JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Rick Plant on April 05, 2022, 09:26:13 AM
-
Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? (full documentary) | FRONTLINE
An investigative biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man at the center of the political crime of the 20th century, the assassination of JFK. (This version aired 2013. Original broadcast 1993.)
The two-hour documentary special traces Lee Harvey Oswald’s life from his boyhood to that fateful day in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, posing a number of questions: Was Oswald the emotionally disturbed “lone gunman”? Was he one of two gunmen that day in Dallas? Or was he an unwitting scapegoat for the real assassins?
Watch:
-
Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? (full documentary) | FRONTLINE
An investigative biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man at the center of the political crime of the 20th century, the assassination of JFK. (This version aired 2013. Original broadcast 1993.)
The two-hour documentary special traces Lee Harvey Oswald’s life from his boyhood to that fateful day in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, posing a number of questions: Was Oswald the emotionally disturbed “lone gunman”? Was he one of two gunmen that day in Dallas? Or was he an unwitting scapegoat for the real assassins?
Watch:
Lee was the unwitting scapegoat for the real assassins?
-
Lee was the unwitting scapegoat for the real assassins?
That's what the official Frontline description says. Have you watched this?
-
If you haven't watched this documentary then take a look.
-
Perhaps I saw the wrong 'documentary' but the one that is linked...the script is right from the Warren Report.
-
Perhaps I saw the wrong 'documentary' but the one that is linked...the script is right from the Warren Report.
the script is right from the Warren Report.
Hey Jerry, I wanted to say that... I started watching as Rick requested, but I couldn't watch the entire video.... What a mountain of BS! It's downright insulting that they would present such rot, and think that the American people are too damned dumb to realize that the program is nothing but propaganda. The way they have spun Lee's Life in a way to portray him as a looney and a lone nut assassin is sickening .....
-
The way they have spun Lee's Life in a way to portray him as a looney and a lone nut assassin is sickening.
Even though it is the truth. No spin is even necessary. Just following Oswald's life provides the answer. And then when you follow Oswald's actions and movements on November 21st and 22nd in 1963, the JFK case practically solves itself.
But, as we all know by now, Walt Cakebread is allergic to something known as "the truth".
BTW, the video of "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" in the OP presents only half of the documentary. Here's the whole thing:
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-was-lee-harvey-oswald.html
-
Even though it is the truth. No spin is even necessary. Just following Oswald's life provides the answer. And then when you follow Oswald's actions and movements on November 21st and 22nd in 1963, the case practically solves itself.
But, as we all know by now, Cakebread is allergic to something known as "the truth".
I never said that the program was presenting lies.... But the spin they put on the various events in his life is pure BS.... His sojoune to Russia and home again is a good example. Are you so stupid that you can't see that he was sent to Russia by the US government. Do you think that he would would have been released from the Marine Corp before his enlistment was fulfilled if the government hadn't wanted him released so he could be in settled Russia before F. Gary Powers U-2 flight. ?? All I can say for you Mr Von Pein.... You are either one of the most gullible suckers I've ever encountered.... or you're part of the official US government approved disinformation squad.
-
Are you so stupid that you can't see that he was sent to Russia by the US government?
To quote from one of Mr. Cakebread's recent posts above:
What a mountain of BS!
(Walt thinks LHO was "sent to Russia by the U.S. Government".)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPojancLw8I/AAAAAAAAHoc/S5NkhhAYSFk/s1600/LOL.gif)
-
To quote from one of Mr. Cakebread's recent posts above:
What a mountain of BS!
(Walt thinks LHO was "sent to Russia by the U.S. Government".)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPojancLw8I/AAAAAAAAHoc/S5NkhhAYSFk/s1600/LOL.gif)
(Walt thinks LHO was "sent to Russia by the U.S. Government".)
Yes, I sure do.... And if you didn't have your head in the sand....You would know it also.
-
And then when you follow Oswald's actions and movements on November 21st and 22nd in 1963, the JFK case practically solves itself.
Only to somebody blinded by confirmation bias.
-
Only to somebody blinded by confirmation bias.
Plenty of confirmation on Patton
Plenty of bias shown by poor dumb Oswald
-
Even though it is the truth. No spin is even necessary. Just following Oswald's life provides the answer. And then when you follow Oswald's actions and movements on November 21st and 22nd in 1963, the JFK case practically solves itself.
But, as we all know by now, Cakebread is allergic to something known as "the truth".
BTW, the video of "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" in the OP presents only half of the documentary. Here's the whole thing:
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-was-lee-harvey-oswald.html
Even though it is the truth. No spin is even necessary.
How in the world would you even know it's the truth or not? Did you know Oswald and were you there, or do you just believe the story they have told you?
Just following Oswald's life provides the answer.
