McAdams' fantastic theory

[Pamela Brown]

His words on page 254 of AL:

"Sensible theories...are just no fun. And the most sensible theory --
that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."

In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.

To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.

It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
such a crazy idea even be today?

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[David Von Pein]

>>> "To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for

years could, with a twelve-dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the

motorcade route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world
without anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all." <<<

No, Pamela, the "Oswald Alone" scenario is the one that makes by far the
MOST sense. And, moreover, it's the ONLY scenario (or "theory") that is
supported by the EVIDENCE in the case. And you that, too. You have to know
it. You're just giving your "opinion", which is something John McAdams
talks about at his new page on his JFK site, here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm

"Opinions are like armpits. Everybody has a couple, and they
all stink." -- John McAdams; 2011

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

SIX THINGS MADE TO ORDER FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/six-things-made-to-order-for-lho.html

[Pamela Brown]

On Nov 5, 7:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for
>
> years could, with a twelve-dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the
> motorcade route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world
> without anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all." <<<
>
> No, Pamela, the "Oswald Alone" scenario is the one that makes by far the
> MOST sense.

Your opinion. I consider it misguided.

> And, moreover, it's the ONLY scenario (or "theory") that is
>
supported by the EVIDENCE in the case.

False assumption.

>And you that, too. You have to know
> it. You're just giving your "opinion", which is something John McAdams
> talks about at his new page on his JFK site, here:

McAdams statement IS his opinion. Nothing more.

>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm
>
>       "Opinions are like armpits.  Everybody has a couple, and they
> all stink." -- John McAdams; 2011
>
> ------------
>
> SIX THINGS MADE TO ORDER FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD:
>

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/six-things-made-to-order-for...

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

***What help did Hinkley have when he shot Reagan? None that i am aware
of.

There were thousands of people along the Kennedy parade route. Any one of
them could have been carrying a pistol and no one around them would have
known. JFK could have been shot by a lone gunman, along the crowded
sidewalk, before he ever got to Dealey Plaza.

Ron Judge

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> His words on page 254 of AL:
>
> "Sensible theories...are just no fun.  And the most sensible theory --
> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>
> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>
> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
> could,

How does Oswald's having been known to intelligence agencies make it
improbable that he would manage to kill the president? Do you think the
intelligence agencies should have somehow been able to stop him?

> with a twelve dollar gun

Do you suppose that someone who had been known to intelligence
agencies for years would necessarily have used a better rifle? How
does that follow?
Or is the improbable thing here supposed to be that a cheap rifle
killed the president?

> and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
> route,

Do you think someone known by intelligence agencies for years would have
been given an inside tip on the motorcade route? Or what is it that you
find improbable here?

> murder the most famous and powerful person in the world

Do you find improbable that the most famous and powerful person in the
world could become the victim of an unhinged personalities delusions of
grandeur?

> without
> anyone anywhere helping him in any way

At what point would Oswald have needed help to carry out the
assassination as described by the Warren Commission Report?
At which step of his procedure as the report lays it out do you say,
No, one person couldn't have done that, or known that, Oswald couldn't
have done that himself?
I don't know of any.
If you find the WCR scenario improbable because Oswald couldn't have
done it alone, you must have had such a eureka moment.
At what point or points did it occur?

> makes no sense at all.
>
> It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
> such a crazy idea even be today?
>

Specifically what do you find "crazy" about it?
You haven't explained that.

/sandy

[Bud]

On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yah, it`s absurd that Oswald could have shot Kennedy, he didn`t pay
enough for his rifle. After nearly 5 decades this is what The WC critics
have to offer.

> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com

[Pamela Brown]

We don't know that. The SS could have been doing their job.

Was Hinkley running in intelligence circles for five years, setting off
alarms as he traveled from the US to USSR and back, not to mention MC?

Lee Oswald was hardly an unknown. He was tracked. Much of the
documentation on him is still suppressed. How could he just fall through
the cracks of at least three intelligence agencies? Doesn't make sense to
me.

And, of course, we don't want to look at the WCR in a vacuum. Everything
about it was directed by CIA. We were told what they wanted us to know.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

It was a straw man argument.

>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com
>
>

[bigdog]

On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes it was really a difficult task for Oswald. He had to stick a rifle
out a window and shoot a guy less than 90 yards away in an open top
car that was moving slowly almost directly down his line of fire. JFK
made himself a sitting duck by doing the motorcade, something he had
done many times before without any consequences. He just pressed his
luck one time too many.

But you have illustrated the point made near the end of ABC's Beyond
Conspiracy. People just don't want to believe that somebody as
significant as Kennedy could be taken out by somebody as insignificant
as Oswald. They don't want to believe something so horrible could
happen so randomly. That this country could lose its leader because of
a random set of circumstances that brought him within rifle range of
somebody who was inclined to do such a thing. People want to believe
there is more to the story than that. They want to believe that there
were more powerful forces at work. But that's not what happened. A
little nobody with a cheap little rifle that was capable of delivering
a deadly missile was all it took for Kennedy to be taken out. That is
the one and only truth and people can either accept it or reject it
but they cannot change it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/6/2011 6:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> His words on page 254 of AL:
>>
>> "Sensible theories...are just no fun. And the most sensible theory --
>> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>>
>> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>>
>> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
>> could,
>
> How does Oswald's having been known to intelligence agencies make it
> improbable that he would manage to kill the president? Do you think the
> intelligence agencies should have somehow been able to stop him?
>
>> with a twelve dollar gun
>
> Do you suppose that someone who had been known to intelligence
> agencies for years would necessarily have used a better rifle? How
> does that follow?
> Or is the improbable thing here supposed to be that a cheap rifle
> killed the president?
>

Oswald did not buy that rifle to shoot President Kennedy. He bought it
to shoot General Walker. And it couldn't even hit a stationary target
only 120 feet away. Piece of junk.

[bigdog]

> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LHO was a person of interest. Of course there was a file on him. But
it's not as if he was being tracked 24/7. As of 11/21/63, LHO had done
nothing to indicate he was a major security risk. He had done nothing
to indicate he was anything more than a quirky little malcontent. I'm
sure there were files on hundreds of such oddballs and not so
oddballs. The SS had a file on Groucho Marx. I don't think they kept a
tail on him.

[Pamela Brown]

That is a strawman, The argument includes LHO's involvement with
intelligence agencies.

LHO was tracked by CIA, FBI and KGB for about five years prior to the
assassination. Yet we are supposed to forget that and think he just
managed to slip through the cracks.

And ironically, it was CIA that oversaw the development of the WCR,
and of course FBI that did the investigation of the assassination.

Propaganda about LHO and the WCR would have us see them in a vacuum;
however, that is historically incorrect.

>
>
> > Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com

[Bud]

Tell Pamela, she made it.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com

[Sandy McCroskey]

Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:24 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> His words on page 254 of AL:
>>> "Sensible theories...are just no fun. And the most sensible theory --
>>> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>>> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>>> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
>>> could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
>>> route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
>>> anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.
>>> It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
>>> such a crazy idea even be today?
>> Yah, it`s absurd that Oswald could have shot Kennedy, he didn`t pay
>> enough for his rifle. After nearly 5 decades this is what The WC critics
>> have to offer.
>
> That is a strawman, The argument includes LHO's involvement with
> intelligence agencies.
>

If that was your argument, what in the world did the cost of the rifle
have to do with it?

Or that Oswald found out about the motorcade route from a newspaper?

And where in this scenario do you see a point where Oswald couldn't have
done or found out something on his own? It looks like a one-man
operation from start to finish to me. Please explain at what point you
see someone else's help as having been necessary.
/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/6/2011 6:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> His words on page 254 of AL:
>>>
>>> "Sensible theories...are just no fun. And the most sensible theory --
>>> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>>>
>>> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>>>
>>> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
>>> could,
>>
>> How does Oswald's having been known to intelligence agencies make it
>> improbable that he would manage to kill the president? Do you think the
>> intelligence agencies should have somehow been able to stop him?
>>
>>> with a twelve dollar gun
>>
>> Do you suppose that someone who had been known to intelligence
>> agencies for years would necessarily have used a better rifle? How
>> does that follow?
>> Or is the improbable thing here supposed to be that a cheap rifle
>> killed the president?
>>
>
> Oswald did not buy that rifle to shoot President Kennedy. He bought it
> to shoot General Walker. And it couldn't even hit a stationary target
> only 120 feet away. Piece of junk.
>

As you know, Marsh, Oswald came very close to hitting Walker in the
head. His aim was true, and the rifle performed well, but he couldn't
see the narrow strip of wood in the window, which deflected the bullet.

