Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements (& Questions) That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #214  (Read 178 times)

Online Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1972
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae

********************************************

Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.

No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

One would think IF the assassination occurred as the WC said then the LNers would welcome the opportunity to discuss and refute the posts in this series, but they seem more determined to have the posts stopped. I think that this shows that the WC's version of events is not correct.

***************************

It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders won’t or can’t answer. They will instead make the focus about me.

***************************

1) Who was the drunk man who fit the description of the shooter of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) mentioned in the Dallas Police Department (DPD) dispatch logs?

In Commission Exhibit (CE) 1974 on page 462 we see the following description from Patrolman C.M. Barnhart.


Quote on

261      (Partolman C.M. Barnhart)   Do you have any clothing description yet?

Dispatcher   (Hulse and Jackson)      All we have is white male 30, slender build, 5’10”, 165 pounds, armed with .30 caliber rifle.             

261      (Partolman C.M. Barnhart)   I have a subject that fits that description in size. He’s drunk, down at the north end of Laws Street. Do you want to have someone to check him?

Dispatcher   (Hulse and Jackson)      261 (Partolman C.M. Barnhart), are you near the person?

261       (Barnhart)                 I’ve got him on my motor.

Dispatcher   (Hulse and Jackson)      Be at the north end of Laws at the dead-end?

261      (Partolman C.M. Barnhart)   10-4.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

Who was this person and what happened to him? We see no more mention of him or what happened to him once he was brought into DPD headquarters. True, many men fit the general description sent out, but this officer felt he fit it and asked about having someone take him in, thus, we should see some activity on this person, but we don’t. Why not?

Can any WC defender answer this question?

2) Why was the epileptic seizure that took place just minutes before the arrival of the motorcade NOT looked into more as requested?

In CE 705 on page 465 we see the following request being made.


Quote on

Unknown   We have an epileptic before this. The person went to Parkland Hospital. Send a squad there to get all the information you can. 12:48 p.m.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

In CE 1974 on page 839 we see the process by which the epileptic was handled. The final transmissions said the following.

Quote on

111   (Pollard)      We are going to have to take this PRISONER to Parkland. Is Harwood Street blocked all the way?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

What made Pollard describe the epileptic as the “prisoner” instead of patient? The man’s name was Jerry Belknap and the FBI tried to make nothing out of this when they mentioned him in a report they did in June of 1964 (Commission Document 1245, pp. 9-10--6/11/64). They said he simply forgot to take his medication that morning and this caused him to have a “dizzy spell” and he fainted. He would take his medication at the hospital since he claimed to be getting no attention since JFK had been brought in shortly after him and he felt fine so he left without registering as a patient. An interesting note is that he worked part-time at the Dallas Morning News and that is the same place Jack Ruby claimed to be at the time of the assassination. He says in the report that he had seen Jack Ruby once or twice, but never spoke with him or met him.  He also says his fainting spells were due to a head injury he sustained when a car struck him a few years before and NOT due to epilepsy. How do we balance this with Pollard’s word of him being a PRISONER?

Can any WC defender answer this one? Also, can you answer why the WC never called him to find out why? Or why they did NOT call Pollard?

CD 1245:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

3) Why was FBI Agent James Hosty claiming Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was a member of the Communist Party when there was NO evidence to support this claim?

We have seen in numerous posts in this series that there NEVER was any evidence showing LHO had joined the Communist Party, so why was Hosty telling Lieutenant Jack Revill this?  If we go to CE 709 we will see a letter from Revill to his superior, Captain W.P. Gannaway, outlining this claim.


Quote on

…At that time Special Agent Hosty related to this officer that the Subject [LHO] was a member of the Communist Party, and that he was residing in Dallas…The information regarding the Subject’s affiliation with the Communist Party is the FIRST INFORMATION this officer has received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding same. (CE 709, p. 495) (Emphasis added)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

This was a blatant lie by Hosty and we see it was the FIRST INFORMATION given to the DPD by him. Why? You will also note the same false address for LHO is listed in this letter too (605 Elsbeth). As shown in #204, question 4, this address was false and the ONLY other source that had this same address was Army Intelligence as they had it in their “Harvey Lee Oswald” file. This address was most likely given to Revill by the local office of this group.

LHO was NEVER a member of the Communist Party so why did Hosty lie and say he was? Can any WC defender answer this one for me?

4) Was LHO a member of the CIA?

This has been debated for nearly 50 years, but in the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) final report there seems to be sound evidence that he was. On pages 198 and 199 we see this written.


Quote on

(2) CIA personnel abroad.—Turning to particular allegations, the committee investigated the statement of former CIA employee James Wilcott, who testified in executive session that shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy he was advised by fellow employees at a CIA post abroad that Oswald was a CIA agent who had received financial disbursements under an assigned cryptonym. Wilcott explained that he had been employed by the CIA as a finance officer from 1957 until his resignation in 1966. In this capacity, he served as a fiscal account assistant on the support staff at a post abroad from June 1960 to June 1964…On the day after President Kennedy’s assassination, Wilcott claimed he was informed by a CIA case officer that Oswald WAS AN AGENT. He further testified he was told that Oswald had been assigned a cryptonym and that Wilcott himself had unknowingly dispursed payments for Oswald’s PROJECT. (HSCAR, pp. 198-199) (Emphasis added)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

This is very important information and it corresponds to DeMohrenschildt’s comments before the WC about LHO “getting checks from somewhere” on a regular basis.

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. …The only thing we could judge is what we read in the papers. Sometimes you read something like he was going to get some money, and naturally you start thinking that possibly somebody bought him.

Now, we heard, also, that he was getting some regular checks from somewhere.


Notice to the use of the term “Oswald’s project” in his testimony. What project would that be? Either option is NOT good for the CIA or the WC defenders as this could only go one of two ways. He was either trying to infiltrate the conspiracy as claimed by CT researchers over the years or he was being paid by the CIA to kill JFK if you believe the WC conclusion!

How can WC defenders deal with this information? LHO seems to have been on the payroll of the CIA.

Once again, we see there is ample evidence in the twenty-six volumes to sink the WC’s conclusions.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 02:53:52 AM by Rob Caprio »

JFK Assassination Forum