination get turned into a claim (in the post-11/22 interrogation reports) to have visited it after the assassination?
That rigged-from-start-to-finish 'reenactment' was exposed as bogus years ago. Wrong dimensions in the fake 'TSBD' building. The footage of the guy walking across the 'sixth floor' does not come from the cited attempt (they only had one camera in the building!) Standard Perry/Mack disinformation. BS:
But it's all irrelevant anyway----------Mr Oswald never had any encounter in the second floor lunchroom with Officer Baker. That happened at the front entrance.
I will honest and say I don't know, and won't try to guess. Will think about it though.
Anybody else find it peculiar that in the FBI B/W Filmed re-enactment of Oswald's journey from the Snipers Nest-hiding the rifle-going down the stairs-then into the 2nd Floor Lunchroom, that they filmed 2 Different Agents on this 1 journey? Take 23?
Anybody else find it peculiar that in the FBI B/W Filmed re-enactment of Oswald's journey from the Snipers Nest-hiding the rifle-going down the stairs-then into the 2nd Floor Lunchroom, that they filmed 2 Different Agents on this 1 journey? Take 23?
Not that it is connected to the assassination, but Why is there a door where the stairwell empties/dead ends onto the 2nd Floor? If there was a fire inside the TSBD and people on the upper floors were attempting to exit the building via that stairwell, this 2nd Floor Door would essentially make the stairwell close to a Gas Chamber. There is No Door where the stairwell empties/dead ends onto the 6th Floor. That 2nd Floor door accessing the stairwell makes no sense.
A refreshing response, sir! Thumb1:
Thanks :)
There is no onus on me because I've not make a suggestion or claim that it is possible. The onus is on those that make a suggestion. I referred to a reenactment which showed the journey could be done in around 50 seconds at a brisk steady pace but beyond that made no claim. I have never attempted to wipe finger prints from a rifle but since you gave a suggestion for the time involved in doing this assumed you had some knowledge rather than were just expressing an opinion hence my question.
I find it interesting that people seem to want to pick up on any word or phrase used by witnesses etc and analyse it to death but then feel they can make comments on here based on their opinions and then when asked to back it up they argue semantics and try to push the burden of proof onto those asking for supporting evidence. Happens on both sides of the debate and guess it comes with the territory.
Since this is a game of rhetoric, if you are a LNer then, yes the onus is on you to demonstrate that it was possible. No one can prove it can't be done. Otherwise, I don't understand your position except you seem to doubt that Oswald didn't have enough time to get to the 2nd floor in 90 seconds. I never claimed it was impossible. I only commented that the time to wipe off his prints were not taken into consideration during any re-enactments. I assumed the added time would force Oswald to make up the time by "flying" down the stairs. You claimed that an actor did it walking briskly in 50 seconds, without any substantiation. So you are implying that it took 40 seconds to wipe off the prints and ditch the rifle. Did the actor also take change from his pocket and get a coke from a vending machine? How many seconds did that add? Where is YOUR evidence that all that could have been accomplished in 90 secs? How much "brisker" did he have to walk for him to be winded? See, it's a game of rhetoric.
Why were you so defensive re my response? I answered your rhetorical questions didn't I? Wasn't it obvious that I was speculating? Did you think I needed to back up my speculation with an experiment? You are trying to rebut my opinion with semantics and claims of your own. So counter my opinion with your own facts and evidence. I doubt Oswald could have done it all in 90 seconds. My reasoning was that it takes extra time to wipe down the rifle of all prints, which IMO took longer than 40 seconds. Your only rebut was "back it up". But in lieu of any experiments to re-enact this feat, you were asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. So yes, the onus is on you LNers to demonstrate that it was possible via re-enactment and back up your opinion. And if you can't do it, then it supports my opinion. But opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and LNers will never change theirs.
How many failed re-enactments would it take for you to change your opinion that it was impossible for Oswald to get to the 2nd floor from the SN in 90 seconds? (rhetorical)
if you are a LNer then, yes the onus is on you to demonstrate that it was possible.
I haven't made any claims so don't have to demonstrate anything.
You claimed that an actor did it walking briskly in 50 seconds, without any substantiation.
I referred to a reenactment I had seen, which was subsequently posted in this thread. As I said, I didn't know how accurate it was.
You are trying to rebut my opinion with semantics and claims of your own.
I have claimed nothing.
Wasn't it obvious that I was speculating?
No.
and LNers will never change theirs.
Says the person who asked why I was being defensive about your response.
Seems to apply to lots of people, not just LNers.
Ok, do you have an opinion, at least? You can always change my mind with facts, logic and critical thinking. How about you? Are you a LNer?
Friends, since the sensational unearthing of Agent Hosty's interrogation notes--------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/ZOGuZed.jpg)
-------------------the debate between LNers and CTers boils down to one core question:
Whose story do we believe, that told by Mr Oswald or that told by his accusers?
For five-and-a-half decades, we didn't have Mr Oswald's story. Now we do!