"Documentaries" like this are for the largest part merely window dressing to create a negative impression about Oswald, which makes it easier to conclude that he must have been the lone shooter. For the actual killing of Kennedy, it makes no difference where the killer has been in his life yet in this case they make a big deal out of his trips to Russia and Mexico etc.
And then when you follow Oswald's actions and movements on November 21st and 22nd in 1963, the JFK case practically solves itself.
Which is precisely what all this information about Oswald's life is supposed to do. The reality is that none of us really knows what's actually true about Oswald's life story that's being told and what isn't. The mere fact that they need this kind of "background information" tells me that without it they simple can not make their lone gunman case against Oswald.
-
Even though it is the truth. No spin is even necessary.
How in the world would you even know it's the truth or not? Did you know Oswald and were you there, or do you just believe the story they have told you?
Just following Oswald's life provides the answer.
"Documentaries" like this are for the largest part merely window dressing to create a negative impression about Oswald, which makes it easier to conclude that he must have been the lone shooter. For the actual killing of Kennedy, it makes no difference where the killer has been in his life yet in this case they make a big deal out of his trips to Russia and Mexico etc.
And then when you follow Oswald's actions and movements on November 21st and 22nd in 1963, the JFK case practically solves itself.
Which is precisely what all this information about Oswald's life is supposed to do. The reality is that none of us really knows what's actually true about Oswald's life story that's being told and what isn't. The mere fact that they need this kind of "background information" tells me that without it they simple can not make their lone gunman case against Oswald.
The mere fact that they need this kind of "background information" tells me that without it they simple can not make their lone gunman case against Oswald.
Well said Mr Weidmann..... Just one simple fact demolishes all the "documentaries" and aspersions and mud slinging they can present. That simple fact is:..... Lee Oswald was in the 1st floor lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed by the TSBD.
If he was a wife beater, or a communist, or excellent marksman are all immaterial....He was in the 1st floor lunchroom at the time.
-
It’s what people like DVP trot out as “evidence” when they don’t have actual evidence.
-
And then when you follow Oswald's actions and movements on November 21st and 22nd in 1963, the JFK case practically solves itself.
Speculation as usual.
(Walt thinks LHO was "sent to Russia by the U.S. Government".)
So did the Soviets.
-
It’s what people like DVP trot out as “evidence” when they don’t have actual evidence.
And the above quote by John is one of the things that CTers love to do when they decide to pretend there's no "actual evidence" at all against that poor sapling named Oswald.
John knows there's more than enough "actual evidence" to hang Oswald 20 times over (for TWO murders). But the CT gene inside him won't let him type it on his keyboard.
And John also knows full well that Oswald's own actions on 11/21 and 11/22 would have convicted him if he had made it to trial too. But, again, John's CT gene won't allow him to admit the obvious.
-
And the above quote by John is one of the things that CTers love to do when they decide to pretend there's no "actual evidence" at all against that poor sapling named Oswald.
John knows there's more than enough "actual evidence" to hang Oswald 20 times over (for TWO murders). But the CT gene inside him won't let him type it on his keyboard.
And John also knows full well that Oswald's own actions on 11/21 and 11/22 would have convicted him if he had made it to trial too. But, again, John's CT gene won't allow him to admit the obvious.
John knows there's more than enough "actual evidence" to hang Oswald 20 times over (for TWO murders).
Anything can be called evidence, and very often is, but that doesn't mean it's conclusive or actual proof of anything.
And John also knows full well that Oswald's own actions on 11/21 and 11/22 would have convicted him if he had made it to trial too.
Amazing stupidity! Let's examine the facts of "Oswald's own actions" on 11/21 and 11/22. On 11/21 he went to work as normal, asked Frazier for a ride to Irving, went to Irving to visit his wife and kids and stayed the night. The next morning, he walks over to Frazier's home, for the ride back to the TSBD, where he worked normally that morning.
Those are the undisputed facts and none of it would have resulted in a conviction at trial.
Everything that happened between Kennedy's killing, at 12:30, and Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater are allegations based on speculation and highly questionable evidence and witness testimony. The only really established fact is the arrest at the Texas Theater. Everything else would be scrutinized (imo much of it succesfully) by the defense.
To claim that Oswald would have been convicted based on his actions on 11/21 and 11/22 is just plain ridiculous and extremely naive.
-
And the above quote by John is one of the things that CTers love to do when they decide to pretend there's no "actual evidence" at all against that poor sapling named Oswald.
John knows there's more than enough "actual evidence" to hang Oswald 20 times over (for TWO murders). But the CT gene inside him won't let him type it on his keyboard.
And John also knows full well that Oswald's own actions on 11/21 and 11/22 would have convicted him if he had made it to trial too. But, again, John's CT gene won't allow him to admit the obvious.
