Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Gus Rose
« Last post by Colin Crow on October 15, 2019, 11:20:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I see the difference. For what it is worth, I found the following at this web page: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

According to fellow worker, Dave Noel, Michael Paine discussed the "character of assassins" a few hours before President John F. Kennedy was killed. He also returned to his home in Irving at 3.00 p.m. to find Dallas police officers searching the premises. He told the police: "As soon as I found out about it, I hurried over to see if I could help."

It isn't clear to me whether he is referring to the time Michael Paine left work, or the time he arrived at his home. My guess is that he left work at 3:00. How would a coworker know what time he arrived at home?

What did Michael say to the WC? When did Ruth and Marina say? Buddy Wathers testified too. When did the first cops arrive at 1026 North Beckley? Are these times all consistent with 3.30 entry for Rose and the others? I believe that time to be too late because there never was a 40 minute delay waiting for Walthers, Weatherford and Oxford.
22
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Gus Rose
« Last post by Colin Crow on October 15, 2019, 11:13:59 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sure, you're welcome.

It raises an obvious (to me) question: Why would there be a empty blanket shaped like that with the ends tied together? It's just an empty blanket. Why not fold it and just put it somewhere? Like this (photo of the actual blanket):



It's clear to me that somebody went through the motions of making it look like something was still inside the blanket. They "shaped" it to appear that way and they re-tied the empty ends of it.

Why? For what purpose? And who had "access" to this to do so? If there wasn't a rifle in it then what's an alternate explanation for the blanket being "shaped" and tied to make it appear something was still in it. Again, why?

Were both ends still tied Steve? My recollection was that one end had loose string.
23
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Proof Sarah Stanton Is Prayer Man
« Last post by Bettina Krotsch on October 15, 2019, 11:01:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Posted @ 13:31:23(pm)...

So?  :D
24
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Proof Sarah Stanton Is Prayer Man
« Last post by Bettina Krotsch on October 15, 2019, 11:01:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Posted @ 11:51:26(am)...

And?  :D
25
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Those Front Steps
« Last post by Bettina Krotsch on October 15, 2019, 11:00:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I remain committed to not say anything with a keyboard that I would not say in person.

Sure you would. I don't believe you. I believe that in person, it would all be bunnies and rainbows with you.  :D
26
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Gus Rose
« Last post by Otto Beck on October 15, 2019, 10:38:48 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What evidence is there that the Oswald's owned any actual camping equipment? Yes, I am aware that Michael Paine said that at first he thought it might be some sort of camping equipment. Is there any evidence whatsoever that they ever went camping? Lee Oswald lived for long stretches of time on unemployment checks. He had no car, no savings, no phone, no house. Yet he had camping equipment for what purpose?

Then why would he own a rifle?

Quote
Second, why would it be necessary to arrange the blanket to make it look like it was camping equipment? If there was a camping/tent pole in the blanket, why remove that pole and then make the blanket appear to look like the pole was still in it?

Second, WTF are you babbling about arranging the blanket to make it look like it was camping equipment?
27
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Otto, researchers tend to present and focus their efforts on what they believe they have found irrefutable (persuasive) proof of. I agree W. Tracey Parnell indicates he has concluded the WC "got it right" in its Report. We all have biases. The key question is whether our biases (in approaching what we focus on as researchers) slant our presentations; film, book, lecture, or forum threads/posts to the degree the facts supporting them stand up to scrutiny of other researchers.

I agree.

Quote
I spent several years as one of the Ed Forum monitors and, more recently, as the sole comments editor of jfkfacts.org for ten months, beginning in October, 2015. In that role, I read and approved, or not, every submitted comment continuing, today to appear on that site, during that time span. Day in, day out, that experience was an eye opener.

Can you agree with this observation.... the self censorship on the Ed Forum is more pronounced (creepy, see NBA coddling China) there than it is on this forum or on the DPF, and much more rigid than on the McAdams google newsgroup.

Facts that have not appeared on the Ed Forum but have appeared on this forum, on DPF and on McAdams newsgroup, to name just two examples.:

(I have a high regard for his work so I exposed Steve Thomas to the fact Garrison kept secrets from authors and a movie maker who thought highly of him, despite Clay Shaw keeping the identical secrets, even as his freedom was threatened by a criminal prosecution. Steve's only public response I have detected, since my private presentation to him.: )

Discovered/published in 2015:
Discovered/published in July, 2019:

You now digress into how specific forums are run. I neither agree nor disagree with your observations and basically don't care who is invited in or kicked out. If a forum owner decides to run his (or her) forum into the ground so be it. I don't see how your perception of facts RE Garrison is relevant to how Parnell's work is to be judged.

I hope it wasn't a false appeal to authority...

Quote
Now, Otto, in order to avoid a double standard in your criticism of W Tracey Parnell's work, do you think it is reasonable for the community of posters on the Ed Forum to be more concerned about defending the published assertions of authors DiEugenio or Armstrong instead of freely discussing newer, irrefutable facts? It seems forced, artificial, anti "follow the facts wherever they lead us."

Again, I don't see said avoidance to rely on anything coming out of the Ed Forum. There is a double standard or there isn't.

Quote
Otto, Hargrove and the posters of the Ed Forum seem to prefer readers consume this, instead of the facts presented nearly three months ago. You dismiss Mr. Parnell as agenda driven. I do not see him willfully misleading anyone in any specific presentation. His bias is a different story. I have a bias closer to yours. So what?

Again, I don't know Hargrove or what "facts" may or may not have appeared on the EF, sorry.

What the Parnell thing boils down to is that this guy is not on my short list as anyone endorsing the WC report must have a distorted view on "facts".

"Agenda driven" is a very precise description, check out this book review:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Then view the video of the author presenting his book and note his view at the very end. Can you guess his view on the WC?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do you know of any of these guys who also can deal with the fact that the WC was sunk by their own evidence?

Quote
I'm not all that popular, Otto. I am unwilling to pay the dues because I refuse to be a hypocrite back slapping my hypocrite pals. These higher profile people "marketing" to the CT "community," with the possible exception of Larry Hancock and very few others, enable each others' misleading the readers they influence....the result is the blind leading the blind.

Well, I hope you stay unpopular!
28
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You clearly need help


i know you are but what am I?
29
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Last post by Jerry Freeman on October 15, 2019, 10:13:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, now I remember... it was Oswald's pubes that were green
Another irrelevant Chapman contribution :-\
30
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
BS. Make that one of your experiments then get back to us.

And by the way, did they find the screwdriver that Oswald must have thrown in the bag so he could re-assemble the rifle? Or did he use a dime?

And did they find the gloves he must have worn to not get any prints on the stock, bolt, barrel, scope, clip, shells and strap as he was re-assembling the rifle? Or did he take a few minutes to wipe down ALL his prints, except for his post-mortem palm print?

And how many prints did the Keystone Cops DPD leave on everything from bare-handling all the evidence, such as Fritz's prints on the 3 hulls in the SN?

"..fingerprints are easily smudged/removed by a simple wipe with a cloth" my arse. Show us or get off the pot.

You clearly need help
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Mobile View