It's amazing to me that you can attempt to present Oswald's failure to
hit Walker as the fault of either his marksmanship or the gun.
/sandy

[Pamela Brown]

> > Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> LHO was a person of interest. Of course there was a file on him. But
> it's not as if he was being tracked 24/7. As of 11/21/63, LHO had done
> nothing to indicate he was a major security risk. He had done nothing
> to indicate he was anything more than a quirky little malcontent. I'm
> sure there were files on hundreds of such oddballs and not so
> oddballs. The SS had a file on Groucho Marx. I don't think they kept a
> tail on him.

LHO had traveled to MC just a few weeks earlier. He visited both the
Soviet and Cuban consulates.There were wires being tripped everywhere.

And let's not forget the fact that when LHO returned to the US he probably
should have been arrested for treason as he claimed to have been willing
to provide USSR with information. He got only a slap on the wrist, with
his Marine's discharge being downgraded. Why?

[Pamela Brown]

On Nov 7, 11:06 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 9:24 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> His words on page 254 of AL:
> >>> "Sensible theories...are just no fun.  And the most sensible theory --
> >>> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
> >>> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
> >>> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
> >>> could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
> >>> route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
> >>> anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.
> >>> It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
> >>> such a crazy idea even be today?
> >>   Yah, it`s absurd that Oswald could have shot Kennedy, he didn`t pay
> >> enough for his rifle. After nearly 5 decades this is what The WC critics
> >> have to offer.
>
> > That is a strawman,  The argument includes LHO's involvement with
> > intelligence agencies.
>
> If that was your argument, what in the world did the cost of the rifle
> have to do with it?

He is supposed to have managed to murder JFK, almost kill JBC, and leave
nary a scratch on the limo with a cheap rifle. Does that even make sense?

>
> Or that Oswald found out about the motorcade route from a newspaper?

That was the only public info documented to be available on the
route.

>
> And where in this scenario do you see a point where Oswald couldn't have
> done or found out something on his own?

Did he arrange the motorcade to come conveniently by the place where
he had only recently gotten a job?
Did he make sure the top was off the limo and the SS men were riding
in the car behind?
Did he really not trip a single wire in his trip just a few weeks
before to MC?

> It looks like a one-man
> operation from start to finish to me. Please explain at what point you
> see someone else's help as having been necessary.
> /sandy

LHO is presented by the WCR as a disgruntled loner with no connections to
anyone. However, just about everything he did was being tracked by CIA,
KGB and FBI.

[Anthony Marsh]

You know nothing about ballistics. Oswald was using the scope and the
meeting rails were a few inches ABOVE Walker's head. Remember, Walker was
sitting down at his desk. Oswald was not aiming for the meeting rails.
With that particular rifle with that ammunition the bullet will rise
almost 6 inches above the line of sight he had with the crosshairs. That
is what caused the HIGH miss. That also caused the shot at the head from
the TSBD to go over Kennedy's head.

In some of the shooting tests for the WC their head shot went clear OVER
the board.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/7/2011 12:06 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

If it's a one-man operation how does Oswald simultaneously shoot from
the grassy knoll? Teleportation?

[Bud]

On Nov 7, 12:06 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 9:24 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> His words on page 254 of AL:
> >>> "Sensible theories...are just no fun.  And the most sensible theory --
> >>> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
> >>> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
> >>> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
> >>> could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
> >>> route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
> >>> anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.
> >>> It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
> >>> such a crazy idea even be today?
> >>   Yah, it`s absurd that Oswald could have shot Kennedy, he didn`t pay
> >> enough for his rifle. After nearly 5 decades this is what The WC critics
> >> have to offer.
>
> > That is a strawman,  The argument includes LHO's involvement with
> > intelligence agencies.
>
> If that was your argument, what in the world did the cost of the rifle
> have to do with it?

Apparently if someone were to give me a gun I am free to kill anyone
I want with it, as it would be incredible beyond belief that a gun
that cost me nothing could be used to commit murder.

[Anthony Marsh]

I suspect she was making fun of the WC defenders.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/7/2011 10:51 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> His words on page 254 of AL:
>>
>> "Sensible theories...are just no fun. And the most sensible theory --
>> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>>
>> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>>
>> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
>> could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
>> route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
>> anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.
>>
>> It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
>> such a crazy idea even be today?
>>
>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com
>
> Yes it was really a difficult task for Oswald. He had to stick a rifle
> out a window and shoot a guy less than 90 yards away in an open top

No one said the rifle was sticking out the window and the acoustical
evidence shows the shots were fired from well inside.

> car that was moving slowly almost directly down his line of fire. JFK
> made himself a sitting duck by doing the motorcade, something he had
> done many times before without any consequences. He just pressed his
> luck one time too many.
>
> But you have illustrated the point made near the end of ABC's Beyond
> Conspiracy. People just don't want to believe that somebody as
> significant as Kennedy could be taken out by somebody as insignificant
> as Oswald. They don't want to believe something so horrible could

That's propaganda straight from the CIA.

> happen so randomly. That this country could lose its leader because of
> a random set of circumstances that brought him within rifle range of
> somebody who was inclined to do such a thing. People want to believe
> there is more to the story than that. They want to believe that there
> were more powerful forces at work. But that's not what happened. A
> little nobody with a cheap little rifle that was capable of delivering
> a deadly missile was all it took for Kennedy to be taken out. That is
> the one and only truth and people can either accept it or reject it
> but they cannot change it.
>

People like you want to believe that a lone nut could have been firing
from two different locations simultaneously.

[Hank Sienzant]

> > > Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > LHO was a person of interest. Of course there was a file on him. But
> > it's not as if he was being tracked 24/7. As of 11/21/63, LHO had done
> > nothing to indicate he was a major security risk. He had done nothing
> > to indicate he was anything more than a quirky little malcontent. I'm
> > sure there were files on hundreds of such oddballs and not so
> > oddballs. The SS had a file on Groucho Marx. I don't think they kept a
> > tail on him.
>
> LHO had traveled to MC just a few weeks earlier.  He visited both the
> Soviet and Cuban consulates.There were wires being tripped everywhere.
>
> And let's not forget the fact that when LHO returned to the US he probably
> should have been arrested for treason as he claimed to have been willing
> to provide USSR with information.  He got only a slap on the wrist, with

> his Marine's discharge being downgraded.  Why?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

ok, let's assume you're the lawyer charged with proving Oswald is
guilty of treason.
What evidence do you have that he provided any evidence to the
Soviets?
Other than his own statement that he would do that?
You bring him up on charges and what establishes he is guilty of
treason?
His own words? He merely has to recant and say, yeah, I said I would,
but I never did.
Surely you have something else.

[Bud]

> > > Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > LHO was a person of interest. Of course there was a file on him. But
> > it's not as if he was being tracked 24/7. As of 11/21/63, LHO had done
> > nothing to indicate he was a major security risk. He had done nothing
> > to indicate he was anything more than a quirky little malcontent. I'm
> > sure there were files on hundreds of such oddballs and not so
> > oddballs. The SS had a file on Groucho Marx. I don't think they kept a
> > tail on him.
>
> LHO had traveled to MC just a few weeks earlier.  He visited both the
> Soviet and Cuban consulates.There were wires being tripped everywhere.
>
> And let's not forget the fact that when LHO returned to the US he probably
> should have been arrested for treason as he claimed to have been willing
> to provide USSR with information.  He got only a slap on the wrist, with
> his Marine's discharge being downgraded.  Why?

More importantly why do CTers see it as amazing that a traitor to
his country would try to kill the President?