Mr Oswald: I visited the lunchroom on the second floor before the P. parade
Accusers: He visited the lunchroom on the second floor after the P. parade
Mr Oswald: I went outside to watch the P. parade
Accusers: He fired bullets from the sixth-floor window during the P. parade
As you reflect on this choice, I invite you to set aside momentarily what you think you know and simply consider the following:
The authorities went out of their way to suppress Mr Oswald's story, misrepresenting his most basic claims about his movements and whereabouts at the all-important time.
What can it have been about these claims that frightened them so much they had to keep them from the public?
Thumb1:
What You are contending regarding Oswald is certainly possible.
But that's just the point, Mr Storing-----------it's not what I'm contending, it's what Mr Oswald himself is contending!
Here, once again, is what he claims:
(https://i.imgur.com/2rl15vj.jpg)
You want evidence of an orchestrated coverup? Read on!
Stage 1: Mr Oswald's claims are officially written up by Agents Hosty and Bookhout that same day in the following weasel-worded way:
(https://i.imgur.com/3yR23sl.jpg)
See what they've done? They've kept the core claims intact but
----------------------the sequence of events has been made ambiguous
----------------------instead of "went outside" when Mr Kennedy passed we now have the (technically correct but utterly misleading) "on the first floor". Shameless!
Note also, however, the complete lack of any mention of an encounter with an officer in the second floor lunchroom. Rather curious, dontcha think?
Stage 2: After Mr Oswald's murder, a solo rewrite is provided courtesy of Agent Bookhout, in which he totally garbles what Mr Oswald claimed by putting bogus confirmation of 'the' lunchroom encounter into the dead Mr Oswald's mouth:
(https://i.imgur.com/QymYaN1.jpg)
Agent Bookhout also does something very interesting in this solo run: he introduces a name that was not in the original joint Hosty/Bookhout but did end up on it.
I reproduce that original report in full below, with a yellow box around the name:
(https://i.imgur.com/ONkBbei.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/T8ZF5wh.jpg)
Now! Why on earth is a name not mentioned anywhere in the report written on the top of the report? Because------------------I submit-----------------it's a name they're extremely worried about: being the name of the man Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he was standing beside when Mr Kennedy passed the building.
Only after Mr Oswald's death will it be safe to bring that name into an interrogation report, with----------once again----------context/timeframe all nicely garbled up!
It's looking an awful lot like we can name the man under the yellow arrow as Mr Bill Shelley and the man under the blue arrow as Mr Lee Harvey Oswald:
(https://i.imgur.com/74B5Txg.jpg)
I would also suggest that Mr Buell Wesley Frazier, in posing for a recent photograph in this manner and with his left index finger pointing to that very spot, either is being remarkably thoughtless or is being about as candid as he feels it is safe or comfortable to be:
(https://i.imgur.com/3S8XTzm.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/V4kfVdP.jpg)
Thumb1:
I'm not wedded to any theory but over the years have tended to find the one that says Lee Harvey Oswald did it and wasn't part of a conspiracy to be the most convincing. I'm interested in the topic and am open to new evidence and arguments, such as the Hosty note, and accept that there are questions and doubts about the official story.
It just seems to me that there is a lot of opinion and speculation presented as fact, or presented with the 'if you can't see this you are stupid or gullible' implication and sometimes that frustrates me as I want to learn more not get into debates. But by posting, I did :(
Fair enough. I never claimed my opinions were facts. I just point out contradictions and anomalies when I see them and you are free to call me on them. But when you do you enter the debate as the devil's advocate trying to invalidate my argument, which is fine but you have to own it. You can't invalidate my argument by just pointing out that I am "guessing". Of course I'm guessing as we all are. I try to make it informed guesswork. You need to rebut my guess by offering your own, which contradicts mine. You seem like a LNer who could change your mind if evidence convinces you. That's all anyone here can ask from a LNer, so jump in, the water's fine.
Here's another one for you re the rifle: Forget about no prints being found on the rifle. How did Oswald score 2 hits, including a headshot using a scope that was grossly misaligned and why didn't he sight it in before taking the most important shots of his life? Most LNers jump thru hoops making excuses for Oswald to explain it. What say you?
He was a Marine marksman / sharpshooter who had shot at targets as far away as 500 yards and scored well in all the shooting positions except "standing," he had about five seconds between shots while using a firearm that required only 2.3 seconds, and he could have either visually compensated for the scope's being slightly off, or he could have used the carbine's iron sights.
https://www.kold.com/story/24047123/tucson-man-shares-vivid-memories-of-jfk-assassin-lee-harvey-oswald/
-- MWT ;)
See what I mean about jumping thru hoops...
1) Any marksman/sharpshooter will tell you that you must constantly practice to remain sharp. But if Oswald practiced why not sight in the scope?
2) How would he compensate for the scope being GROSSLY off unless he saw where the 1st shot went. Did he see a puff of smoke when it struck the pavement?
3) He would have truly been a skilled shooter to switch to the iron sights after he realized his scope was off. But why would a skilled marksman use a wonky scope in the 1st place?
4) If he was a marksman, he would have known the scope was worse than useless, especially if he never practiced. He would use the iron sights right off the bat and bypass the scope.
5) If he knew the scope was useless, and knew he would be using the iron sights instead, then why did he keep the scope on the barrel when he disassembled the rifle and placed its parts in a paper bag?
