Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
This gets better and better.  A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty.

You missed the last part of what I wrote, Mr Smith--------maybe you were half-focused on reading my post and half-focused on reading your favorite newspaper, the NY Times? :D
22
I would hope in the same interegation it would be the same. They both wrote down the same words.

Nope! Agent Hosty has Mr Oswald put himself in the lunchroom pre-motorcade, Agent Bookhout shifts the timeframe dramatically to "at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building"--------and adds the Baker/Truly encounter to Mr Oswald's story.
23
Then he took the remains of his lunch out front to watch the P. Parade. I believe that the Wiegman film shows him holding his Coke in one hand and some food (either apple or sandwich) in the other-------------

No Alan....That's not correct....Lee said that he was ALONE in the lunchroom when he saw Jarman and Norman pass by....They were on the fifth floor at 12:28, so they couldn't have been passing by the Domino room at 12:30, When Altgen's 6 was taken.    Lee couldn't have seen them AFTER  12:27.

Huh? Mr Oswald said he saw them before he went outside to watch the P. Parade. He did not say 'I saw them just as Altgens 6 was being taken'!
24
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The Backyard Photo Paradox
« Last post by Gerry Down on Today at 05:16:10 AM »
The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo.

PHOTO??....   Which photo??....  There are three PHOTOS plus the De M copy of CE 133-A....  WHICH photo did Lee say was a fake??

Well, the one he was shown. And by implication, as the issue he had with the photo was that he was holding a rifle, he was implying all other photos that show him holding the rifle are not real.
25
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The Backyard Photo Paradox
« Last post by Walt Cakebread on Today at 05:11:48 AM »
The allegation is that the DPD faked the backyard photo in order to incriminate Oswald. This is what Oswald stated while in custody.

However as the interview in which Oswald stated this was not recorded, and it was the DPD themselves that stated that Oswald made this allegation, why would the DPD (if they had faked the photo) acknowledge that Oswald made this claim? As the interview was not recorded, the DPD could simply pretend that Oswald never made this allegation. This would help cover up the fact that they faked the photo.

The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo.

The same goes with the plaster cast which found no nitrates on it suggesting that Oswald might not have fired a rifle that day. If they went to the effort of faking the backyard photo, why not place fake nitrates on the plaster cast to incriminate Oswald? Why admit that there was no nitrates on the plaster cast?

All this points in the direction that the backyard photos are genuine, just like Marina said so.

The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo.

PHOTO??....   Which photo??....  There are three PHOTOS plus the De M copy of CE 133-A....  WHICH photo did Lee say was a fake??
26
I would hope in the same interegation it would be the same. They both wrote down the same words.

On one hand you want to believe LHO but very definitive to what statements, but also claim the detectives had an alterior motive by them keep asking the same questions but getting different answers. That is how the integations work. Same as the WC testimonies, the attorneys would always circle back to conflicting statements. Arnold Rowlands statement is an excellent example of that technique. So is LHO's integations about where he was during the assassination. Turns out he was upstairs and came down to the encounter with Baker and Trully.

Turns out he was upstairs and came down to the encounter with Baker and Trully.

Nobody saw Lee dashing across he sixth floor or down the stairs....And there were many people who would have heard him or saw him if he had traveled from the SE corner of the 6th floor to the second floor lunchroom, including Vicky Adams and her friend Sandra Styles, who were on the stairs at the time that Lee would have had to have used those stairs.

Do you also enjoy other fairytales Mr Nessan?
27
General Discussion & Debate / The Backyard Photo Paradox
« Last post by Gerry Down on Today at 05:01:23 AM »
The allegation is that the DPD faked the backyard photo in order to incriminate Oswald. This is what Oswald stated while in custody.

However as the interview in which Oswald stated this was not recorded, and it was the DPD themselves that stated that Oswald made this allegation, why would the DPD (if they had faked the photo) acknowledge that Oswald made this claim? As the interview was not recorded, the DPD could simply pretend that Oswald never made this allegation. This would help cover up the fact that they faked the photo.

The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo.

The same goes with the plaster cast which found no nitrates on it suggesting that Oswald might not have fired a rifle that day. If they went to the effort of faking the backyard photo, why not place fake nitrates on the plaster cast to incriminate Oswald? Why admit that there was no nitrates on the plaster cast?

All this points in the direction that the backyard photos are genuine, just like Marina said so.
28
Do you believe, based on a comparison of Agent Hosty's and Agent Bookhout's respective solo reports, that Mr Oswald gave two completely different stories within one and the same interrogation (i.e. the first one @ 3:15pm 11/22)?

None of this 'I believe the authorities' spiel addresses a single point I made. You are just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your chosen story.

I would hope in the same interegation it would be the same. They both wrote down the same words.

On one hand you want to believe LHO but very definitive to what statements, but also claim the detectives had an alterior motive by them keep asking the same questions but getting different answers. That is how the integations work. Same as the WC testimonies, the attorneys would always circle back to conflicting statements. Arnold Rowlands statement is an excellent example of that technique. So is LHO's integations about where he was during the assassination. Turns out he was upstairs and came down to the encounter with Baker and Trully.
29
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Jack Nessan on Today at 02:47:48 AM »
Mrs Connolly's testimony to W.C.

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

Mrs Connolly's testimony to W.C.

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

Nelly referencing JBC's own words to identify JBC as being hit by the first shot. Same as Jackie.
30
This gets better and better.  A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty. You cannot honestly believe that nonsense.  It is laughable.

A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty. You cannot honestly believe that nonsense. 

Geeez!....Watta revoltin development this is ! ( As William Bendix used to say )  Here I am finding myself in agreement with "Richard Smith"
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Mobile View