[Bud]

On Nov 7, 10:54 am, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:24 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > His words on page 254 of AL:
>
> > > "Sensible theories...are just no fun.  And the most sensible theory --
> > > that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>
> > > In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>
> > > To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
> > > could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
> > > route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
> > > anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.
>
> > > It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
> > > such a crazy idea even be today?
>
> >   Yah, it`s absurd that Oswald could have shot Kennedy, he didn`t pay
> > enough for his rifle. After nearly 5 decades this is what The WC critics
> > have to offer.
>
> That is a strawman,  The argument includes LHO's involvement with
> intelligence agencies.

No, "the argument" failed to mention these things.

What you are doing is playing the "what about this/what about that"
game. When you are asked "Well, what about this or that" you`re stumped.

> LHO was tracked by CIA, FBI and KGB for about five years prior to the
> assassination.

By all means produce the records of these groups tracking Oswald.

> Yet we are supposed to forget that and think he just
> managed to slip through the cracks.

It`s best you just assume that these groups "tracked" Oswald to the
TSBD, just to be on the safe side. And I wouldn`t let the fact that
you can`t show that they did deter you any.

> And ironically, it was CIA that oversaw the development of the WCR,
> and of course FBI that did the investigation of the assassination.
>
> Propaganda about LHO and the WCR would have us see them in a vacuum;
> however, that is historically incorrect.

The only vacuum I`m seeing is support for your ideas.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com

[Sandy McCroskey]

There was no shot from the knoll.
/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Nov 7, 7:51 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

The thin wooden strip ran horizontally across the window.
Oswald's shot came within a few inches of Walker's head.
Not that bad, actually.
Oswald had some experience with the rifle and could have allowed for
the inaccuracy of the scope.
But he probably used the sights on November 22.
/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Nov 7, 7:49 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 11:06 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pamela Brown wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 9:24 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> His words on page 254 of AL:
> > >>> "Sensible theories...are just no fun.  And the most sensible theory --
> > >>> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
> > >>> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
> > >>> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
> > >>> could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
> > >>> route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
> > >>> anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.
> > >>> It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
> > >>> such a crazy idea even be today?
> > >>   Yah, it`s absurd that Oswald could have shot Kennedy, he didn`t pay
> > >> enough for his rifle. After nearly 5 decades this is what The WC critics
> > >> have to offer.
>
> > > That is a strawman,  The argument includes LHO's involvement with
> > > intelligence agencies.
>
> > If that was your argument, what in the world did the cost of the rifle
> > have to do with it?
>
> He is supposed to have managed to murder JFK, almost kill JBC, and leave
> nary a scratch on the limo with a cheap rifle.  Does that even make sense?
>

What are you having trouble with here?
A cheap rifle can kill people.
If anybody else had made the shots, would you still be offering this
weird objection that the limo was barely scratched?

>
>
> > Or that Oswald found out about the motorcade route from a newspaper?
>
> That was the only public info documented to be available on the
> route.
>

Yes, and that's clearly how Oswald found out about it.

>
>
> > And where in this scenario do you see a point where Oswald couldn't have
> > done or found out something on his own?
>
> Did he arrange the motorcade to come conveniently by the place where
> he had only recently gotten a job?

That's a pretty loony supposition, isn't it? Isn't that your point?
How could poor little ol' Oswald have arranged for the presidential
motorcade to take a particular route?
But making the fact that the motorcade route went past Oswald's
workplace an *element in a conspiracy* requires some such supposition.
Either somebody knew there would be a motorcade past the TSDB when
Oswald got the job (though nothing in the record supports this) or,
yeah (never heard this one before, actually) Oswald himself arranged
for the motorcade to come to him!
Wowie zowie! That's some conspiracy theory you've got there!

However, it's far more logical to assume that Oswald got the notion to
shoot JFK only when he found out about the motorcade from the Dallas
paper, just several days before it was to occur. (He had no time to
obtain a better rifle, but went to the assassination with the rifle he
had, like Rumsfeld said the US went to war on Iraq with army and body
armor—or lack of same, rsther—that we had.)

> Did he make sure the top was off the limo and the SS men were riding
> in the car behind?

Yeah, that was well within Oswald's purview.
Where can I get some of whatever you're smoking?

> Did he really not trip a single wire in his trip just a few weeks
> before to MC?
>

He might indeed have tripped some wires, but clearly not the right
one.
But your theory is that somebody in government Let It Happen On
Purpose?

> > It looks like a one-man
> > operation from start to finish to me. Please explain at what point you
> > see someone else's help as having been necessary.
> > /sandy
>
> LHO is presented by the WCR as a disgruntled loner with no connections to
> anyone.  However, just about everything he did was being tracked by CIA,
> KGB and FBI.

I've seen no indication that these agencies were tracking "just about
*everything* he did," but they did know of him.
Their awareness of him doesn't give the lie to the statement that
Oswald was s disgruntled loner with few human connections.
Even his wife was estranged.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/7/2011 7:49 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Nov 7, 11:06 am, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Pamela Brown wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 9:24 pm, Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> His words on page 254 of AL:
>>>>> "Sensible theories...are just no fun. And the most sensible theory --
>>>>> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>>>>> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>>>>> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
>>>>> could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
>>>>> route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
>>>>> anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.
>>>>> It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
>>>>> such a crazy idea even be today?
>>>> Yah, it`s absurd that Oswald could have shot Kennedy, he didn`t pay
>>>> enough for his rifle. After nearly 5 decades this is what The WC critics
>>>> have to offer.
>>
>>> That is a strawman, The argument includes LHO's involvement with
>>> intelligence agencies.
>>
>> If that was your argument, what in the world did the cost of the rifle
>> have to do with it?
>
> He is supposed to have managed to murder JFK, almost kill JBC, and leave
> nary a scratch on the limo with a cheap rifle. Does that even make sense?
>

Maybe there was more damage to the limo than they admitted.

[Anthony Marsh]

In April Oswald had very little shooting practice with the rifle he had
just bough and received on March 20. He assumed the scope would give him
the best view at night. That's why he ordered that model with the scope
already sighted in. No need for lengthy practice to zero it in.
Many experts think the shooter in the TSBD used the iron sights instead
of the scope. We don't know when the scope was damaged, but it might
have been before 11/22/63.

[Anthony Marsh]

CIA 201 file. KGB placed an agent in the apartment above Oswald to watch
him. FBI tasked Hosty to keep an eye on Oswald.

>> Yet we are supposed to forget that and think he just
>> managed to slip through the cracks.
>
> It`s best you just assume that these groups "tracked" Oswald to the
> TSBD, just to be on the safe side. And I wouldn`t let the fact that
> you can`t show that they did deter you any.
>

The FBI did not. The KGB was no longer interested in Oswald. The FBI was
unable to find Oswald and did not tell the DPD that he was in Dallas.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think the point was HOW FAR off at least one of the shots was to not
hit anything in Dealey Plaza according to the WC scenario.

>>
>>
>>> Or that Oswald found out about the motorcade route from a newspaper?
>>
>> That was the only public info documented to be available on the
>> route.
>>
>
> Yes, and that's clearly how Oswald found out about it.
>

Couldn't Oswald watch TV the night before and see Curry warning the
public to behave on Friday when the President would be visiting Dallas?

>>
>>
>>> And where in this scenario do you see a point where Oswald couldn't have
>>> done or found out something on his own?
>>
>> Did he arrange the motorcade to come conveniently by the place where
>> he had only recently gotten a job?
>
>
> That's a pretty loony supposition, isn't it? Isn't that your point?
> How could poor little ol' Oswald have arranged for the presidential
> motorcade to take a particular route?
> But making the fact that the motorcade route went past Oswald's
> workplace an *element in a conspiracy* requires some such supposition.

Any motorcade would likely go through Dealey Plaza and others had gone
up Main.

Because you refuse to look at the evidence.

> Their awareness of him doesn't give the lie to the statement that
> Oswald was s disgruntled loner with few human connections.

Yes, exactly the type of person that the CIA uses.

[Anthony Marsh]

More amazingly why do the WC defenders not think that the CIA would try
to kill the President??

[Anthony Marsh]

Wiretaps. Decoded messages.