John also knows full well that Oswald's own actions on 11/21 and 11/22 would have convicted him if he had made it to trial
That's utter nonsense and it exhibits a total disregard of the fact that Lee told Captain Fritz that he was in the first floor lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed by the TSBD. Lee said that he had seen Jarman and Norman walk by the lunchroom as he sat there eating his lunch. When Jarman and Norman confirmed that they had in fact walked by the lunchroom at 12:27 Fritz knew that they would never be able to convict Lee Oswald, and he knew that the noose was tightening around his neck. He knew that their only recourse was to eliminate Oswald.
-
Everything that happened between Kennedy's killing, at 12:30, and Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater are allegations based on speculation and highly questionable evidence and witness testimony. The only really established fact is the arrest at the Texas Theater. Everything else would be scrutinized (imo much of it succesfully) by the defense.
To claim that Oswald would have been convicted based on his actions on 11/21 and 11/22 is just plain ridiculous and extremely naive.
It's absolutely incredible that anybody who has studied the evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murders, even a conspiracy theorist named Martin Weidmann, could actually say (and believe) the things I just quoted above.
Martin apparently thinks that the things Lee Oswald did on both November 21st and 22nd were just ordinary things that Oswald did every day -- things such as:
....Taking a bulky package to work with him and lying (twice) to Buell Frazier about the contents of that package.
....Walking several blocks east of the TSBD just minutes after a Presidential assassination in order to catch a bus.
....Getting off the bus just a few minutes after boarding it and then getting into a taxicab to take him to his roominghouse.
....And then having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond his real destination, so that he'll have to backtrack the three-block distance on foot.
....Dashing in and out of his room on Beckley in order to grab his .38 revolver.
....Murdering a Dallas police officer about 15 minutes after hurriedly leaving his roominghouse.
....Sneaking into the Texas Theater without buying the cheap ticket.
....Fighting with the police and attempting to shoot one of them in the theater after merely being told to "get on your feet" by Officer McDonald.
....Making multiple provably false statements to the police after his arrest.
Just a ho-hum Friday in the dull life of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Right, Martin?
Martin will very likely now go into "None Of That Stuff You Just Talked About Can Possibly Be Verified And Confirmed By Anybody Because I Think Everybody In Dallas Was Trying To Pin The Murders On Only Oswald" mode.
And 'round and 'round we go. (Yet again.)
Still More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html
-
It's absolutely incredible that anybody who has studied the evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murders, even a conspiracy theorist named Martin Weidmann, could actually say (and believe) the things I just quoted above.
Martin apparently thinks that the things Lee Oswald did on both November 21st and 22nd were just ordinary things that Oswald did every day -- things such as:
....Taking a bulky package to work with him and lying (twice) to Buell Frazier about the contents of that package.
....Walking several blocks east of the TSBD just minutes after a Presidential assassination in order to catch a bus.
....Getting off the bus just a few minutes after boarding it and then getting into a taxicab to take him to his roominghouse.
....And then having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond his real destination, so that he'll have to backtrack the three-block distance on foot.
....Dashing in and out of his room on Beckley in order to grab his .38 revolver.
....Murdering a Dallas police officer about 15 minutes after hurriedly leaving his roominghouse.
....Sneaking into the Texas Theater without buying the cheap ticket.
....Fighting with the police and attempting to shoot one of them in the theater after merely being told to "get on your feet" by Officer McDonald.
....Making multiple provably false statements to the police after his arrest.
Just a ho-hum Friday in the dull life of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Right, Martin?
Martin will very likely now go into "None Of That Stuff You Just Talked About Can Possibly Be Verified And Confirmed By Anybody Because I Think Everybody In Dallas Was Trying To Pin The Murders On Only Oswald" mode.
And 'round and 'round we go. (Yet again.)
Still More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html
....Taking a bulky package to work with him and lying (twice) to Buell Frazier about the contents of that package.
And, if true, that would be evidence of what, exactly?
....Walking several blocks east of the TSBD just minutes after a Presidential assassination in order to catch a bus.
Speculation. Nobody saw him walking anywhere. And again, what is this evidence of, exactly?
....Getting off the bus just a few minutes after boarding it and then getting into a taxicab to take him to his roominghouse.
Cool story. Again, what is this evidence of, exactly?
....And then having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond his real destination, so that he'll have to backtrack the three-block distance on foot.
Wow, that's conclusive proof of........... just give me a minute, I'll think of something.
....Dashing in and out of his room on Beckley in order to grab his .38 revolver.
Wow, dashing in and out of his room is somehow evidence of guilt? And how in the world do you even know he grabbed a revolver?
....Murdering a Dallas police officer about 15 minutes after hurriedly leaving his roominghouse.
Actually the Dallas police officer was already murdered before Oswald could have gotten there, if he ever did get there.
You are assuming "facts" that are not proven to prove a "fact" that you can not prove.
....Sneaking into the Texas Theater without buying the cheap ticket.
Oh yeah, that does it. That would absolutely ensure a conviction for two murders at trial.
