Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Dan O'meara]

Does it have some kind of relevance that it's people he works with?  What, he was only an "contemptuous, arrogant loser" while working?

Yes John, the whole point I'm making revolves around the relationship between Oswald and his work colleagues as revealed in the various testimonies. He is not stood on the steps with friends from his school days or old teachers. He is not stood on the front steps with old army buddies or family. In the scenario being suggested he is stood outside with work colleagues, specifically Bill Shelley, watching the motorcade pass by. The point I was making referred to the unlikelihood Oswald would have joined in with such a thing (obviously you twisted it into me saying it couldn't possibly have happened but this has become a feature of your campaign to misrepresent what I'm saying). I cannot explain it any clearer than this - the point being I was making is absolutely relevant, and specific to, his work colleagues. It is unlikely Oswald would have joined his work colleagues on the steps because of his documented relationship with his work colleagues. How this was not clear to you I don't know, I can only assume you don't read my posts correctly.

"Exactly.  You're projecting your attitudes onto them."

I use the word 'antisocial' to describe Oswald's behaviour and you accuse me of 'projecting my attitudes'. Here is the dictionary definition of the word 'antisocial' -"not sociable or wanting the company of others". And you don't think that describes your friend Oswald? I'll only use a few of quotes to make my point:

"... he didn't associate with us too much ... He didn't like to talk too much to us"
" Never did say anything to anyone. He never did put himself in any position to say anything to anyone."
"We play dominoes and eat our lunch. He might walk in and lay around with us and he would walk out. He didn't stay in there too long. I guess he didn't like crowds."

These quotes, and others, from his work colleagues clearly describe someone who is unsociable and not "wanting the company of others" but I have no doubt in your twisting misrepresentation you will find a way to disagree. I stand by the use of the word 'antisocial', not as something I'm projecting but as an accurate description of Oswald's behaviour as described by his work colleagues. I don't expect you to retract your accusation.

" Did any of his work colleagues describe him as arrogant and contemptuous?"

No John, not one of his colleagues used the words 'contemptuous' or 'arrogant' to describe him. But I never said they did, those are my words to describe him (more misrepresentation). I was struck by the testimony of Geneva Hines, who specifically describes Oswald as 'unfriendly', and in which she described trying to interact with him by saying "Good Morning" or "Hello", the usual pleasantries normal people use on a daily basis, and how he would literally blank her existence, as if she wasn't worth responding to. I used the word 'contempt' to describe this behaviour. The dictionary definition of 'contempt'  - "the feeling that a person or a thing is worthless or beneath consideration".
This is the perfect word to describe Oswald. In your defence of him you have this to say -"Well, since you asked, "contempt" is the last word I would use. Perhaps if they sneered at me and said "what's it to you?" or if they "sarcastically" said caustic things like "I wonder if you're familiar with the concept".  But not saying anything?"
I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of 'contempt'. It appears not. To treat someone with contempt is to treat them as if they're not there - exactly how Oswald treats Hines.

"Is somebody likely to notice a shy, nonsocial person standing *behind* them at the moment a parade is passing in front of them?  I would say no."

It seems you would like to believe Oswald's unwillingness to talk to people makes him invisible but this is not the case. In her excellent 'Living History' interview, Karen Westbrook Scranton makes the following point:

"He wasn't terribly friendly but we, being teenagers, we saw this guy, all alone and we felt sorry for him. We just thought 'He doesn't have any friends' or 'He doesn't make friends very easily', so he was very much in our scope even though there wasn't any kind of a friendship between any of us." (13:22 to 13:41)

Oswald's antisocial behaviour made him stand out in the TSBD. He wasn't some invisible figure standing behind everyone (how do you know where he was standing by the way?) and you completely ignore all the people coming up the steps because it suits you to do so.

My point, all along, was that I felt it very unlikely the antisocial and unfriendly Oswald would join his colleagues on the steps. The fact that not one witness places him there strengthens this observation. Oswald was not invisible, his antisocial behaviour made him stand out.
You seem determined to place him on the steps for the motorcade, you must have some very strong evidence for doing so. I will keep looking until I find it.

[Alan J. Ford]

To Mr. Iacoletti’s point/observation at, quote, “Behind”

It certainly correlates with the time-sequence movements of Mr. Jarman & Mr. Norman’s return inside the building at the rear entrance at 12:25PM, where the wrongly accused actually described the tandem walking together from his vantage point in the Domino Room (first floor lunchroom).  It would be virtually impossible for anyone, let alone the wrongly accused, if they really were six stories up in the front of the building to guess, let alone actually see, anyone else return into the building six stories below at the rear of the building.