[Pamela Brown]

> >>>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequotedtext -

>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> LHO was a person of interest. Of course there was a file on him. But
> >>> it's not as if he was being tracked 24/7. As of 11/21/63, LHO had done
> >>> nothing to indicate he was a major security risk. He had done nothing
> >>> to indicate he was anything more than a quirky little malcontent. I'm
> >>> sure there were files on hundreds of such oddballs and not so
> >>> oddballs. The SS had a file on Groucho Marx. I don't think they kept a
> >>> tail on him.
>
> >> LHO had traveled to MC just a few weeks earlier.  He visited both the
> >> Soviet and Cuban consulates.There were wires being tripped everywhere.
>
> >> And let's not forget the fact that when LHO returned to the US he probably
> >> should have been arrested for treason as he claimed to have been willing
> >> to provide USSR with information.  He got only a slap on the wrist, with
> >> his Marine's discharge being downgraded.  Why?
>
> >    More importantly why do CTers see it as amazing that a traitor to
> > his country would try to kill the President?
>
> More amazingly why do the WC defenders not think that the CIA would try
> to kill the President??

The CIA propagandists told them not to. And they believed them.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Oswald was in the habit of reading the papers (a day late, usually). But
you want to get Oswald off, so why don't you just suppose that Oswald
might have been totally unaware of the motorcade until it came by his
workplace... where he had inadvertently locked himself in a closet or
something for just the amount of time it took a mysterious invisible
stranger to shoot the president with his rifle? Yeah, that's the ticket...
as Jon Lovitz used to say.

>>>
>>>
>>>> And where in this scenario do you see a point where Oswald couldn't
>>>> have
>>>> done or found out something on his own?
>>>
>>> Did he arrange the motorcade to come conveniently by the place where
>>> he had only recently gotten a job?
>>
>>
>> That's a pretty loony supposition, isn't it? Isn't that your point?
>> How could poor little ol' Oswald have arranged for the presidential
>> motorcade to take a particular route?
>> But making the fact that the motorcade route went past Oswald's
>> workplace an *element in a conspiracy* requires some such supposition.
>
> Any motorcade would likely go through Dealey Plaza and others had gone
> up Main.
>

Nobody knew there would be a motorcade thru Dallas when Oswald got the
job.

>> Either somebody knew there would be a motorcade past the TSDB when
>> Oswald got the job (though nothing in the record supports this) or,
>> yeah (never heard this one before, actually) Oswald himself arranged
>> for the motorcade to come to him!
>> Wowie zowie! That's some conspiracy theory you've got there!
>>
>> However, it's far more logical to assume that Oswald got the notion to
>> shoot JFK only when he found out about the motorcade from the Dallas
>> paper, just several days before it was to occur. (He had no time to
>> obtain a better rifle, but went to the assassination with the rifle he
>> had, like Rumsfeld said the US went to war on Iraq with army and body

>> armor?or lack of same, rsther?that we had.)

>>
>>
>>> Did he make sure the top was off the limo and the SS men were riding
>>> in the car behind?
>>
>> Yeah, that was well within Oswald's purview.
>> Where can I get some of whatever you're smoking?
>>
>>
>>> Did he really not trip a single wire in his trip just a few weeks
>>> before to MC?
>>>
>>
>> He might indeed have tripped some wires, but clearly not the right
>> one.
>> But your theory is that somebody in government Let It Happen On
>> Purpose?
>>
>>
>>>> It looks like a one-man
>>>> operation from start to finish to me. Please explain at what point you
>>>> see someone else's help as having been necessary.
>>>> /sandy
>>>
>>> LHO is presented by the WCR as a disgruntled loner with no
>>> connections to
>>> anyone. However, just about everything he did was being tracked by CIA,
>>> KGB and FBI.
>>
>> I've seen no indication that these agencies were tracking "just about
>> *everything* he did," but they did know of him.
>
> Because you refuse to look at the evidence.
>

Another robotic auto-answer. You're just programmed like Siri, right?
Need a Turing test here.
There is plenty of evidence that Oswald wasn't being surveilled 24/7 by
all these agencies.
Marsh, you yourself said the FBI couldn't find Oswald and didn't tell
the Dallas Police where he was. For example.

>> Their awareness of him doesn't give the lie to the statement that
>> Oswald was s disgruntled loner with few human connections.
>
> Yes, exactly the type of person that the CIA uses.
>

Give me an analogous example and we can discuss.
/sm

[Hank Sienzant]

That's it? Hosty didn't even know where Oswald was living (at the
roominghouse). Some tracking!

The CIA 201 file is a newspaper clipping file. Again, not exactly the
malevolent slant one expects when reading the headline. The fine print in
the story says something else entirely.

This is the evidence that Oswald was tracked by the CIA, FBI, and KGB?
Wow. I'm truly impressed.

Not.

>
> >>   Yet we are supposed to forget that and think he just
> >> managed to slip through the cracks.
>
> >    It`s best you just assume that these groups "tracked" Oswald to the
> > TSBD, just to be on the safe side. And I wouldn`t let the fact that
> > you can`t show that they did deter you any.
>
> The FBI did not. The KGB was no longer interested in Oswald. The FBI was
> unable to find Oswald and did not tell the DPD that he was in Dallas.
>
>
>
> >> And ironically, it was CIA that oversaw the development of the WCR,
> >> and of course FBI that did the investigation of the assassination.
>
> >> Propaganda about LHO and the WCR would have us see them in a vacuum;
> >> however, that is historically incorrect.
>
> >    The only vacuum I`m seeing is support for your ideas.
>

> >>>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

It wasn't inconceivable to former CTs who are now LNs.
But "would" or "could" are irrelevant when you know what *did* happen.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

No such animal.

[Anthony Marsh]

Typical FBI screw-up. Like loosing track of the 9/11 hijackers.
Even worse when it is done on purpose.

> The CIA 201 file is a newspaper clipping file. Again, not exactly the

You know absolutely nothing about the 201 file. Because you are a WC
defender. It is full of cables.

> malevolent slant one expects when reading the headline. The fine print in
> the story says something else entirely.
>
> This is the evidence that Oswald was tracked by the CIA, FBI, and KGB?
> Wow. I'm truly impressed.
>
> Not.
>

Because you refuse to look at the evidence.

>>

[jas]

On Nov 8, 7:09 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > He is supposed to have managed to murder JFK, almost kill JBC, and leave
> > nary a scratch on the limo with a cheap rifle.  Does that even make sense?
>
> What are you having trouble with here?
> A cheap rifle can kill people.
> If anybody else had made the shots, would you still be offering this
> weird objection that the limo was barely scratched?
>

The Carcano was cheap because it was an old and obsolete military
surplus rifle, not because it was not accurate or defective.

It was just as deadly as the 7.62mm M-14, the current military rifle
at the time of the assassination.

[Bud]

On Nov 8, 12:03 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Yah, but Pamela can`t be referring to these things when she says
these agencies tracked Oswald for five years, could she? If it is
there is a wide gulf between what she is representing these things to
be and what they actually were.

> >>   Yet we are supposed to forget that and think he just
> >> managed to slip through the cracks.
>
> >    It`s best you just assume that these groups "tracked" Oswald to the
> > TSBD, just to be on the safe side. And I wouldn`t let the fact that
> > you can`t show that they did deter you any.
>
> The FBI did not. The KGB was no longer interested in Oswald. The FBI was
> unable to find Oswald and did not tell the DPD that he was in Dallas.

Looks like three strikes for Pamela`s idea. I didn` think much of it
anyway.

[Bud]

> >>>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequotedtext -

>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> LHO was a person of interest. Of course there was a file on him. But
> >>> it's not as if he was being tracked 24/7. As of 11/21/63, LHO had done
> >>> nothing to indicate he was a major security risk. He had done nothing
> >>> to indicate he was anything more than a quirky little malcontent. I'm
> >>> sure there were files on hundreds of such oddballs and not so
> >>> oddballs. The SS had a file on Groucho Marx. I don't think they kept a
> >>> tail on him.
>
> >> LHO had traveled to MC just a few weeks earlier.  He visited both the
> >> Soviet and Cuban consulates.There were wires being tripped everywhere.
>
> >> And let's not forget the fact that when LHO returned to the US he probably
> >> should have been arrested for treason as he claimed to have been willing
> >> to provide USSR with information.  He got only a slap on the wrist, with
> >> his Marine's discharge being downgraded.  Why?
>
> >    More importantly why do CTers see it as amazing that a traitor to
> > his country would try to kill the President?
>
> More amazingly why do the WC defenders not think that the CIA would try
> to kill the President??