....Fighting with the police and attempting to shoot one of them in the theater after merely being told to "get on your feet" by Officer McDonald.
Excuse me. The police were also fighting with him, were they not? And where do you get the silly notion he attempted to shoot an officer? He was never charged with attemped murder.... Go figure. Exaggerate much, drama queen?
....Making multiple provably false statements to the police after his arrest.
What "provable false statements" would that be? Show me the verbatim record of what Oswald actually told the police, before you start making such hollow pathetic claims.
All this BS is exactly what I was talking about when I said;
Everything that happened between Kennedy's killing, at 12:30, and Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater are allegations based on speculation and highly questionable evidence and witness testimony. The only really established fact is the arrest at the Texas Theater. Everything else would be scrutinized (imo much of it succesfully) by the defense.
You repeating all that BS, for most of which you haven't got a shred of conclusive evidence, doesn't alter that fact.
Martin will very likely now go into "None Of That Stuff You Just Talked About Can Possibly Be Verified And Confirmed By Anybody Because I Think Everybody In Dallas Was Trying To Pin The Murders On Only Oswald" mode.
Pathetic! Martin will actually say that you should really try to make a compelling factual case against Oswald instead of being preoccupied about what I would say.
And btw
It's absolutely incredible that anybody who has studied the evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murders, even a conspiracy theorist named Martin Weidmann, could actually say (and believe) the things I just quoted above.
I have studied the evidence, which is exactly why I can say what I am saying. To return to my earlier point; you can call anything you like "evidence" but that doesn't mean it's actually proof of anything. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
-
What a surprise. CTer Martin is just like all other JFK conspiracy theorists --- a total failure at math. (Particularly addition.)
Let's have a look at another CTer who garnered an F- in the subject of "Adding Things Up":
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qXnBu3Ctvtw/Wtz4-Oi3VnI/AAAAAAABOr8/omfgi6-pIR8DFZDFt83_K5u0qdc2B84VQCLcBGAs/s408/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Sole-Guilt-Part-Two-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html)
-
John knows there's more than enough "actual evidence" to hang Oswald 20 times over (for TWO murders).
Anything can be called evidence, and very often is, but that doesn't mean it's conclusive or actual proof of anything.
And John also knows full well that Oswald's own actions on 11/21 and 11/22 would have convicted him if he had made it to trial too.
Amazing stupidity! Let's examine the facts of "Oswald's own actions" on 11/21 and 11/22. On 11/21 he went to work as normal, asked Frazier for a ride to Irving, went to Irving to visit his wife and kids and stayed the night. The next morning, he walks over to Frazier's home, for the ride back to the TSBD, where he worked normally that morning.
Those are the undisputed facts and none of it would have resulted in a conviction at trial.
Everything that happened between Kennedy's killing, at 12:30, and Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater are allegations based on speculation and highly questionable evidence and witness testimony. The only really established fact is the arrest at the Texas Theater. Everything else would be scrutinized (imo much of it succesfully) by the defense.
To claim that Oswald would have been convicted based on his actions on 11/21 and 11/22 is just plain ridiculous and extremely naive.
Let's examine the facts of "Oswald's own actions" on 11/21 and 11/22. On 11/21 he went to work as normal, asked Frazier for a ride to Irving, went to Irving to visit his wife and kids and stayed the night. The next morning, he walks over to Frazier's home, for the ride back to the TSBD, where he worked normally that morning.
Lets see what Oswald did 'normally' on 21/22
Asked Frazier for a ride to Irving
_ Normally done on a Friday
_ Cites his need for curtain rods from Ruth's garage: Not normal
_ Does not call Ruth to ask for her permission to visit: Not normal
Went to Irving to visit his wife and kids and stayed the night
_ So far, so good. Uh, oh: Morning comes, Oswald buggers off after
leaving money & wedding ring behind: Not normal
The next morning, he walks over to Frazier's home, for the ride back to the TSBD, where he worked normally that morning.
_Puts sizeable bag in his ride rather than politely wait for Buell. Putting sizeable bags in people's cars: Not normal.
_Walks ever faster ahead of Buell towards TSBD: Not normal
_Shots fired. Not normal.
Conclusion: Not a normal 21/22 for Oswald
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XfBsCQH/hell-on-earth.png)
billchapman
-
And the above quote by John is one of the things that CTers love to do when they decide to pretend there's no "actual evidence" at all against that poor sapling named Oswald.
John knows there's more than enough "actual evidence" to hang Oswald 20 times over (for TWO murders). But the CT gene inside him won't let him type it on his keyboard.
And John also knows full well that Oswald's own actions on 11/21 and 11/22 would have convicted him if he had made it to trial too. But, again, John's CT gene won't allow him to admit the obvious.
Is this posturing supposed to prove something?