6) Was the scope kept on the rifle so it would match the back yard photos? If so, then it was a patsy rifle, which was planted and likely never even fired. Otherwise, why was the scope on the rifle?
Ans these questions without LOL and convince me that Oswald even took a shot. Or concede that combined with having none of his prints on the rifle and no nitrates on his face it was unlikely a marksman would have used the leaky unreliable MC rifle in the condition it was found. Instead, Oswald would have used a Mauser with a sighted in scope if he wasn't in the lunchroom at the time having a coke. But since you are a diehard LNer, I don't expect any of this to sink in or sway you. But checkmate anyway sucka! ;)
If you'd watched "The Lost Bullet" and "Cold Case: JFK" you'd realize that the first shot probably hit the arm of the traffic light, the concrete by the manhole cover, and the curb by James Tague.
-- MWT ;)
PS Go sucka, yourself.
Oswald was a Marine marksman / sharpshooter who had shot at targets as far away as 500 yards and scored well in all the shooting positions except "standing," he had about five seconds between shots while using a firearm that required only 2.3 seconds, and he could have either visually compensated for the scope's being slightly off, or he could have used the carbine's iron sights.
https://www.kold.com/story/24047123/tucson-man-shares-vivid-memories-of-jfk-assassin-lee-harvey-oswald/
-- MWT ;)
You need to slow it up. Those are HOSTY'S NOTES. They are NOT Oswald's Notes. Mr Oswald is "contending" Nothing.
If you'd watched "The Lost Bullet" and "Cold Case: JFK" you'd realize that the first shot probably hit the arm of the traffic light, the concrete by the manhole cover, and the curb by James Tague.
-- MWT ;)
PS Go sucka, yourself.
Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he went outside to watch the P. parade, and his claim was buried. Not complicated! Thumb1:
Just because the 2nd Floor Oswald Lunchroom Encounter may Not have happened, does Not substantiate the Theory of Oswald being on the Landing. If this were the case, anyone could place Oswald almost anywhere other than inside the snipers nest when the JFK Motorcade traveled down Elm St. I find it more interesting that Hosty claimed he destroyed his Notes vs these same alleged hand written notes turning up inside the National Archives on the backside of a DPD Affidavit form. That begs legit inquiry. Basing Anything on the word of Oswald is fraught with pitfalls.
Weak argumentation from you here, Mr Storing. I'm afraid your irrational devotion to keeping Mr Oswald off those front steps is showing again!
Claiming that Mr Oswald was out front trumps all other CT claims for the simple double reason that it
a)--------------------was Mr Oswald's own claim (which he would hardly have made unless he was confident he'd be backed up by at least one other Depository employee)
b)--------------------was provably suppressed by Captain Fritz & Company (which they would hardly have done had they thought it was an easy-to-refute lie).
All competing CT claims about Mr Oswald's whereabouts at 12.30pm are arbitrary by comparison. If you disagree, go ahead and suggest one-----------we'll see how it stands up!
And! You are still missing the point that the Hosty notes (nothing 'alleged' about them BTW) don't just give us Mr Oswald's claimed whereabouts at the time of the shooting, they also prove that he never confirmed the lunchroom incident------------and that Captain Fritz & Company felt the need to lie about this. Again: can you suggest a cogent alternative explanation as to why they would do this?
Thumb1:
This is Not, "Oswald's claim". It is HOSTY's CLAIM that Oswald said this. There were Many people in the room when this was allegedly said. Any corroboration?
Did those who perpetrated the cover-up confirm to the world that they had perpetrated a cover-up? Uh, no, Mr Storing, they did not. If you think this is an argument against there having been a cover-up, then you don't understand what the term cover-up means.
However! The weird morphing of the Hosty/Bookhout story from one interrogation report to the next confirms beyond any doubt that this is indeed what Mr Oswald claimed. If you can find any holes in my analysis of that phase of the thing, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you're just feebly doubling down on your irrational resistance to the perfectly reasonable idea that Mr Oswald did indeed go outside to watch the P. parade. (Out of interest, where do you think he was at the time of the shooting?)
Furthermore! The pre-motorcade sightings of Mr Oswald in the second floor lunchroom (by, at a conservative tally, Ms Carolyn Arnold and Mr Jack Dougherty)... the crass inconsistencies in the evolving lunchroom story... the unrefuted (because irrefutable) evidence that the Wiegman film was altered to hide something in the relevant area of the front entrance... the extreme nervousness which the Altgens photograph caused the FBI... and the presence of three men in that area where only two (Messrs. Shelley and Lovelady) are supposed to be there... tell us that Mr Oswald's claimed whereabouts offer the only solution left standing after five-and-a-half decades.
Did those who perpetrated the cover-up confirm to the world that they had perpetrated a cover-up? Uh, no, Mr Storing, they did not. If you think this is an argument against there having been a cover-up, then you don't understand what the term cover-up means.
However! The weird morphing of the Hosty/Bookhout story from one interrogation report to the next confirms beyond any doubt that this is indeed what Mr Oswald claimed. If you can find any holes in my analysis of that phase of the thing, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you're just feebly doubling down on your irrational resistance to the perfectly reasonable idea that Mr Oswald did indeed go outside to watch the P. parade. (Out of interest, where do you think he was at the time of the shooting?)