Because there is no reason to think they did.

[Bud]

Right, thats why I think that Oswald killed Kennedy, because the CIA
told me it was so, not the mountain of incriminating evidence against
Oswald. Someday you might present an idea that makes sense and can be
supported Pamela. It just looks like today is not that day.

[Sandy McCroskey]

If you mean that there are no former CTs who are now LNs, you are dead
wrong.
I myself used to believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination.
But I know you'll say you don't believe me. It must be nice to find it
so easy believe whatever the hell you want about anything at all (though
it must also get lonely).
There are a few other LNs around here on a.a.j. who had a similar
experience.
/sm

[Bud]

Straight from your and Pamela`s keyboards. You just can`t accept the
reality of this event, the reality leaves you unsatisfied.

> > happen so randomly. That this country could lose its leader because of
> > a random set of circumstances that brought him within rifle range of
> > somebody who was inclined to do such a thing. People want to believe
> > there is more to the story than that. They want to believe that there
> > were more powerful forces at work. But that's not what happened. A
> > little nobody with a cheap little rifle that was capable of delivering
> > a deadly missile was all it took for Kennedy to be taken out. That is
> > the one and only truth and people can either accept it or reject it
> > but they cannot change it.
>
> People like you want to believe that a lone nut could have been firing
> from two different locations simultaneously.

You`re inventing unnecessary complications.

[Bud]

On Nov 7, 9:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/7/2011 10:57 AM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 11:35 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:

> >> On 11/6/2011 10:24 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown<pamelaj...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> His words on page 254 of AL:
>
> >>>> "Sensible theories...are just no fun.  And the most sensible theory --
> >>>> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>
> >>>> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>
> >>>> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
> >>>> could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
> >>>> route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
> >>>> anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.
>
> >>>> It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
> >>>> such a crazy idea even be today?
>

> >>>     Yah, it`s absurd that Oswald could have shot Kennedy, he didn`t pay
> >>> enough for his rifle. After nearly 5 decades this is what The WC critics
> >>> have to offer.
>

> >> It was a straw man argument.
>
> >    Tell Pamela, she made it.
>
> I suspect she was making fun of the WC defenders.

That doesn`t surprise me. But in reality she was using the price that
Oswald paid for the rifle as some kind of support for her idea that it is
somehow "fantastic" to conclude that Oswald shot Kennedy. I can only
assume that CTers shoot blanks like this because the like the noise.

Hopefully by the hundredth anniversary someone might come up with some
real arguments in favor of a conspiracy in this event.

> >>>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

Plenty of motive. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco several CIA officers
threatened to kill Kennedy.
Krock warned about a CIA coup.

[Anthony Marsh]

Deadly has nothing to do with accurate. You know nothing about ballistics.

[Pamela Brown]

The 'mountain of incriminating evidence' is propped up only by propaganda.
If one is able to ask questions about this 'evidence' it is possible to
perceive that.

In fact, not much about the evidence is as the WCR tells us.

For one thing, the body of JFK and the limo were both moved 1600 miles
before having a proper exam. The autopsy of JFK was riddled with so much
confusion and so many errors it might as well be called 'the little shop
of horrors.' For another the limo was in the possession of the SS for over
12 hours after the assassination before they released it to the FBI for a
forensic exam.

The spiders' web of 'evidence' does not stand up to scrutiny. But the WCR
was written by clever lawyers, and we are not supposed to figure that out
for ourselves.

Pamela Brown

[Pamela Brown]

> >>>>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequotedtext -

>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> LHO was a person of interest. Of course there was a file on him. But
> >>>> it's not as if he was being tracked 24/7. As of 11/21/63, LHO had done
> >>>> nothing to indicate he was a major security risk. He had done nothing
> >>>> to indicate he was anything more than a quirky little malcontent. I'm
> >>>> sure there were files on hundreds of such oddballs and not so
> >>>> oddballs. The SS had a file on Groucho Marx. I don't think they kept a
> >>>> tail on him.
>
> >>> LHO had traveled to MC just a few weeks earlier.  He visited both the
> >>> Soviet and Cuban consulates.There were wires being tripped everywhere.
>
> >>> And let's not forget the fact that when LHO returned to the US he
> >>> probably
> >>> should have been arrested for treason as he claimed to have been willing
> >>> to provide USSR with information.  He got only a slap on the wrist, with
> >>> his Marine's discharge being downgraded.  Why?
>
> >>    More importantly why do CTers see it as amazing that a traitor to
> >> his country would try to kill the President?
>
> > More amazingly why do the WC defenders not think that the CIA would try
> > to kill the President??
>
> It wasn't inconceivable to former CTs who are now LNs.
> But "would" or "could" are irrelevant when you know what *did* happen.
> /sm

Interesting point. But how do we know they really were CTs to begin with?
Could they not have been sheep-in-wolves'-clothing? Or, in the case of
maybe the best-known convert, Gary Mack, could there be a connection
between his conversion and current position?

[Pamela Brown]

Are you saying you think Robert Frazier was less than forthcoming?

[Pamela Brown]

> >>>>>>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequotedtext -

There are those who have gone the other way as well.

[Pamela Brown]

On Nov 7, 8:11 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> On Nov 7, 10:54 am, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 9:24 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>

> > > On Nov 5, 6:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > His words on page 254 of AL:
>
> > > > "Sensible theories...are just no fun.  And the most sensible theory --
> > > > that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>
> > > > In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>
> > > > To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
> > > > could, with a twelve dollar gun and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
> > > > route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
> > > > anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.
>
> > > > It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
> > > > such a crazy idea even be today?
>

> > >   Yah, it`s absurd that Oswald could have shot Kennedy, he didn`t pay
> > > enough for his rifle. After nearly 5 decades this is what The WC critics
> > > have to offer.
>
> > That is a strawman,  The argument includes LHO's involvement with
> > intelligence agencies.
>

>   No, "the argument" failed to mention these things.

What about the first sentence? "To think someone who was known to
intelligence agencies for years..."?

>
>   What you are doing is playing the "what about this/what about that"
> game. When you are asked "Well, what about this or that" you`re stumped.

How so?

>
> > LHO was tracked by CIA, FBI and KGB for about five years prior to the
> > assassination.
>
>   By all means produce the records of these groups tracking Oswald.
>

Take your pick. They are all over the net. However, many of the records
concerning LHO in USSR are still suppressed.

> > Yet we are supposed to forget that and think he just
> > managed to slip through the cracks.
>
>   It`s best you just assume that these groups "tracked" Oswald to the
> TSBD, just to be on the safe side. And I wouldn`t let the fact that
> you can`t show that they did deter you any.

Yes, James Hosty of the FBI did. He met with Marina. I interviewed
him.

>
> > And ironically, it was CIA that oversaw the development of the WCR,
> > and of course FBI that did the investigation of the assassination.
>
> > Propaganda about LHO and the WCR would have us see them in a vacuum;
> > however, that is historically incorrect.
>
>   The only vacuum I`m seeing is support for your ideas.

I am asking questions.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com

[jas]

On Nov 5, 4:56 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> His words on page 254 of AL:
>
> "Sensible theories...are just no fun.  And the most sensible theory --
> that Lee Oswald did it by himself -- is the least pleasing of all."
>
> In fact, the idea that LHO acted alone is the farthest out of all ideas.
>
> To think that someone who was known to intelligence agencies for years
> could, with a twelve dollar gun

The Carcano cost $21.95 and was as accurate as the M-14 of the era.

>and a newspaper telling him the motorcade
> route, murder the most famous and powerful person in the world without
> anyone anywhere helping him in any way makes no sense at all.

Booth got into Ford's Theater by himself after finding out Lincoln was to
be attending a play that night, pulled out a concealed derringer and shot
Lincoln point-blank, mortally wounding him, then successfully got out of
the theater -- after injuring his leg-- and escaped. True, he had
Burroughs holding his horse, and Herold rode south with him, but he was
able to successfully kill the president of the United States.

What's so hard to believe?