-
What a surprise. CTer Martin is just like all other JFK conspiracy theorists --- a total failure at math. (Particularly addition.)
What a surprise. WC evangelist DVP makes a series of speculative claims that he cannot even demonstrate are actually true and pretends that they are evidence of presidential murder.
-
And now we learn from the resident clown that doing things that are deemed “not normal” is somehow evidence of murder.
If Oswald wore boxers instead of briefs, that would end up on the “evidence” list too.
-
And now we learn from the resident clown that doing things that are deemed “not normal” is somehow evidence of murder.
If Oswald wore boxers instead of briefs, that would end up on the “evidence” list too.
You lot are running scared: Show us where I conclude anything but that Oswald did not have a normal 21/22
--------
BONUS
--------
Never wear boxers
when riding a bike
-
What a surprise. CTer Martin is just like all other JFK conspiracy theorists --- a total failure at math. (Particularly addition.)
Let's have a look at another CTer who garnered an F- in the subject of "Adding Things Up":
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qXnBu3Ctvtw/Wtz4-Oi3VnI/AAAAAAABOr8/omfgi6-pIR8DFZDFt83_K5u0qdc2B84VQCLcBGAs/s408/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Sole-Guilt-Part-Two-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html)
What a surprise! When a LN can not convincingly argue the "facts" he simply attacks the person who questions those "facts".
There isn't a better show of utter weakness than this.
And btw, as it has already been conclusively established beyond doubt that you edit the information on your own blogs, I am not going to bother reading it, as there is no way to be sure that it is a fair representation of what people have said.
The bottom line is a simple one; DVP can not explain how "taking a bulky package to work with him and lying (twice) to Buell Frazier", "Walking several blocks east of the TSBD just minutes after a Presidential assassination in order to catch a bus", "Getting off the bus just a few minutes after boarding it and then getting into a taxicab to take him to his roominghouse", "having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond his real destination" and "Dashing in and out of his room on Beckley in order to [allegedly] grab his .38 revolver" constitutes evidence of a murder. The reason is equally simple; even if all of it is true (which is questionable) it still does not constitute anything of the kind.
It's extremely weak circumstantial BS used as window dressing to make Oswald somehow look suspicious and thus guilty.
-
Let's examine the facts of "Oswald's own actions" on 11/21 and 11/22. On 11/21 he went to work as normal, asked Frazier for a ride to Irving, went to Irving to visit his wife and kids and stayed the night. The next morning, he walks over to Frazier's home, for the ride back to the TSBD, where he worked normally that morning.
Lets see what Oswald did 'normally' on 21/22
Asked Frazier for a ride to Irving
_ Normally done on a Friday
_ Cites his need for curtain rods from Ruth's garage: Not normal
_ Does not call Ruth to ask for her permission to visit: Not normal
Went to Irving to visit his wife and kids and stayed the night
_ So far, so good. Uh, oh: Morning comes, Oswald buggers off after
leaving money & wedding ring behind: Not normal
The next morning, he walks over to Frazier's home, for the ride back to the TSBD, where he worked normally that morning.
_Puts sizeable bag in his ride rather than politely wait for Buell. Putting sizeable bags in people's cars: Not normal.
_Walks ever faster ahead of Buell towards TSBD: Not normal
_Shots fired. Not normal.
Conclusion: Not a normal 21/22 for Oswald
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XfBsCQH/hell-on-earth.png)
billchapman
The only thing not normal is you!
-
The only thing not normal is you!
Thanks for the compliment
I count my blessings every day
-
What a surprise. CTer Martin is just like all other JFK conspiracy theorists --- a total failure at math. (Particularly addition.)
Let's have a look at another CTer who garnered an F- in the subject of "Adding Things Up":
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qXnBu3Ctvtw/Wtz4-Oi3VnI/AAAAAAABOr8/omfgi6-pIR8DFZDFt83_K5u0qdc2B84VQCLcBGAs/s408/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Sole-Guilt-Part-Two-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html)
Posting the police mug shot is a stupid (and desperate ) attempt at framing Lee Oswald. Lee said that he was in the first floor lunchroom at the time that President Kennedy passed by the TSBD. And that claim is verified by his statement that he saw Jarman and Norman walk by the lunchroom as he sat there eating his lunch. Jarman and Norman confirmed Lee's claim. They swore that they did in deed walk by the lunchroom at 12:27.
Give it up Von P ...... You're looking more and more foolish in your attempts to make the fairy tale believable.
Referring to the travesty of framing Lee Oswald as a "fairy tale" is wrong..... Fairy tales are happy and fun fictional tales. There is nothing happy, or funny, about the lies that have been presented in the desperate attempt to convict Lee Oswald. Posting the police mug shot is a really cheap shot, and a clear sign of your desperation Von P.
-
What a surprise! When a LN can not convincingly argue the "facts" he simply attacks the person who questions those "facts".