Furthermore! The pre-motorcade sightings of Mr Oswald in the second floor lunchroom (by, at a conservative tally, Ms Carolyn Arnold and Mr Jack Dougherty)... the crass inconsistencies in the evolving lunchroom story... the unrefuted (because irrefutable) evidence that the Wiegman film was altered to hide something in the relevant area of the front entrance... the extreme nervousness which the Altgens photograph caused the FBI... and the presence of three men in that area where only two (Messrs. Shelley and Lovelady) are supposed to be there... tell us that Mr Oswald's claimed whereabouts offer the only solution left standing after five-and-a-half decades.
Thumb1:
Well, You got Roy Truly & Officer Baker Playing Along, and NOW You got EVERYBODY that was in the room during Oswald's 1st Q/A Playing Along with the Conspiracy. Cecil B. DeMille was famous for directing a "cast of thousands", but he ain't got much on You and your ever evolving tale.
So instead of debating me on the evidence, Mr Storing, all you can come back with is a silly variation on the tired old LN line--------------'There was no cover-up because that would have required a cover-up'.
So instead of debating me on the evidence, Mr Storing, all you can come back with is a silly variation on the tired old LN line--------------'There was no cover-up because that would have required a cover-up'.
~Shrug~
No, what I am saying is, "2 can keep a secret if 1 of 'em is Dead".
The greater the number of active participants that are involved in your Conspiracy, the more unmanageable it becomes.
I believe the shadow is fabricated. I have Not seen Proof that the purpose of that fabricated shadow is to cloak Oswald standing on the TSBD landing.
Regarding the "shadow", based on what I see in several JFK Assassination Images, along with Evidence of where that shadow fell across the TSBD Steps at roughly 12:30 PM on 11/22/63, the shadow falling across Lovelady is Bogus. I do Not need an "alternative" to your Theory of the shadow being concocted in order to hide Oswald to arrive at a Bogus Shadow conclusion.
Could be a lotta possibilities for the placing of the shadow. Could be the identity of someone else, (Not Oswald), we are Not supposed to Know about. Remember, the 8-10 Inch Blood Pool that photog Mal Couch gave WC Testimony about is NOT Far from those TSBD Steps/Landing. Mal Couch was a very respected JFK Assassination Eye Witness. His giving Details under oath about this Large Blood Pool has Never been given the attention it merits.
Familiarize yourself with the Couch WC Testimony. The 8"-10" "Blood Pool" has Not been explored. This is why I continue Faulting the Old Guard Researchers. They did an abysmal job of digging into this case. How tough would it have been to get Couch back out to Dealey Plaza and have him show EXACTLY where he saw this Blood Pool? It was located somewhere down the Elm St Ext based on the Couch testimony. That Blood Pool was Easily within a baseball throw of the TSBD Steps/Landing.
Didn't that turn out to be red-colored sodie pop?
Did Couch put his finger in it and smell it, or at least photograph it or film it?
Did the evil, evil, evil Deep State authorities swipe the film?
-- MWT ;)
Familiarize yourself with the Couch WC Testimony.
I seem to know it better than you do.........
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you say you saw blood on the sidewalk, Mr. Couch?
Mr. COUCH - That's right.
Mr. BELIN - Where was that?
Mr. COUCH - This was the little walkway - steps and walkway that leads up to the corner, the west corner, the southwest corner of the book Depository Building. Another little sidewalk, as I recall, turns west and forms that little parkway and archway right next to the Book Depository Building.
So you hypothesize that the Wiegman film showed someone (unnoticed by anyone--or were they silenced in a cover-up?) or something (unnoticed by anyone--or were they silenced in a cover-up?) that caused a pool of alleged blood to form at the southwest corner of the Depository building? :D
Look, Mr Storing, I get it. I really do. You will consider any explanation, however wild and illogical, for the fake shadow in Wiegman rather than the obvious one: Mr Oswald's presence.
You don't want this thing solved, do you? You just enjoy the game, and want nothing to happen that would stop it from going on forever and ever and ever.
You are wandering into an area of the assassination You are Not Familiar with. Couch was riding inside Camera Car #3. He was still inside that car when it went Under the Triple Underpass. Couch's car STOPPED immediately after going Under the Triple Underpass. Couch then went BACK to the TSBD. It was at THIS Point In Time that Couch Witnessed the 8"-10" Blood Pool.
This leaves Plenty of time for someone that was allegedly cloaked by the Shadow, to leave their position on the TSBD Landing/Steps and move down the Elm St Ext. and possibly be involved in that Blood Pool.
You have always Claimed that No One saw Oswald standing behind Lovelady.
How is it your "2 Heads" work does Not also apply to Someone Else that Might have been standing there instead of Oswald?
No One has Ever definitely identified Prayer Man. Not everyone standing on the TSBD Landing has been identified.
The More you Flesh Out/Detail your position regarding Oswald, the Weaker your position is exposed. Claiming that if someone other than a TSBD had been standing on the Landing/Steps that person WOULD HAVE been noticed = Proof of Nothing.
