Then went outside to watch P. parade

[Alan Ford]

  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?

 

[Royell Storing]

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?

 

  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?

[Alan Ford]

  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.

 

[Thomas Graves]

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.

Alan,

How many people do you figure were involved in The Cover Up?

--  MWT 

[Royell Storing]

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.

 

   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.

[Alan Ford]

   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'.

~Shrug~

[Thomas Graves]

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'.

Alan,

----------------------------

--  MWT