There isn't a better show of utter weakness than this.
And btw, as it has already been conclusively established beyond doubt that you edit the information on your own blogs, I am not going to bother reading it, as there is no way to be sure that it is a fair representation of what people have said.
The bottom line is a simple one; DVP can not explain how "taking a bulky package to work with him and lying (twice) to Buell Frazier", "Walking several blocks east of the TSBD just minutes after a Presidential assassination in order to catch a bus", "Getting off the bus just a few minutes after boarding it and then getting into a taxicab to take him to his roominghouse", "having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond his real destination" and "Dashing in and out of his room on Beckley in order to [allegedly] grab his .38 revolver" constitutes evidence of a murder. The reason is equally simple; even if all of it is true (which is questionable) it still does not constitute anything of the kind.
It's extremely weak circumstantial BS used as window dressing to make Oswald somehow look suspicious and thus guilty.
The bottom line is a simple one; DVP can not explain how "taking a bulky package to work with him and lying (twice) to Buell Frazier", "Walking several blocks east of the TSBD just minutes after a Presidential assassination in order to catch a bus", "Getting off the bus just a few minutes after boarding it and then getting into a taxicab to take him to his roominghouse", "having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond his real destination" and "Dashing in and out of his room on Beckley in order to [allegedly] grab his .38 revolver" constitutes evidence of a murder. The reason is equally simple; even if all of it is true (which is questionable) it still does not constitute anything of the kind.
------------------------
TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY
------------------------
Taking a bulky package to work with him and lying (twice) to Buell Frazier
_ Constitutes 'Taking a bulky package to work with him and lying (twice) to Buell Frazier'
Walking several blocks east of the TSBD just minutes after a Presidential assassination in order to catch a bus
_ Constitutes 'Walking several blocks east of the TSBD just minutes after a Presidential assassination in order to catch a bus'
Getting off the bus just a few minutes after boarding it and then getting into a taxicab to take him to his roominghouse
_Constitutes 'Getting off the bus just a few minutes after boarding it and then getting into a taxicab to take him to his roominghouse'
Having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond his real destination and and Dashing in and out of his room on Beckley in order to [allegedly] grab his .38 revolver
_ Constitutes 'having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond his real destination and and Dashing in and out of his room on Beckley in order to [allegedly] grab his .38 revolver'
'Constitutes evidence of a murder.' The reason is equally simple; even if all of it is true (which is questionable) it still does not constitute anything of the kind.
_ Well, at least not until these individual observations (and others) are packaged up, along with Patton Ground Zero, and presented in court ;)
-
Except the CTers will hate hate hate the Mexico City segment because his handwriting is on the hotel register and the Russians confirmed that they met and spoke with the real LHO.
-
Except the CTers will hate hate hate the Mexico City segment because his handwriting is on the hotel register and the Russians confirmed that they met and spoke with the real LHO.
Yep. And twenty years ago or so the same people who insist he was impersonated would have been saying, "Interview the Soviet embassy people! They'll expose the impersonation." So the Embassy people are interviewed and say the man they met was Oswald. Is that now accepted? Of course not. It's still not enough. For some, it's never enough.
The three KGB agents - senior agents - met him over two days and for several hours. They were shown the photo of the supposed impostor and all said that that was not the man who identified himself as Oswald.
On the second meeting, a Saturday, he is, they say, acting very erratically and nervously and at one point pulls out a revolver. They are stunned and are studying him very carefully. "Who is this guy?"
One of the agents, Oleg Nechiporenko, wrote this (from his book "Passport to Assassination"):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385470857/Key3w3yqyhqv70b/oswald one.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385470865/Key4l35rtxvigit/oswald two.JPG)
So an impostor does this? Draws very close attention to himself? Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
I'll also suggest that a person in this condition, who believes he is being persecuted by the US government, who believes his life is in danger just might do something drastic. With a rifle. And with a revolver. The revolver he said he needed to protect himself.
-
Posting the police mug shot is a stupid (and desperate ) attempt at framing Lee Oswald. Lee said that he was in the first floor lunchroom at the time that President Kennedy passed by the TSBD. And that claim is verified by his statement that he saw Jarman and Norman walk by the lunchroom as he sat there eating his lunch. Jarman and Norman confirmed Lee's claim. They swore that they did in deed walk by the lunchroom at 12:27.
Give it up Von P ...... You're looking more and more foolish in your attempts to make the fairy tale believable.
Referring to the travesty of framing Lee Oswald as a "fairy tale" is wrong..... Fairy tales are happy and fun fictional tales. There is nothing happy, or funny, about the lies that have been presented in the desperate attempt to convict Lee Oswald. Posting the police mug shot is a really cheap shot, and a clear sign of your desperation Von P.