SHOULDA/WOULDA = HAHAHA! And saying that Frazier and probably Messrs Shelley and Lovelady were "pressured into keeping quiet" = SPECULATION on your part.
So your Oswlad Theory relies on: (1) "Shoulda/Woulda", and (2) "Speculation". Your "2 Heads" work is extremely good, but it does NOT confirm 1 of those Heads belonging to Oswald.
Saying, "We have NO GOOD REASON to think that any non-employee was standing there" is Silly. This same lame rebuttal can be applied to Your wanting to have Oswald standing there = We have NO GOOD REASON to think that Oswald was standing there. Your basically saying the Proof of Oswald standing there is........................... Oswald SAID he was standing there. You gotta be blushing at how goofy that "logic" sounds.
Saying, "We have NO GOOD REASON to think that any non-employee was standing there" is Silly. This same lame rebuttal can be applied to Your wanting to have Oswald standing there = We have NO GOOD REASON to think that Oswald was standing there. Your basically saying the Proof of Oswald standing there is........................... Oswald SAID he was standing there. You gotta be blushing at how goofy that "logic" sounds.
Yeah, but YOU are Glued to this Thread. Listen and Learn!
If that is Mr Shelley, then Prayer Man is Mr Oswald.
Oh dear, Mr Storing, you're still confused!
Let me slow the first part down for you:
1. The steps were filled with Depository employees. Yes?
2. If Mr Oswald were there, he would be merely one amongst many Depository employees. Anything unusual about that? No!
3. If a non-employee were there, they would be the sole non-employee in a space filled with employees. Anything unusual about that? Yes!
**********************
It really is most amusing how Team Keep LHO Off Dem Steps have kept shifting the goalposts in order to hide the fact that they've been losing the argument...
LHO can't have been there because his presence would have been noticed! ------> It was someone other than LHO, and so what if their presence wasn't noticed! Never rely on witnesses!
There's no evidence LHO ever said he went out to watch the motorcade! ------> (...Hosty notes turn up...) The Hosty notes need to be carbon-dated! Besides, 'Then went outside to watch P. parade' is ambiguously worded! Besides, LHO was a liar!
Frazier hasn't corroborated your theory, therefore your theory is dead! -------> Nothing Frazier says can be taken as reliable!
Good luck with your Lovelady-holding-a-piece-of-dripping-flesh explanation for the Wiegman shadow, Mr Storing. Or perhaps you'd now prefer to suggest that Mr Jack Ruby was standing beside Mr Lovelady and that's why the shadow was added? I mean, that's so much more likely than Mr Oswald's having been telling the truth about going outside to watch the P. parade.
Whatever it takes to indulge your wholly irrational and rather LNerish resistance to the idea of Mr Oswald out front, right?
Thumb1:
I have Never heard about Anyone having a handwriting expert Verify those notes were Definitely written by Hosty. Everyone just takes it for Granted that those are Hosty's Notes. This is the kind of "research" that was conducted by the Old Guard JFK Research Community. Basically, several of them simply agreeing on something as being Fact, and Not requiring Any PROOF/CORROBORATION. First things First. The alleged Hosty Notes need to be Verified by a Hand Writing Expert as being written by the hand of Hosty.
Yeah, and You slept at a Holiday Inn last night. So What? YOU are Not Qualified to make this handwriting judgement. You are doing the same BS: that the Old Guard JFK Researchers did back-in-the-day. Make their own judgements/decisions, and then go on to repeatedly proffer their Laymans' Opinion as being FACT. This is why in a court of law they call Qualified Witnesses to render Judgement(s) based on their experience/expertise. Novices proffering their Opinion as being Fact, is why this case remains Unsolved 56+ years after the fact. DO NOT repeat the mistakes of the past. DO enjoy that Holiday Inn.
Buell Frazier said in an interview that Bill Shelley was right there.
So, Mr Storing, you don't really wish to press the absurd claim that the two sheets I posted are written by a different hand? Good call! Thumb1:
It's very entertaining watching two goofy guys "rebut" each other's respective tinfoil hat conspiracy theory!
-- MWT ;)
I have Never heard about Anyone having a handwriting expert Verify those notes were Definitely written by Hosty. Everyone just takes it for Granted that those are Hosty's Notes. This is the kind of "research" that was conducted by the Old Guard JFK Research Community. Basically, several of them simply agreeing on something as being Fact, and Not requiring Any PROOF/CORROBORATION. First things First. The alleged Hosty Notes need to be Verified by a Hand Writing Expert as being written by the hand of Hosty.
I am Not qualified to make that decision either way. Neither are You.
Pure entertainment!
Like I say, Mr Storing, if you really believed there were any doubt about those notes being Agent Hosty's, you'd have presented an actual basis for such a wild claim. Instead-----------as per usual---------- you just blow more smoke. Next you'll be calling for the notes to be carbon-dated! By at least three independent scientists! From at least two continents! :D
I'll tell you what is pure entertainment, Mr May---------watching you Warren Gullibles run in terror from this.........
(https://i.imgur.com/kFNUsvC.jpg)
:D
56 year old crap. How surprising (Sigh). Have any photographic evidence to corroborate this?
