Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?  (Read 24426 times)

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #104 on: September 05, 2018, 12:18:22 AM »
Advertisement
Chief of police, Jesse Curry, said that Oswald was shown to the news reporters: "... to demonstrate that he had not been mistreated." (or words to that effect).

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #104 on: September 05, 2018, 12:18:22 AM »


Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #105 on: September 05, 2018, 02:18:13 AM »
It matters because you have a track record of being a little loose with the truth.

Before anyone comments on your claim you should reference your source. Even a raving CTer would expect you to do that.

My bet is that your source (if you have one) is another low grade poster on a CT forum.

Loose with truth? 😅😄 This is funny coming from someone who hasn't cited one piece of evidence since they have been on this board.

Why does a source matter? I asked a basic question. Was this held in the lineup room or not? Since you clearly can't answer that question then move on.

I thought you weren't going to respond to my posts? Talk about being loose with the truth.

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3725
Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #106 on: September 05, 2018, 04:23:23 AM »
Chief of police, Jesse Curry, said that Oswald was shown to the news reporters: "... to demonstrate that he had not been mistreated." (or words to that effect).
Curry was in charge of nothing.  Just read his testimony.
Quote
Mr. RANKIN - Do you know who was there to try to identify Lee Oswald?
Mr. CURRY - No, I don't. The news media, a number of them, had continued to say, "Let us see him. What are you doing to him? How does he look?"
I think one broadcaster that I had heard or someone had told me about, said that Lee Harvey Oswald is in custody of the police department, and that something about he looked all right when he went in there, they wouldn't guarantee how he would look after he had been in custody of the Dallas police for a couple of hours, which intimated to me that when I heard this that they thought we were mistreating the prisoner.
Mr. RANKIN - Did you do anything about that?
Mr. CURRY - I offered then at that time they wanted to see him and they wanted to know why they couldn't see him and I said we had no objection to anybody seeing him. And when he was being moved down the hall to go back up in the jail they would crowd on him and we just had to surround him by officers to get to take him to the jail elevator to take him back upstairs, to let him rest from the interrogation.
Mr. RANKIN - And this showup, how many people attended?
Mr. CURRY - I would think perhaps 75 people.............
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/curry1.htm

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #106 on: September 05, 2018, 04:23:23 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #107 on: September 05, 2018, 04:44:49 AM »
You nailed it exactly.  John is a dishonest contrarian.  The single worst poster on this board.  He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy.  Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?  We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic.  Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one.   It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others.  The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.

He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy. 

How does taking issue with the evidence equate to implying that there was a conspiracy? If you don't accept the evidence at face value you must believe in a conspiracy? Is that how your mind works


Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?

This may be over your head, but why do you feel there has to be faked or manufactured evidence? Why can't there simply be misrepresented evidence? 

We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's a void at all

Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one. 

Which is exactly what any detective does every day. 

It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others.

Where is it written that one has to have an alternative theory to examine the evidence that allegedly supports another theory?

The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.

Whining again? Just make your case, present the evidence and convince somebody, will ya?



« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 05:07:24 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3725
Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #108 on: September 05, 2018, 05:19:24 AM »
   John is a dishonest contrarian.  The single worst poster on this board. 
Trolls appoint themselves as forum magistrates ...judging the content of other members' posts that do not agree with their rigid formulated perspective.
Is that about right?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #108 on: September 05, 2018, 05:19:24 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #109 on: September 05, 2018, 06:09:37 AM »
Trolls appoint themselves as forum magistrates ...judging the content of other members' posts that do not agree with their rigid formulated perspective.
Is that about right?

yes

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #110 on: September 05, 2018, 03:21:36 PM »
He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy. 

How does taking issue with the evidence equate to implying that there was a conspiracy? If you don't accept the evidence at face value you must belief in a conspiracy? Is that how your mind worksWho exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?


Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?

This may be over your head, but why do you feel there has to be faked or manufactured evidence? Why can't there simply be misrepresented evidence? 

We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's a void at all

Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one. 

Which is exactly what any detective does every day. 

It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others.

Where is it written that one has to have an alternative theory to examine the evidence that allegedly supports another theory?

The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.

Whining again? Just make your case, present the evidence and convince somebody, will ya?

While you are rambling away, why not clear up John I.'s claim that you did not post on the "Richard Smith" thread?  Wouldn't an intellectually honest person want to do that?  This one is simple  Here is an example.  If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime? There are documents that confirm a rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box.  Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  There is no third option in which this evidence somehow exists but neither Oswald nor a conspirator is responsible for it.  I understand why John takes this dishonest and lazy approach.  If he confirmed that he was suggesting a conspiracy, then he might have to do something other than be a contrarian.  He might actually have to provide some support or at least a narrative that makes sense.  Easier to shrug away everything as suspect without making any attempt to explain an alternative.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #110 on: September 05, 2018, 03:21:36 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
« Reply #111 on: September 05, 2018, 05:06:14 PM »
While you are rambling away, why not clear up John I.'s claim that you did not post on the "Richard Smith" thread?  Wouldn't an intellectually honest person want to do that?  This one is simple  Here is an example.  If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime? There are documents that confirm a rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box.  Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  There is no third option in which this evidence somehow exists but neither Oswald nor a conspirator is responsible for it.  I understand why John takes this dishonest and lazy approach.  If he confirmed that he was suggesting a conspiracy, then he might have to do something other than be a contrarian.  He might actually have to provide some support or at least a narrative that makes sense.  Easier to shrug away everything as suspect without making any attempt to explain an alternative.

If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime?


You really are not getting any of this, aren't you now? I don't think John has ever argued that the Klein's documents (which were created as part of a transaction initiated by a handwritten order form) are fake. It seems to me that he only questions the photo copy of the order form and the conclusion of the FBI that it is Oswald's handwriting on that form.

I could be mistaken, but I think John has also never claimed that the BY photos are faked. Personally, I think they are likely authentic. So, regardless of your constant exaggerations, what you really only have is a photo copy of an order form and some photographs and neither of those prove Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle allegedly used to kill Kennedy.

Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.

True, but that does not automatically mean that the evidence was faked. Authentic evidence can also be misrepresented.

I understand why John takes this dishonest and lazy approach.  If he confirmed that he was suggesting a conspiracy, then he might have to do something other than be a contrarian.  He might actually have to provide some support or at least a narrative that makes sense.  Easier to shrug away everything as suspect without making any attempt to explain an alternative.


John is not dishonest or lazy in his approach. It seems to me he simply feels that the evidence against Oswald does not support the conclusions attached to it by the WC and/or LNs and on the other hand he feels there is not enough evidence to make a claim that there has been a conspiracy.

Actually, the lazy one is you. Instead of answering my questions, you just ignore the content of my post and basically simply repeat again what you wrote in the post I replied to with my questions.


« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 05:08:57 PM by Martin Weidmann »