Cue violins: Yet another loser's lament from the far side of the lunatic fringe
Stop sobbing. And it was Oswald taking the real cheap shots
Meanwhile, from Hell:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XfBsCQH/hell-on-earth.png)
billchapman
Burn, baby.. burn hahahaha
-
Except the CTers will hate hate hate the Mexico City segment because his handwriting is on the hotel register and the Russians confirmed that they met and spoke with the real LHO.
Yeah, sure... and the CIA photos showed..... uh, hang on a second.... never mind.
Btw there is nothing to love or hate concerning the Mexico City segment. It's utterly insignificant for the anwser to the question who killed Kennedy.
-
Yeah, sure... and the CIA photos showed
A person of interest they misidentified as Oswald. There's no proof that the man in question ever tried to impersonate Oswald.
Btw there is nothing to love or hate concerning the Mexico City segment. It's utterly insignificant for the anwser to the question who killed Kennedy.
It didn't speak to Oswald's desperation at the time? You think he was down there for sightseeing? Rejected by the consulates and therefore stuck in the US, he took it out on Kennedy.
-
A person of interest they misidentified as Oswald. There's no proof that the man in question ever tried to impersonate Oswald.
It didn't speak to Oswald's desperation at the time? You think he was down there for sightseeing? Rejected by the consulates and therefore stuck in the US, he took it out on Kennedy.
1. An erratic behaving, unstable acting person shows up at the Soviet Embassy claiming to be persecuted by the US government. He brings out a loaded revolver and says he needs it to protect himself. He further says things will end terribly - "They'll kill me..." - if he's not allowed into the USSR.
2. He is later accused of the assassination of the president.
But the evidence in #1 tells us nothing about #2? Nothing about the person? His willingness to act in desperation?
The man is disturbed, he's paranoid, he's having emotional problems. He thinks the US government is out to get him.
-
A person of interest they misidentified as Oswald. There's no proof that the man in question ever tried to impersonate Oswald.
It didn't speak to Oswald's desperation at the time? You think he was down there for sightseeing? Rejected by the consulates and therefore stuck in the US, he took it out on Kennedy.
It didn't speak to Oswald's desperation at the time?
Says who? What desperation are you talking about?
You think he was down there for sightseeing?
I don't think he was there. The "evidence" that he was is ambivalent at best
Rejected by the consulates and therefore stuck in the US, he took it out on Kennedy.
There it is again; a story is told for the purpose of letting people jump to conclusions not supported by the evidence.
The simple truth is that you don't know the first time about Oswald's actual mind set, nor do you know for sure what, if anything, about the Mexico story is actually true, but you're quite happy to let yourself be fooled by a highly questionable story into believing that the Mexico trip could be, or even was, the motive for Kennedy's murder. When you become more rational, get back to me.
-
Yep. And twenty years ago or so the same people who insist he was impersonated would have been saying, "Interview the Soviet embassy people! They'll expose the impersonation." So the Embassy people are interviewed and say the man they met was Oswald. Is that now accepted? Of course not. It's still not enough. For some, it's never enough.
The three KGB agents - senior agents - met him over two days and for several hours. They were shown the photo of the supposed impostor and all said that that was not the man who identified himself as Oswald.
On the second meeting, a Saturday, he is, they say, acting very erratically and nervously and at one point pulls out a revolver. They are stunned and are studying him very carefully. "Who is this guy?"
One of the agents, Oleg Nechiporenko, wrote this (from his book "Passport to Assassination"):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385470857/Key3w3yqyhqv70b/oswald one.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385470865/Key4l35rtxvigit/oswald two.JPG)
So an impostor does this? Draws very close attention to himself? Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
I'll also suggest that a person in this condition, who believes he is being persecuted by the US government, who believes his life is in danger just might do something drastic. With a rifle. And with a revolver. The revolver he said he needed to protect himself.
So an impostor does this? Draws very close attention to himself? Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
Very silly. The entire purpose of an impostor would be to draw attention to himself so that people will remember. Keeping a low profile would be self-defeating.
-
Another part of the Saturday meeting (the second meeting after the Friday one; Why would an impostor goes back twice? Isn't once enough to "connect" him with the Soviets?). Again this is from the Nechiporenko/KGB account in his book:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385677141/Key04hhvc9ujx6y/oswald three.JPG)
He said he was afraid to return to the US - "where he would be killed" - but that he was "going to defend myself."
This is not a rational person. Not by any standard.
-
1. An erratic behaving, unstable acting person shows up at the Soviet Embassy claiming to be persecuted by the US government. He brings out a loaded revolver and says he needs it to protect himself. He further says things will end terribly - "They'll kill me..." - if he's not allowed into the USSR.
2. He is later accused of the assassination of the president.
But the evidence in #1 tells us nothing about #2? Nothing about the person? His willingness to act in desperation?
The man is disturbed, he's paranoid, he's having emotional problems. He thinks the US government is out to get him.