Paul, if there is no photograph, does that mean it didn't happen?
Martin, I can claim Batman was on the front steps of the TSBD, but I cannot corroborate it. My point is this is more old nonsense and not evidence. 56 year old conspiracy BS. Ya gotta move this conspiracy forward, not backward.
Paul,
That doesn't really answer my question.
56 year old crap. How surprising (Sigh).
Have any photographic evidence to corroborate this?
The Lovelady Shadow is a legitimate Issue due to it being a FACT where the Wall Shadow falls across the Steps/Landing. This Oswald stuff is pure conjecture.
Based on Frazier's physical position, and his still being alive, means he could clear up whether Oswald was outside the TSBD when the JFK Motorcade passed by.
Martin, I can claim Batman was on the front steps of the TSBD, but I cannot corroborate it. My point is this is more old nonsense and not evidence. 56 year old conspiracy BS.
What exactly are you referring to as '56 year old crap', Mr May? Agent Hosty's clear record of what Mr Oswald claimed in custody? Or Mr Oswald's claim itself?
Yes.
Do you have any photographic corroboration for your 56 year old crap? Thought not!
Thumb1:
I’ve said often, I will not be drawn into the conspiracy madness any longer. The physical evidence closed this case long ago. If and when something, anything new appears let me know. I won’t hold my breath.
(https://i.imgur.com/3JqhiPz.gif)
Hardly! It's what Mr Oswald himself claimed......... an inordinate effort went into hiding this claim from the world and misrepresenting his words........ and your attempts to uncouple this claim from the fake shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman have been pathetically weak.
Stop playing games, Mr Storing! You have declared Mr Frazier an utterly untrustworthy witness. If he were to confirm Mr Oswald's presence on the steps, you would refuse to believe him. And if some new witness were to come forward with 3 crisp, clear Polaroid photographs showing Mr Oswald in the doorway, we all know what your reaction would be: you would revert to your usual darkly authoritative but perfectly incoherent mumblings about how None of the Visual Record is to be Trusted.
You have, in short, an irrational desire to keep Mr Oswald out of that entranceway. But he was there, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Sorry! Thumb1:
Nothing new. Got it.
Let's Hold-It-Up here. YOU claim, "It's what Mr Oswald HIMSELF Claimed". THAT is Flat-Out WRONG! We have the backside of a DPD Affidavit Form with NOTES on it.
THIS is NOT, "Mr Oswald HIMSELF"! When you make Blatantly Incorrect Declarations like that, you then cast doubt on ALL of the other fine work You have previously done. I would welcome, "3 crisp, clear Polaroid photographs showing Mr Oswald in the doorway....". That would beat the heck out of Undocumented Notes on the Back of a DPD Affidavit Form.
Indeed so, Mr Storing-----------notes written by Agent Hosty on the basis of Mr Oswald's first interrogation. The fact that they make you antsy is immaterial to their evidentiary value! Thumb1:
Now! If your claim is that Mr Oswald never actually claimed these things, then it is up to you to explain your basis for such an extraordinary claim.
Nope-------------you would wave your hand and haughtily declare all Visual Evidence UNtrustworthy. Part of the ridiculous firewall you have built up around evidence you don't like.
No offense, Mr Storing but your lack of objectivity is your fatal flaw. Well, that and the fact that you never do any, yannow, work. You prefer to sit back and play self-appointed Arbiter of the Truth. The act is wearing thin!
(1) WHO Specifically wrote the notes,
(2) WHEN Specifically these notes were applied to the back of a DPD Affidavit Form.
Agent Hosty, obviously. If you believe there are legitimate grounds for doubt about this, lay out these grounds for us here and now!
11/22/63, after the first interrogation of Mr Oswald, obviously. If you believe there are legitimate grounds for doubt about this, lay out these grounds for us here and now!
The floor's all yours, Mr Storing! Thumb1:
Agent Hosty, obviously. If you believe there are legitimate grounds for doubt about this, lay out these grounds for us here and now!
11/22/63, after the first interrogation of Mr Oswald, obviously. If you believe there are legitimate grounds for doubt about this, lay out these grounds for us here and now!
The floor's all yours, Mr Storing! Thumb1:
Until a handwriting Expert verifies these Notes to be Hostys', No One can claim as Fact who penned them. This is a slippery slope. Where do You draw the line? Like a court of law, an Expert needs to do the Verification before these Notes are declared as FACT to be Hostys'.
I thought these "Hosty NOTES" were supposed to be the actual notes that Hosty wrote down DURING the 1st Q/A of Oswald. Are You sticking with these Notes being written down "AFTER"? If so, How Long "AFTER" that 1st Q/A was this done? Also, if this was done AFTER the 1st Q/A, they are NOT Notes. This might be a "Draft" or a "Copy" to some degree. "Degree" being of IMPORTANCE.
That’s not unlike getting an astrology “expert” to verify that if you are an Aquarius you will soon come into a lot of money.
Thumb1:
Mr Storing is clearly upset and disgusted at the content of these notes, so he's frantically throwing makey-uppey objections at them in the hope that something will stick. It won't!