By the time the wrongly accused left the Domino Room and went out the front-entrance to view the presidential-parade, given his reluctance to engage and/or mingle, it would be characteristic of him to take up a rear position "Behind" others, drawing less attention as possible.

[Royell Storing]

  This "stuff" about Oswald being "shy" is pure Baloney. Oswald was on RADIO extolling his political opinions along with standing on street corners handing out controversial literature to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crossed his path. Oswald was Not "Shy". Oswald was Verbose whenever he wanted to be and also made his presence Known at a time and place of his choosing.  Stop with this Dr Phil routine.

[Alan Ford]

Oswald's antisocial behaviour made him stand out in the TSBD. He wasn't some invisible figure standing behind everyone (how do you know where he was standing by the way?) and you completely ignore all the people coming up the steps because it suits you to do so.

My point, all along, was that I felt it very unlikely the antisocial and unfriendly Oswald would join his colleagues on the steps. The fact that not one witness places him there strengthens this observation. Oswald was not invisible, his antisocial behaviour made him stand out.

Officer Baker charged up those front steps barely half a minute after the last shot. Presumably lots of people noticed this highly visible and conspicuous figure dashing past them, right?

Can you give us their names?

Mr Roy Truly charged up the steps after Officer Baker. Presumably lots of people noticed this highly visible and conspicuous boss-man dashing past them, right?

Can you give us their names?

While you're at it, perhaps you can also give us the names of the many people congregated at the front entrance who noticed the 'not invisible' Mr Oswald leaving the building several minutes after the assassination? If you can't, then do you conclude that he never left the building?

 

[Thomas Graves]

Officer Baker charged up those front steps barely half a minute after the last shot. Presumably lots of people noticed this highly visible and conspicuous figure dashing past them, right?

Can you give us their names?

Mr Roy Truly charged up the steps after Officer Baker. Presumably lots of people noticed this highly visible and conspicuous boss-man dashing past them, right?

Can you give us their names?

While you're at it, perhaps you can also give us the names of the many people congregated at the front entrance who noticed the 'not invisible' Mr Oswald leaving the building several minutes after the assassination? If you can't, then do you conclude that he never left the building?

Dear Alan,

There was a lot of stuff happening at the time, so it's understandable that no one on the steps remembered seeing, or volunteered that they'd seen, Officer Marion Baker and TSBD manager Truly run up the steps about 30 seconds after the third and final shot.

Do you think Baker sprinted to the corner to ask the other policeman down there if he'd counted how many pigeons had taken flight?

Do you think Couch-Darnell was altered?

Do you think we in the U.S. live in a FBI and CIA-controlled Deep State?

How many people do you figure were involved in the assassination and "the cover up"?

--  MWT 

PS  Mr. Oswald probably left the building by the loading dock door.

[John Iacoletti]

Yes John, the whole point I'm making revolves around the relationship between Oswald and his work colleagues as revealed in the various testimonies. He is not stood on the steps with friends from his school days or old teachers. He is not stood on the front steps with old army buddies or family. In the scenario being suggested he is stood outside with work colleagues, specifically Bill Shelley, watching the motorcade pass by. The point I was making referred to the unlikelihood Oswald would have joined in with such a thing (obviously you twisted it into me saying it couldn't possibly have happened but this has become a feature of your campaign to misrepresent what I'm saying).

I didn’t accuse you of saying that it was impossible — I’m pointing out that your claim that it is “unlikely” is unfounded. As I pointed out, watching a parade while standing behind other people watching a parade is not a social activity. You tried to turn this into an Oswald-Shelley chat session.

But you went way beyond trying to make a case that Oswald wasn’t social enough to be standing outside. You tried to use his reluctance to talk to people to automatically label him as contemptuous and superior.

I use the word 'antisocial' to describe Oswald's behaviour and you accuse me of 'projecting my attitudes'. Here is the dictionary definition of the word 'antisocial' -"not sociable or wanting the company of others". And you don't think that describes your friend Oswald?

Why do you describe him as my “friend”? Because I take issue with your armchair psychoanalysis of somebody you never met? Or are you being contemptuous and superior?

These quotes, and others, from his work colleagues clearly describe someone who is unsociable and not "wanting the company of others" but I have no doubt in your twisting misrepresentation you will find a way to disagree. I stand by the use of the word 'antisocial', not as something I'm projecting but as an accurate description of Oswald's behaviour as described by his work colleagues. I don't expect you to retract your accusation.

I didn’t misrepresent or twist anything you said. You didn’t merely say he was anti-social.

No John, not one of his colleagues used the words 'contemptuous' or 'arrogant' to describe him. But I never said they did, those are my words to describe him (more misrepresentation). I was struck by the testimony of Geneva Hines, who specifically describes Oswald as 'unfriendly', and in which she described trying to interact with him by saying "Good Morning" or "Hello", the usual pleasantries normal people use on a daily basis, and how he would literally blank her existence, as if she wasn't worth responding to.