>
> It is, in fact, the purest of fantasy. Without propaganda, where would
> such a crazy idea even be today?

Silly political statement.

>
> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com

[jas]

On Nov 7, 1:14 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > ***What help did Hinkley have when he shot Reagan?  None that i am aware
> > > > of.
>
> > > > There were thousands of people along the Kennedy parade route.  Any one of
> > > > them could have been carrying a pistol and no one around them would have
> > > > known.  JFK could have been shot by a lone gunman, along the crowded
> > > > sidewalk, before he ever got to Dealey Plaza.
>
> > > > Ron Judge
>
> > > We don't know that.  The SS could have been doing their job.
>
> > > Was Hinkley running in intelligence circles for five years, setting off
> > > alarms as he traveled from the US to USSR and back, not to mention MC?
>
> > > Lee Oswald was hardly an unknown.  He was tracked.  Much of the
> > > documentation on him is still suppressed.  How could he just fall through
> > > the cracks of at least three intelligence agencies?  Doesn't make sense to
> > > me.
>
> > > And, of course, we don't want to look at the WCR in a vacuum. Everything
> > > about it was directed by CIA.  We were told what they wanted us to know.
>

> > > Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > LHO was a person of interest. Of course there was a file on him. But
> > it's not as if he was being tracked 24/7. As of 11/21/63, LHO had done
> > nothing to indicate he was a major security risk. He had done nothing
> > to indicate he was anything more than a quirky little malcontent. I'm
> > sure there were files on hundreds of such oddballs and not so
> > oddballs. The SS had a file on Groucho Marx. I don't think they kept a
> > tail on him.
>
> LHO had traveled to MC just a few weeks earlier.  He visited both the
> Soviet and Cuban consulates.There were wires being tripped everywhere.

People travel to foreign countries all the time and I'm quite sure
some even visit foreign embassies at times.

What's your point?

>
> And let's not forget the fact that when LHO returned to the US he probably
> should have been arrested for treason as he claimed to have been willing
> to provide USSR with information.  He got only a slap on the wrist, with
> his Marine's discharge being downgraded.  Why?

Unfortunately that's one of the "why" questions impossible to
effectively answer.

Why didn't Marina turn Oswald in after learning of his trying to shoot
Walker? Had she, there probably would haven't been any assassination
as an attempted murder charge would have made his bond so high he
couldn't have bonded out of jail.

[jas]

On Nov 8, 7:08 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> >> It wasn't inconceivable to former CTs who are now LNs.
> >> But "would" or "could" are irrelevant when you know what *did* happen.
> >> /sm
>
> > No such animal.
>
> If you mean that there are no former CTs who are now LNs, you are dead
> wrong.
> I myself used to believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination.
> But I know you'll say you don't believe me. It must be nice to find it
> so easy believe whatever the hell you want about anything at all (though
> it must also get lonely).
> There are a few other LNs around here on a.a.j. who had a similar
> experience.
> /sm

I am.

[jas]

On Nov 8, 10:04 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> More amazingly why do the WC defenders not think that the CIA would try
> to kill the President??

Maybe "they" would under an extreme case, but they didn't with JFK.

[Hank Sienzant]

> >>>>>>> Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequotedtext -

> /sm- Hide quoted text -
>

Yes, I am another converted CT - converted when I actually started reading
the WC volumes of evidence for myself and saw how much was taken out of
context by the conspiracy mongers like Lane and Weisberg (I go way back
with this stuff).

[Sandy McCroskey]

Ha ha.
Well, I know my own case rather intimately, Pamela.
And you're not making any sense to me (though that is nothing new).
What would it mean to be "really a CT"? It sounds like to you "being a
CT" defines the very essence of a person and is not just a convenient
way to allude to a particular belief that person happens to have.
Would you say that someone who thought for a time that there was
*probably* a conspiracy was a "real" CT? Or would they have to show
proof that they were always unshakably convinced?
The intensity of a person's belief is no guarantee that what s/he
believes is true, and fervidness of conviction is not in itself a
virtue.
Of course, that statement might be contested by fundamentalists of
various faiths.

> Could they not have been sheep-in-wolves'-clothing?

That's pretty funny, though I don't know if it was intentional.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense.

[Pamela Brown]

As do I. And anyone who seems to keep their blinders firmly in place
doesn't make much sense to me.

> What would it mean to be "really a CT"? It sounds like to you "being a
> CT" defines the very essence of a person and is not just a convenient
> way to allude to a particular belief that person happens to have.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I question the evidence and do my
best to think things through on my own.
As a trained historian, I can argue from just about any position.
That means that I do not hesitate to approach issues from the LNT as
well as the CT perspective. I don't post that way here because it
just confuses people who claim I *believe* something when I am in fact
presenting an argument for something.

> Would you say that someone who thought for a time that there was
> *probably* a conspiracy was a "real" CT? Or would they have to show
> proof that they were always unshakably convinced?

Those who really believe there was a conspiracy can usually argue
without resorting to fallacies and do not have to resort to demonizing
the opposition. It can be tough to determine that when one is under
attack and trying to get someone to stop twisting their words.

> The intensity of a person's belief is no guarantee that what s/he
> believes is true, and fervidness of conviction is not in itself a
> virtue.

When did I say that?

> Of course, that statement might be contested by fundamentalists of
> various faiths.
>
> > Could they not have been sheep-in-wolves'-clothing?
>
> That's pretty funny, though I don't know if it was intentional.
> /sm
>

Having only seen me under attack on aaj, it is probably hard to tell
that I do have a sense of humor. :-0

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe he didn't know. Maybe he didn't notice what I noticed.

[Pamela Brown]

On Nov 9, 11:14 pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 1:14 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > ***What help did Hinkley have when he shot Reagan?  None that i am aware
> > > > > of.
>
> > > > > There were thousands of people along the Kennedy parade route.  Any one of
> > > > > them could have been carrying a pistol and no one around them would have
> > > > > known.  JFK could have been shot by a lone gunman, along the crowded
> > > > > sidewalk, before he ever got to Dealey Plaza.
>
> > > > > Ron Judge
>
> > > > We don't know that.  The SS could have been doing their job.
>
> > > > Was Hinkley running in intelligence circles for five years, setting off
> > > > alarms as he traveled from the US to USSR and back, not to mention MC?
>
> > > > Lee Oswald was hardly an unknown.  He was tracked.  Much of the
> > > > documentation on him is still suppressed.  How could he just fall through
> > > > the cracks of at least three intelligence agencies?  Doesn't make sense to
> > > > me.
>
> > > > And, of course, we don't want to look at the WCR in a vacuum. Everything
> > > > about it was directed by CIA.  We were told what they wanted us to know.
>

> > > > Pamela Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequotedtext -

>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > LHO was a person of interest. Of course there was a file on him. But
> > > it's not as if he was being tracked 24/7. As of 11/21/63, LHO had done
> > > nothing to indicate he was a major security risk. He had done nothing
> > > to indicate he was anything more than a quirky little malcontent. I'm
> > > sure there were files on hundreds of such oddballs and not so
> > > oddballs. The SS had a file on Groucho Marx. I don't think they kept a
> > > tail on him.
>
> > LHO had traveled to MC just a few weeks earlier.  He visited both the
> > Soviet and Cuban consulates.There were wires being tripped everywhere.
>
> People travel to foreign countries all the time and I'm quite sure
> some even visit foreign embassies at times.
>
> What's your point?

Oh please. Do they try to give up their US citizenship? Try to go to
Communist countries? Try to get the govt to pay for their trip?

>
>
>
> > And let's not forget the fact that when LHO returned to the US he probably
> > should have been arrested for treason as he claimed to have been willing
> > to provide USSR with information.  He got only a slap on the wrist, with
> > his Marine's discharge being downgraded.  Why?
>
> Unfortunately that's one of the "why" questions impossible to
> effectively answer.

I agree. Someone in this thread mentioned that it might have raised
too many red flags if they had, because they would have had to
question Soviets as well as Americans. Of course, they could have
talked to Francis Gary Powers who believed it was because LHO was in
USSR when he was shot down and had radar info that he had something to
do with it.