Reminds me of Mr Mytton's Nothing to see here: 'Then went outside to watch the P. parade' could be a reference to the, like, OTHER, LATER, POST-PRESIDENTIAL parts of the parade... :D
These people have an awesome capacity for cognitive blocking of unpalatable evidence!
Agent Hosty, obviously. If you believe there are legitimate grounds for doubt about this, lay out these grounds for us here and now!
11/22/63, after the first interrogation of Mr Oswald, obviously. If you believe there are legitimate grounds for doubt about this, lay out these grounds for us here and now!
The floor's all yours, Mr Storing! Thumb1:
Fritz tells us that Bookout and Hosty were at this interrogation and Fritz's notes say that Oswald said he got a coke, then went downstairs, had his lunch and then went out with Bill Shelley in front.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FFjvzt2k/fritz1-5.jpg)
Bookout's notes with a little more detail says that Oswald told him that he got a coke and went downstairs and had his lunch and then went outside and spoke with Shelley.
...
And as expected Hosty who was at this interrogation and viewed the exact same event, has notes describing the same interaction.
...
---------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above interrogation notes, this could be some of the questions that would satisfy what was recollected by the interrogators.
Question. Why were you in the 2nd floor lunchroom when Baker and Truly saw you?
Oswald. I was getting a coke.
Question. Then what did you do?
Oswald. I went downstairs and had lunch.
Question. And what happened next?
Oswald. Then I went outside to watch the President's parade.
Question. Did you see anybody outside?
Oswald. I talked to Shelley for five or ten minutes and based on what Shelley was saying I decided to go home.
JohnM
Fantastic job once again, Mr. Ford. Mr. Storing is a pro at making things up.
But of course all this is immaterial because Oswald himself admitted to being in the building at the time.
Oswald: I work in that building.
Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?
Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.
@1:17
JohnM
In short, YOU are unqualified to make this Judgement. And, are YOU Now running away from Your Previous Claim that These "NOTES" were written AFTER Oswald's 1st Q/A?
While Mr Mytton works through the ongoing denial issues he has with the meaning of the words "Then went outside to watch the P. parade"
we might note that he and I are in agreement that, between Mr Oswald's entry into the Texas School Book Depository building that morning and his departure from it several minutes after the assassination, he did not leave the building.
A corroborated alibi is powerful evidence in proving your innocence, watch the following compilation of film clips and see that Oswald had PLENTY of opportunities to claim that he was outside with his workmates watching the P'parade, but never says a word?
JohnM
There is literally only one place that is both part of the Texas School Book Depository and "outside": the front steps!
Hahahaha, that's absolutely hilarious, ye cannae change the laws of physics. Lovelady, Frazier and Shelley who were all on the outside steps all agree that they were outside.
Mr. BALL - Did you eat your lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; not right then I didn't. I say, you know, he was supposed to come by during our lunch hour so you don't get very many chances to see the President of the United States and being an old Texas boy, and [he] never having been down to Texas very much I went out there to see him and just like everybody else was, I was standing on the steps there and watched for the parade to come by and so I did and I stood there until he come by.
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.
JohnM
And Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he went "outside" too. Read for yourself--------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/Rtd7NfM.jpg)
Perfectly clear!
As for 'in the building'...
If someone were to ask, say, Mr Joe Molina or Ms Pauline Saunders, 'Where in the building were you when the President passed?', they might very naturally reply, 'Why, I was standing on the front steps '. What they won't do is correct the questioner's wording. Because there really is nothing to correct: that enclosed front entrance is in the building. It's certainly not part of the street!
And Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he went "outside" too.
Perfectly clear!
As for 'in the building'...
If someone were to ask, say, Mr Joe Molina or Ms Pauline Saunders, 'Where in the building were you when the President passed?', they might very naturally reply, 'Why, I was standing on the front steps '. What they won't do is correct the questioner's wording. Because there really is nothing to correct: that enclosed front entrance is in the building. It's certainly not part of the street!
Oswald had to have left the building and be "outside" or how else would he be able to be in flight mode catching buses and cabs. Doh!
No, Molina and Saunders, just like Lovelady, Shelley and Frazier who were all on the same steps would all say, just like their respective testimonies, that they were outside, not inside.
There's a reason they're called front steps, that's because by definition they're out front as the name strongly implies.
Oswald said he was in the building and that's that
and as I previously said if he had this rock solid alibi, then we wouldn't be here.
He also said he "went outside to watch the P. parade"! Thumb1:
Yes, and as you have been told, the interrogation notes in black and white definitely say that Oswald went outside AFTER he encountered Truly and Baker.
Yes, they definitely do say that-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/jJMhNm4.jpg)
------------but only after they have been put through the Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-Translation-Machine! :D
Huh, how does that even begin to refute the notes I presented?
Because there is no mention.....
A short FBI/Police report missing non pertinent details isn't a concern. The fact that an innocent civilian who personally new Oswald and a Police Officer, respectively Truly and Baker both testified to the fact that they saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom a couple of minutes after the assassination, really puts the kibosh on the Oswald in the doorway malarkey and as if this wasn't enough we have another innocent civilian Mrs Reid who came from the other direction and she instantly recognises Oswald coming in through the back office door and passing by her about two minutes after the last shot, which 100% corroborates Baker and Truly.