Ding ding ding. There’s the projection.

I used the word 'contempt' to describe this behaviour.

And therein lies the problem. You’re not describing the behavior, you’re describing what you decided the behavior means.

I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of 'contempt'. It appears not.

I wonder if you realize how contemptuous you are being in this discussion. You missed the part of the definition about being scornful.

It seems you would like to believe Oswald's unwillingness to talk to people makes him invisible

No. Where did you get that idea?

but this is not the case. In her excellent 'Living History' interview, Karen Westbrook Scranton makes the following point:

"He wasn't terribly friendly but we, being teenagers, we saw this guy, all alone and we felt sorry for him. We just thought 'He doesn't have any friends' or 'He doesn't make friends very easily', so he was very much in our scope even though there wasn't any kind of a friendship between any of us." (13:22 to 13:41)

Note: another coworker who doesn’t describe him as contemptuous, superior, or even unfriendly.

Oswald's antisocial behaviour made him stand out in the TSBD. He wasn't some invisible figure standing behind everyone (how do you know where he was standing by the way?)

I don’t. I’m responding to your argument that he was too antisocial to be standing outside during the motorcade. Even though standing outside during the motorcade isn’t any more social than sitting in a lunchroom where other people are present.

and you completely ignore all the people coming up the steps because it suits you to do so.

Ignoring them how? Just because they didn’t mention seeing him? How many people mentioned Roy Lewis or Jeraldean Reid? Or as Alan aptly noted, Officer Baker.

You seem determined to place him on the steps for the motorcade, you must have some very strong evidence for doing so. I will keep looking until I find it.

Not at all. I don’t know where he was. But you seem mighty determined to keep him away from there with rhetorical and presumptive arguments .

[John Iacoletti]

  This "stuff" about Oswald being "shy" is pure Baloney. Oswald was on RADIO extolling his political opinions along with standing on street corners handing out controversial literature to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crossed his path. Oswald was Not "Shy". Oswald was Verbose whenever he wanted to be and also made his presence Known at a time and place of his choosing.  Stop with this Dr Phil routine.

Must be more of that famous Storing “inside information”. Never mind the 7 or so people who actually knew him describing him as shy.

[Dan O'meara]

I didn’t accuse you of saying that it was impossible — I’m pointing out that your claim that it is “unlikely” is unfounded.

In Reply #4 you state the following:

"Yes, but I read your "sarcastic" screed as trying to make the case that Oswald couldn't possibly be standing out front ..."

In my response to your inability to understand the simple point I make in my original post I lay it out in a way anyone can understand - the numerous testimonies, plus others I didn't use, documenting Oswald's antisocial behaviour towards his work colleagues makes it unlikely he would join them outside to watch the motorcade pass by. You completely ignore my comprehensive explanation (as usual) and twist my word "unlikelihood" into "it couldn't possibly have happened". When I protest that you have yet again twisted and misrepresented my words and that I didn't say "it couldn't possibly have happened" you then twist and misrepresent your own twisted misrepresentation by saying I used the word "impossible".
In two steps I go from saying 'unlikely' to' impossible'. The rest of your response is the usual twisted garbage but, even by your intensely low standards, the deliberate "misremembrance" that both Shelley and Lovelady witnessed Baker at the TSBD steps is stunning. I know for a fact you are aware of their testimonies.
I don't know why you've singled me out for your campaign of misrepresentation but I've had enough and find I'm spending way too much time responding to your unsavoury attentions. I don't know if there's a protocol for complaining about these issues, instead I will post the following message to future attacks;

  POST IGNORED DUE TO PREVIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS . SEE REPLY #15 "They Went Outside To Watch The P. Parade" THREAD (Part 2)

I have been wondering about why you are victimising me. As a newcomer to all this I've noticed there are various factions (Lone Assassin/Prayer Man/ Two Oswalds etc) with each defending their own 'turf' because each is utterly convinced they have the answer. I don't know what faction you belong to but, as I fumble along through this maze, I'm assuming I've said something you find threatening to you beliefs (and they are beliefs). I'm still near the start so I've not 'found my faction' yet and it may be the case that the evidence leads me to see things the way you do but I'll let my best interpretation of the evidence guide me there, not your bullying tactics.
Looking through my posts I find your only objection based on anything remotely rational is to my stating as fact that Shelley and Lovelady lied in their testimonies. The following image proves for a fact that Lovelady was lying:



In his HSCA testimony Lovelady is shown this still (or one very similar) and recognises himself. Towards the end he finally admits he didn't go back inside until much later than he'd previously stated.
Don't bother responding, you will only be ignored.