Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Richard Smith]

How about Oswald possibly possessing evidence implicating the DPD?

Putting aside that there is not a scintilla of evidence to support that explanation, it still doesn't account for why the DPD would need to rush to search the boardinghouse.  If they were controlling the investigation and evidence as you suggest here, they just wait until they have cause.  And then conduct the search. Or they just make up a clearer explanation when asked about when they obtained the address.  How would anyone disprove that Oswald gave it to them earlier?  This is classic CTer 101.  Point out a real or more often imagined anomaly.  Claim that somehow proves a conspiracy even if it doesn't advance any conspiratorial objective.  Suggest the motivation doesn't matter or that no one is suggesting a conspiracy (but never explain how or why this happens in the absence of a conspiracy or why it matters.  Repeat endlessly.

[Vincent Baxter]

Yeah, as the saying goes, I think you're up the creek without a paddle on this one, Otto.

I've been sitting here quietly enjoying myself as you've been asked several times to explain what the point of your alleged 'hoax' would be, and each time you've side stepped and avoided answering. (No surprise there, of course)
Once again, your determination to just disagree with everything in an attempt to make yourself look like Billy Big Balls has taken you so far down the road of ridiculousness-ville that you can't even justify your pointless ramblings anymore.

Maybe it's time to log into the Martin Wiedmann account to try and give you some back up in an attempt to make yourself look less pathetic ?

[Dan O'meara]

As I've already pointed out, I can't help someone with this irrational backward way of problem solving.

But I'm not problem solving.
The problem has, apparently, been "solved".
I am examining this solution and my point is simple - if it is indeed a Hoax, then that Hoax must be able to withstand at least mild scrutiny. I don't have to get lost in the details as this has already been done by researchers like LeDoux, who has gathered all the anomalous material together and presented his solution explaining that anomalous material.
This solution must answer this most basic question - if the Hoax is real, why was it done?
There has to be a convincing, coherent answer to this question.
LeDoux's answer to this question is - to have Oswald living close to the scene of the Tippit shooting.
I find this answer highly problematic and very unsatisfactory.

But this is not to say that there's not a better answer to this question or that the anomalous material has somehow been dealt with just because I don't like the answer.
As I understand it, Oswald's house keys are never found, not on him or at the house. That's weird.
Why does the fake-looking slip of paper Gladys Johnson wants back only have one "signature" on it if it is a record of Oswald's payments?
Why is the guest register never produced? [or sold to the highest bidder]

There's something fishy going on at Ma Johnson's rooming house, that's for sure.

Why would you hope to understand how a "very complex and audacious Hoax is being perpetrated" based on a flawed investigation

??

and why would you assume these people were adequately prepped?

Are the Johnsons and Earlene being told what to say or not?
Are they making it up as they go along?
How is this Hoax working?
Having the Johnsons basically testify that the DP were round at the house before Oswald was arrested is a colossal blunder as far as the Hoax is concerned. It's absolutely monumental. Surely a basic detail such as this would have been covered in the preparation for the story the Johnsons and Earlene were going to tell.
Once we start considering the Hoax as a reality it must make sense and the Johnsons effectively testifying that the DP arrived before Oswald was arrested makes zero sense. [Or is this another argument from ignorance and that there are people far more intelligent than I am who understand how this is not a catastrophic mistake]

Argument from ignorance, making zero sense to you doesn't mean there's no one out there smarter than you. People take stupid risks all the time like running red lights getting themselves and others killed.

Setting the Hoax up in a rooming house makes zero sense.
Unless it's being made up on the fly.
If that's the case then a whole other can of worms is opened up.
The Johnsons testifying that the DP arrive before Oswald is arrested isn't a "stupid risk", it's a massive mistake in the context of the Hoax being a reality

But the WC turned every stone?

IMO the WC is a sick joke.
A perverted pantomime. A cover-up of a cover-up.
If there is a single reason this debate rages on it is the utter farce that is the Warren Commission.

[Walt Cakebread]

But I'm not problem solving.
The problem has, apparently, been "solved".
I am examining this solution and my point is simple - if it is indeed a Hoax, then that Hoax must be able to withstand at least mild scrutiny. I don't have to get lost in the details as this has already been done by researchers like LeDoux, who has gathered all the anomalous material together and presented his solution explaining that anomalous material.
This solution must answer this most basic question - if the Hoax is real, why was it done?
There has to be a convincing, coherent answer to this question.
LeDoux's answer to this question is - to have Oswald living close to the scene of the Tippit shooting.
I find this answer highly problematic and very unsatisfactory.

But this is not to say that there's not a better answer to this question or that the anomalous material has somehow been dealt with just because I don't like the answer.
As I understand it, Oswald's house keys are never found, not on him or at the house. That's weird.
Why does the fake-looking slip of paper Gladys Johnson wants back only have one "signature" on it if it is a record of Oswald's payments?
Why is the guest register never produced? [or sold to the highest bidder]

There's something fishy going on at Ma Johnson's rooming house, that's for sure.


??
Are the Johnsons and Earlene being told what to say or not?
Are they making it up as they go along?
How is this Hoax working?
Having the Johnsons basically testify that the DP were round at the house before Oswald was arrested is a colossal blunder as far as the Hoax is concerned. It's absolutely monumental. Surely a basic detail such as this would have been covered in the preparation for the story the Johnsons and Earlene were going to tell.
Once we start considering the Hoax as a reality it must make sense and the Johnsons effectively testifying that the DP arrived before Oswald was arrested makes zero sense. [Or is this another argument from ignorance and that there are people far more intelligent than I am who understand how this is not a catastrophic mistake]

Setting the Hoax up in a rooming house makes zero sense.
Unless it's being made up on the fly.
If that's the case then a whole other can of worms is opened up.
The Johnsons testifying that the DP arrive before Oswald is arrested isn't a "stupid risk", it's a massive mistake in the context of the Hoax being a reality

IMO the WC is a sick joke.
A perverted pantomime. A cover-up of a cover-up.
If there is a single reason this debate rages on it is the utter farce that is the Warren Commission.

LeDoux's answer to this question is - to have Oswald living close to the scene of the Tippit shooting.

Le Doux Is very close to the solution.....

The conspirators who were framing Lee Oswald were unaware that Lee Oswald had moved from Mary Bledsoe's house, and had rented a room at 1026 N. Beckley.  If Lee had still been living at Mrs Bledsoe's house he would have been close to the site of Tippit's murder. .... And that's what the plotters had planned for.       

[John Iacoletti]

A cursory questioning of the tenants revealed there was nothing of interest to be added to the preferred narrative - that Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK and a cop-killer.

When were the tenants questioned?

[Dan O'meara]

When were the tenants questioned?

My bad.
There wasn't even a cursory questioning of the tenants, let alone any official questioning.
LeDoux's article mentions a small number of the tenants were interviewed by the FBI but that would appear to be it.
In a memo to Garrison from William Boxley [5/15/68] we read:

"Apparently no effort was made by the FBI or other law enforcement personnel to interview any of OSWALD's co-roomers."

[John Iacoletti]

Interestingly, there was a tenant there named Mr. Lee — Herbert Lee.

[Dan O'meara]

Interestingly, there was a tenant there named Mr. Lee — Herbert Lee.

Also of interest is that the man who benefitted most from the assassination of JFK was Lyndon Johnson and that it was the Johnsons who owned 1026 North Beckley.