>
> Why didn't Marina turn Oswald in after learning of his trying to shoot
> Walker? Had she, there probably would haven't been any assassination
> as an attempted murder charge would have made his bond so high he
> couldn't have bonded out of jail.

Good point. If LHO is guilty of murdering JFK, Marina inadvertently
enabled it. In fact, she probably figured if she did go to
authorities and report him she would be sent back to USSR.
Ironically, that is what the SS threatened her with if she didn't
cooperate after the assassination. But what about George
DeMohrenshildt, who apparently had some awareness of LHO's shooting at
Walker. Why didn't he turn him in?

[Sandy McCroskey]

I've studied the same evidence you have (except, of course, for that
1964 showing of the Zapruder film).
My reasoning process is apparently quite different from yours.
And I am very thankful for that.

>> What would it mean to be "really a CT"? It sounds like to you "being a
>> CT" defines the very essence of a person and is not just a convenient
>> way to allude to a particular belief that person happens to have.
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I question the evidence and do my
> best to think things through on my own.

Yes, even when there's no good reason a particular bit of evidence can
be called into question. But I don't think you have ever done anything
but question the evidence. You haven't speculatively asked yourself what
it would mean if this or that piece of evidence was entirely authentic,
what would it mean?
The fact is, the evidence is called into question only by piling one
implausible story on top of another. There is plenty of rock-solid
evidence, none of which points to conspiracy, and an intellectually
honest "questioning" would have realized that.

> As a trained historian,
And James Fetzer has a degree in critical thinking. God help us. The
American educational system is falling far, far behind...

> I can argue from just about any position.

And no doubt with the same stunning success.

> That means that I do not hesitate to approach issues from the LNT as
> well as the CT perspective. I don't post that way here because it
> just confuses people who claim I *believe* something when I am in fact
> presenting an argument for something.
>

Gee, and here I thought you were a convinced CT...

>> Would you say that someone who thought for a time that there was
>> *probably* a conspiracy was a "real" CT? Or would they have to show
>> proof that they were always unshakably convinced?
>
> Those who really believe there was a conspiracy can usually argue
> without resorting to fallacies

*Never* seen it happen. Of course, they don't recognize their own fallacies.

> and do not have to resort to demonizing
> the opposition.

Look who's talking!

> It can be tough to determine that when one is under
> attack and trying to get someone to stop twisting their words.
>

Oh, poor misunderstood Pamela. All she said was that Judyth was "granted
asylum."

>> The intensity of a person's belief is no guarantee that what s/he
>> believes is true, and fervidness of conviction is not in itself a
>> virtue.
>
> When did I say that?
>

You didn't, and I didn't say or imply that you did.
I was merely wondering out loud what you meant by someone maybe not
having been a "real CT."

Now I'm not about to claim that you believe *anything*, Pamela.
(Not even that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.)

>> Of course, that statement might be contested by fundamentalists of
>> various faiths.
>>
>>> Could they not have been sheep-in-wolves'-clothing?
>> That's pretty funny, though I don't know if it was intentional.
>> /sm
>>
> Having only seen me under attack on aaj, it is probably hard to tell
> that I do have a sense of humor. :-0
>

I just forgot at first that you consider LNs "sheep" (while the good
guys to you, the CTs, are "wolves"). This is amusing because the CTs are
constantly harping about how the whole world believes there was a
conspiracy. So who are the mindless sheep?

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

He just doesn't know the difference between a tourist and a defector.

>>
>>
>>
>>> And let's not forget the fact that when LHO returned to the US he probably
>>> should have been arrested for treason as he claimed to have been willing
>>> to provide USSR with information. He got only a slap on the wrist, with
>>> his Marine's discharge being downgraded. Why?
>>
>> Unfortunately that's one of the "why" questions impossible to
>> effectively answer.
>
> I agree. Someone in this thread mentioned that it might have raised
> too many red flags if they had, because they would have had to
> question Soviets as well as Americans. Of course, they could have
> talked to Francis Gary Powers who believed it was because LHO was in
> USSR when he was shot down and had radar info that he had something to
> do with it.

All of these wags who opine about Oswald know nothing about intelligence.
The intelligence community considered all these things. The Russians did
not need any information from Oswald to shoot down Powers. All they needed
was better preparation and improvements on their rockets. When Powers
dropped down they had been tracking him and predicted his flight path and
had the missiles ready to launch. And this time they did not need a direct
hit. A hit about 100 yards behind the U-2 was enough to bring it down
intact so that they could study it.

>>
>> Why didn't Marina turn Oswald in after learning of his trying to shoot
>> Walker? Had she, there probably would haven't been any assassination
>> as an attempted murder charge would have made his bond so high he
>> couldn't have bonded out of jail.
>
> Good point. If LHO is guilty of murdering JFK, Marina inadvertently
> enabled it. In fact, she probably figured if she did go to
> authorities and report him she would be sent back to USSR.
> Ironically, that is what the SS threatened her with if she didn't
> cooperate after the assassination. But what about George
> DeMohrenshildt, who apparently had some awareness of LHO's shooting at
> Walker. Why didn't he turn him in?
>
>

Some think that DeM was a CIA agent babysitting Oswald.

[Bud]

You can think of reasons they might want to see Kennedy dead? Big
deal.

> After the Bay of Pigs fiasco several CIA officers
> threatened to kill Kennedy.

Names?

> Krock warned about a CIA coup.

Did he have first hand knowledge of such a thing?

[Bud]

Perceptions blur when you retreat into a fantasy realm.

> In fact, not much about the evidence is as the WCR tells us.

You ignore the evidence because you are unable to accept what it
shows. You prefer your own made up reality.

> For one thing, the body of JFK and the limo were both moved 1600 miles
> before having a proper exam.

What is the maximum distance evidence can be moved before it can be
examined?

>The autopsy of JFK was riddled with so much
> confusion and so many errors it might as well be called 'the little shop
> of horrors.'

Are you saying the autopsy was useless for obtaining forensic
evidence?

> For another the limo was in the possession of the SS for over
> 12 hours after the assassination before they released it to the FBI for a
> forensic exam.

So?

> The spiders' web of 'evidence' does not stand up to scrutiny.  But the WCR
> was written by clever lawyers,

A lot of the evidence was collected by police. You want to throw it
all out because it interferes with what you are desperate to believe.

[jas]

Sure, there were other Americans traveling to the Soviet Union and giving
up their U.S. citizenship in the late 50s/early 60s; maybe not hoardes of
people, but a few. Of course, they didn't go on to shoot the president of
the U.S. either.

I myself travelled by train from Frankfurt to Prague, Czechoslovakia with
my parents in 1970 (a 12-hour trip!) 2 years after the Soviet invasion. We
also visited Budapest, Hungary, and Bucharest, Romania. Had no problem
going or coming back on tourist visas.

We also flew Aeroflot Airlines from Frankfurt to Moscow in 1970, stayed a
week, flew to Leningrad, stayed a week, and flew back to Frankfurt via
Moscow with no problem whatsoever. As far as I recall the FBI and/or the
CIA didn't come around asking my parents questions after we got back.

The government had a program to help traveling Americans financially if
they needed it. It was nothing out of the ordinary for the Oswalds to ask
for momey.

[Anthony Marsh]

Frank Bender.

>> Krock warned about a CIA coup.
>
> Did he have first hand knowledge of such a thing?
>

Yes.

[Anthony Marsh]

By LAW it had to stay within the jurisdiction where the crime was
committed.

>> The autopsy of JFK was riddled with so much
>> confusion and so many errors it might as well be called 'the little shop
>> of horrors.'
>
> Are you saying the autopsy was useless for obtaining forensic
> evidence?
>

As they did it.

[Bud]

Are you saying the DPD was breaking the law by sending the FBI
evidence for processing?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, I didn't say anything about the DPD. Local police departments send
evidence to the FBI for special analysis all the time. That's what they
SHOULD have done in the Walker shooting, but failed to do.

The SS stole JFK's body. An autopsy should be done in the jurisdiction
where the crime occurs. The SS took the crime scene, the limo, out of the
state before it could be examined by local authorities.

[Pamela Brown]

Thank you, Anthony, for acknowledging these serious lapses. I hope
that we have agreed-to-disagree on any malevolence involved in them.