:D :D :D
Your "better material"?
Fritz's notes were written several days later and not like you claimed at 3pm during the interrogation. So, as a result, Fritz was not all that clear with his notes trying to remember what important information was said several days later.
Just like Sarah Stanton is the prayer figure? :D
Lovelady knew who PrayerMan was.....
Mr. Ball. You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LovELADY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball. Who was with you?
Mr. Lovelady. Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me---
Mr. Ball. What was that last name?
Mr. Lovelady. Stanton.
Ball hat [sic] to cut him off (or cut out "Oswald")
What do you want me to post Albert/Brian/Ralph?
Please show me where I said it.
If that's Lovelady and Shelley, then why did they, after walking a few feet towards the railway yard / parking lot, start crossing over Elm Street Extension towards the island, as can be seen in a very brief overlap-continuation in Couch-Darnell?
-- MWT
The man in black is not Mr Bill Shelley, it's Mr Danny Arce---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/kQ3fO1k.gif)
And Mr Lovelady still on the front steps------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/hPE2XhJ.jpg) ---> cf. WIEGMAN: (https://i.imgur.com/tyLOAQz.jpg)
Oswald was a murderer, fit right in with the culture of death Commie Crat party.
As late as November 29th......
On November 22, Marion Baker tells us that he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor. Nothing about a lunchroom.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338524/m1/1/med_res_d/)
Even in that "bulky" brown shirt instead of who Baker actually encountered wearing a, quoting from his same day affidavit, "a brown jacket", the wrongly accused woulldn't have added over 35lbs in spite of that "bulky" shirt. Most of us actually see the shirt wearing him.
Even in that "bulky" brown shirt instead of who Baker actually encountered wearing a, quoting from his same day affidavit, "a brown jacket"
the wrongly accused woulldn't have added over 35lbs in spite of that "bulky" shirt. Most of us actually see the shirt wearing him.
A trained professional expert who actually saw Oswald and didn't have to guess from pictures estimated Oswald's weight to be about 150. Try again!
Where in the documentation you shared does it say the body was actually weighed? The reason I ask is people handling deceased bodies have shared that a body appears heavier due to bloating. Again, please share documentation where it states the decedent was actually weighed so we can remove any question of it actually happening as oppose to someone simply reading from an ID, etc. Thank you in advance.
Lest any of us forget, even at that 150lbs it still refutes who Baker actually encountered (not by a give or take 5lbs here or there, but by a whole 15lbs.
We're making positive progress as we go from 35 pounds down to a mere 15 pounds, on an inconsequential employee who was fully clothed and glimpsed for mere seconds.
Btw where does all this history revisionism go, why is it so important to you to deny the lunchroom encounter, what are you trying to prove?
JohnM
Documentation actually existed on 11/22/63 that the wrongly accused actually weighed 131lbs, that's official documentation.
Like everything with this hastily contrived script to frame an innocent party the framers got sloppy in their haste. It's that simple really.
So what, do you have a photo on the 11/22/63 of Oswald standing on a scale? And how does that trump an official weight estimation at the actual time of death?
It trumps it because no one is capable of gaining 19lbs in less than 48hrs, unless, of course, you have authentic documentation that suggests otherwise. The wrongly accused according to official documentation weighed 131lbs just two days before his demise.
So your belief in a conspiracy relies on typical unimportant discrepancies that each and every one of us experiences on a daily basis, is that it?
JohnM
On the contrary, some of us allow the evidence or lack thereof take us right where we need to be on the side of light, truth and justice. The hastily contrived script fails to stand the test of time amid a much closer examination. It crumbles, whereas the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is capable of standing all alone by itself (no revisions, no discussions off the record, nor any single question that leads to a thousand more).
Why do you Kooks keep misrepresenting the evidence, what does that achieve?
Baker saw Oswald wearing the bulky brown shirt and never saw Oswald as your youtube video shows. Naughty naughty.
Davidson photoshopped a smeared distorted face that looks like a deformed muppet. That is not evidence. You're trying to claim it's a "woman's face" for your preposterous theory. That same deformed muppet face you try to claim is Stanton. That's only your opinion and is not evidence.Here’s a brief history lesson for those that choose not to remain ignorant of the facts.
Has the site been compromised?
We keep getting the message " dThe pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.ormed" in various postings. Or is it some kind of silly prank?
Has the site been compromised?
We keep getting the message " dThe pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.ormed" in various postings. Or is it some kind of silly prank?
I think the phrase is supposed to replace swear words but it doesn't appear to be working correctly.
The word re-futation which is dThe pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.initely not a swear word is not possible without the hyphen.
JohnM
| (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa1.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa21.jpg) |
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=562.0 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=562.0)
Enlarged and minimally enhanced close up view of what is possibly a woman's face, including one minimally enhanced colorized version.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa1.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa21.jpg)
I've told you before Brian.. I don't argue with idiots.#1 reason that you shouldn't......
Isn't there a rule against disparaging this forum and its moderator on other venues?No, but the racism towards the British in his rant is not acceptable.