All this is evidence of is the fact that any story, no matter how questionable, will ensure that some gullible person will jump to the desired conclusion, regardless if that conclusion is correct or not.
-
Another part of the meeting; again from the Nechiporenko/KGB account:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385677141/Key04hhvc9ujx6y/oswald three.JPG)
He said he was afraid to return to the US - "where he would be killed" - but that he was "going to defend myself."
This is not a rational person. Not by any standard.
How does this crap negate the fact that Lee Oswald was in the 1st floor lunchroom at 12:27?
-
I'll also suggest that a person in this condition, who believes he is being persecuted by the US government, who believes his life is in danger just might do something drastic. With a rifle. And with a revolver. The revolver he said he needed to protect himself.
Then he calmly takes a job as a lowly order filler for weeks...at a time where there is no hint of any political expression.
Believe what they will... the lone assassin guys rely on conjecture --straight from their own imagination.
the Nechiporenko/KGB account
Made by ex-KGB defectors with hopes of gaining favor.
The official KGB position= JFK was killed by right wing extremists.
-
Then he calmly takes a job as a lowly order filler for weeks...at a time where there is no hint of any political expression.
Believe what they will... the lone assassin guys rely on conjecture --straight from their own imagination. Made by ex-KGB defectors with hopes of gaining favor.
The official KGB position= JFK was killed by right wing extremists.
JFK was killed by LBJ and JE Hoover......
-
BTW, the video of "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" in the OP presents only half of the documentary. Here's the whole thing:
Documentary? More like Crockumentary :-\
Supposedly-- the usual..typically sullen loner...never chatted with hardly anyone Oswald decides to spontaneously strike up a conversation with these total strangers-- [the Australian ladies]-- on the bus cruise down to Mexico City....showing them his [voided 1959!!] passport and telling them about all of his exploits when he was in Russia.
What a load of horse slobber!
Either 1) Those women were lying or 2) there was indeed an imposter posing as Oswald ...drawing attention to the "Oswald" Mexico trip.
-
Cue violins: Yet another loser's lament from the far side of the lunatic fringe
Stop sobbing. And it was Oswald taking the real cheap shots
Meanwhile, from Hell:
Burn, baby.. burn hahahaha
Were you dropped on your head a lot as a child?
-
JFK was killed by LBJ and JE Hoover......
(https://i.postimg.cc/pdYjdprv/lbj-hoover.png)
-
Were you dropped on your head a lot as a child?
Were you dropped on your face?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/pdYjdprv/lbj-hoover.png)
And then Earl Warren and Norman Redlich and the Congress (actually Congresses plural) - Democrats and Republicans - and the news media covered up for them. Yes, the NY Times and Washington Post covered up for Hoover. Sure they did. For decades. Even today they are doing so.
Everyone remained silent, everyone went along, no one blew the whistle for money or fame or out of remorse.
And everybody lived happily ever after. Just as in fairy tales.
A Stalin, a Mao, a Hitler - those running closed totalitarians systems - could not pull this off, not and keep it quiet for decades (which is claimed). But in the conspiracy fantasy world of these simple minded thinking people in the US they can.
See? The same media that exposed the crimes of Hoover, the abuses of the CIA, the lies of Vietnam and Watergate decided to coverup for the murder of JFK. Yes they did. Does that make any sense? Of course not.
This is completely illogical; you cannot use logic and reason with people who think like this. It won't work.
-
And then Earl Warren and Norman Redlich and the Congress (actually Congresses plural) - Democrats and Republicans - and the news media covered up for them. Yes, the NY Times and Washington Post covered up for Hoover. Sure they did. For decades. Even today they are doing so.
Everyone remained silent, everyone went along, no one blew the whistle for money or fame or out of remorse.
And everybody lived happily ever after. Just as in fairy tales.
A Stalin, a Mao, a Hitler - those running closed totalitarians systems - could not pull this off, not and keep it quiet for decades (which is claimed). But in the conspiracy fantasy world of these simple minded thinking people in the US they can.
See? The same media that exposed the crimes of Hoover, the abuses of the CIA, the lies of Vietnam and Watergate decided to coverup for the murder of JFK. Yes they did. Does that make any sense? Of course not.
This is completely illogical; you cannot use logic and reason with people who think like this. It won't work.
If this hilarious rant is an example of your special kind of "logic" than you are absolutely right. It's impossible to have a normal conversation with you.
This is by far the funniest part;
The same media that exposed the crimes of Hoover,
First of all, yes they exposed them after his death, secondly, you agree that Hoover was a crook but you rely completely on him for the investigation of the Kennedy murder, which he controlled 100%.
Btw, why is it that guys like you can only come up with utterly foolish narrow minded strawman rather than actual reasoned factual arguments?
-
Lee Harvey Oswald told us that he was just a " Patsy " and I think he might have been one of the only persons that was telling us the truth that day !