[Pamela Brown]

On Nov 8, 6:01 pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 8, 7:09 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > He is supposed to have managed to murder JFK, almost kill JBC, and leave
> > > nary a scratch on the limo with a cheap rifle.  Does that even make sense?
>

> > What are you having trouble with here?
> > A cheap rifle can kill people.
> > If anybody else had made the shots, would you still be offering this
> > weird objection that the limo was barely scratched?
>
> The Carcano was cheap because it was an old and obsolete military
> surplus rifle, not because it was not accurate or defective.
>
> It was just as deadly as the 7.62mm M-14, the current military rifle
> at the time of the assassination.

Are you saying it would be a sniper's choice?

[Pamela Brown]

Perhaps. Robert Frazier did tell me there was no additional lighting
in the WHG that night. I found that appalling.

[John Canal]

In article <4ebdec4e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

[...]

Marsh once again says something wacky so he can get some attention:

>The SS stole JFK's body. An autopsy should be done in the jurisdiction
>where the crime occurs. The SS took the crime scene, the limo, out of the
>state before it could be examined by local authorities.

Use your head, occasionally rules or laws are broken because the
circumstances are extenuating. This was the case in Dallas. Jackie was not
going to leave her husband and Johnson was not going to leave Jackie
behind, but he needed to get back to Washington because no one could be
sure if the "attack" was over.

If you don't think that's a reasonable explanation for the body being
autopsied outside of the area where the crime was committed, no one is
surprised.

Because we know you.

Like I said, you need attention, so you make wacky statements hoping
someone will argue with you....and they do and you accomplish your
mission, i.e. not to make any sense but to get attention.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Pamela Brown]

On Nov 12, 6:14 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4ebdec4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
> [...]
>
> Marsh once again says something wacky so he can get some attention:
>
> >The SS stole JFK's body. An autopsy should be done in the jurisdiction
> >where the crime occurs. The SS took the crime scene, the limo, out of the
> >state before it could be examined by local authorities.
>
> Use your head, occasionally rules or laws are broken because the
> circumstances are extenuating. This was the case in Dallas.

You are entitled to your opinion and Anthony to his. I think you are
enabling the SS with a statement like that.

>Jackie was not
> going to leave her husband and Johnson was not going to leave Jackie
> behind, but he needed to get back to Washington because no one could be
> sure if the "attack" was over.
>

The body of JFK should have had an autopsy in Dallas.
The limo should have had a forensic exam in Dallas. The DPD went
after it, but it was too late.

> If you don't think that's a reasonable explanation for the body being
> autopsied outside of the area where the crime was committed, no one is
> surprised.

There is no reasonable explanation.
>
> Because we know you.
>
And me too?

> Like I said, you need attention, so you make wacky statements hoping
> someone will argue with you....and they do and you accomplish your
> mission, i.e. not to make any sense but to get attention.

Excuse me, but Anthony and I agree-to-disagree on most everything. This
happens to be one issue where we are in tandem. So please include me in
your displeasure at Anthony. After all, I am the one whose opinion is
that the SS sanitized the limo before turning it over to the FBI over 12
hours after the assassination. If anything, Anthony got it from me.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[John Canal]

In article <f98835b4-ab8e-4d54...@e3g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Pamela Brown says...

>
>On Nov 12, 6:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4ebdec4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Marsh once again says something wacky so he can get some attention:
>>
>> >The SS stole JFK's body. An autopsy should be done in the jurisdiction

>> >where the crime occurs. The SS took the crime scene, the limo, out of th=

>e
>> >state before it could be examined by local authorities.
>>
>> Use your head, occasionally rules or laws are broken because the
>> circumstances are extenuating. This was the case in Dallas.
>
>You are entitled to your opinion and Anthony to his. I think you are
>enabling the SS with a statement like that.
>
>>Jackie was not
>> going to leave her husband and Johnson was not going to leave Jackie
>> behind, but he needed to get back to Washington because no one could be
>> sure if the "attack" was over.
>>
>The body of JFK should have had an autopsy in Dallas.
>The limo should have had a forensic exam in Dallas. The DPD went
>after it, but it was too late.
>
>> If you don't think that's a reasonable explanation for the body being
>> autopsied outside of the area where the crime was committed, no one is
>> surprised.
>
>There is no reasonable explanation.

Really?

>> Because we know you.
>>
>And me too?

Now I do.....had you been in charge I guess you would have put the concerns over
where the autopsy was performed over the nation's best interests (they didn't
know if the "attack" was over).

With that kind of "logic" (yours and Marsh's) I don't need to waste my time
replying to you any further....please don't bother me.

Thanks in advance.

John Canal


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

1:45 AM.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/12/2011 7:14 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4ebdec4e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> [...]
>
> Marsh once again says something wacky so he can get some attention:
>
>> The SS stole JFK's body. An autopsy should be done in the jurisdiction
>> where the crime occurs. The SS took the crime scene, the limo, out of the
>> state before it could be examined by local authorities.
>
> Use your head, occasionally rules or laws are broken because the
> circumstances are extenuating. This was the case in Dallas. Jackie was not
> going to leave her husband and Johnson was not going to leave Jackie
> behind, but he needed to get back to Washington because no one could be
> sure if the "attack" was over.
>

You just totally ignore the fact that I have said exactly the same thing
hundreds of times. I was only talking about what the law was.

> If you don't think that's a reasonable explanation for the body being
> autopsied outside of the area where the crime was committed, no one is
> surprised.
>
> Because we know you.
>

Because you misrepresent me.

> Like I said, you need attention, so you make wacky statements hoping
> someone will argue with you....and they do and you accomplish your
> mission, i.e. not to make any sense but to get attention.
>
>

Then why do you always argue with me when I have just said what you
said? Just to start an argument.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/12/2011 9:59 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Nov 12, 6:14 pm, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article<4ebdec4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Marsh once again says something wacky so he can get some attention:
>>
>>> The SS stole JFK's body. An autopsy should be done in the jurisdiction
>>> where the crime occurs. The SS took the crime scene, the limo, out of the
>>> state before it could be examined by local authorities.
>>
>> Use your head, occasionally rules or laws are broken because the
>> circumstances are extenuating. This was the case in Dallas.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion and Anthony to his. I think you are
> enabling the SS with a statement like that.
>
>> Jackie was not
>> going to leave her husband and Johnson was not going to leave Jackie
>> behind, but he needed to get back to Washington because no one could be
>> sure if the "attack" was over.
>>
> The body of JFK should have had an autopsy in Dallas.
> The limo should have had a forensic exam in Dallas. The DPD went
> after it, but it was too late.
>

I have seen no indication that the DPD tried go after the limo.

[Anthony Marsh]

Johnson was expecting a Russian nuclear attack and needed to get airborn
as quickly as possible to order a counter strike. HE did not need to take
Kennedy's body out of Dallas. But Jackie wouldn't go without her husband
and LBJ was concerned about how it would look to abandon her.

[jas]

On Nov 12, 5:12 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > The Carcano was cheap because it was an old and obsolete military
> > surplus rifle, not because it was not accurate or defective.
>
> > It was just as deadly as the 7.62mm M-14, the current military rifle
> > at the time of the assassination.
>
> Are you saying it would be a sniper's choice?

No, it would be the choice of an indigent ex-Marine hell-bent on
successfully shooting someone from a distance by means of an
inexpensive weapon.

[Pamela Brown]

On Nov 13, 9:21 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <f98835b4-ab8e-4d54-86a5-9952d8968...@e3g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,

Just who 'didn't know if the attack was over'? Haven't heard that
excuse before.

Are you saying the SS couldn't guard the body of JFK at PH?

>
> With that kind of "logic" (yours and Marsh's) I don't need to waste my time
> replying to you any further....please don't bother me.

I shouldn't have to be bothered with odd questions either, but here I
am.

[Pamela Brown]

Why would it not be a sniper's choice?
Why would someone like LHO choose it?

[jas]

Because a sniper, who is a professional marksman and highly trained to
kill, will more than likely be furnished the latest, best -- and therefore
expensive -- weapon for the job, not some obsolete army surplus rifle

> Why would someone like LHO choose it?

I would say because for someone used to living on practically nothing,
it would be perfect because it was inexpensive.

.