CONSPIRACY THINKING AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION - QUESTIONS CONSPIRACISTS MUST ADDRESS
Mel Ayton
* How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
morning of the assassination?
Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
* How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
assassination?
* How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
buildings along the presidential route?
* How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
* Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
the shot missed the president. If this is true why didn't anyone see or
hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
injuries from it? Police searched the area and found nothing. The
purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
* If Oswald had no connection to the rifle why were his fingerprints
and palmprint found on the rifle? Are we to believe the claims of
Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
information?
* The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
forward to testify to this? In an age when government employees have
been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
* If Oswald was innocent, a 'patsy', why did he:
* Lie about having lunch with 'Junior' Jarman, a book
depository employee?
*Leave the building after the assassination?
*Collect his pistol from his rooming house?
*Shoot Officer Tippit? (The evidence for this is
'overwhelming')
*Try to shoot his arresting officers?
*Leave his wedding ring in a cup before he left for work?
*Lie about the 'rifle photographs'?
*Say "It's all over now." when he was arrested?
*Isn't it curious that someone who was extremely interested in
politics, who subscibed to political periodicals and conversed
frequently about political issues, did not take time out during his
lunch break to see the most important political figure in the country?
*If Oswald had made arrangements to spy for the CIA or military
intelligence why did he attempt suicide in Moscow?
*If Oswald had returned to the United States as a KGB agent why did he
bring with him a Russian wife whose very presence would guarantee the
attention of local and
federal officials?
*Why did these 'sophisticated, government-led conspirators' allow
Oswald to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time
when he could have 'confessed'.
*Why didn't the conspirators silence Ruby as swiftly as they took
care of Oswald?
*If Oswald was knowingly involved in the conspiracy why was he so
financially insecure? Oswald owed his New Orleans landlord 15 or 16
days rent shortly before he left on his Mexico trip. If Oswald was
conspiring to kill Kennedy at this time, as some conspiracy advocates
claim, why would Oswald risk arrest by the police for non-payment of
his rent?
*Oswald arrived at the School Book Depository on the morning of
November 22nd. 1963 wearing a blue jacket. It was later found in the
'domino room' of the book depository late in
November. If Oswald was correct in saying he left the building because
he guessed there would be no further work that day why didn't he take
his jacket with him?
When considering Jack Ruby's part in that tragic weekend there are a
number of questions conspiracists have never satisfactorially
answered:
*Because of Postal Inspector Holmes' unintentional movements which
delayed the transfer of Oswald does this mean that Holmes was
conspiratorially involved?
*If Ruby had wanted to silence Oswald, why didn't he kill Oswald on
Friday evening when he had a perfect opportunity? (Ruby told a police
officer, 'I didn't want to hit one of you guys'.)
*If Ruby were conspiratorially involved why did he volunteer to take a
lie detector test against the wishes of his lawyers?
*If Ruby were conspiratorially involved isn't it logical to assume that
his rabbi would have found some evidence of conspiracy in his many
conversations with Ruby?
*Why did Ruby leave his dog Sheba in the car when he walked to the
Dallas police department from the Western Union Office? Ruby was so
attached to his dogs he referred to Sheba as his 'wife' and the other
dogs as his children. Friends of Ruby have said he would never have
done that if he had planned the shooting in advance and known he would
be taken into custody.
Gary Combs
"Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1141809858.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
McAdams like,
What does one receive for ansering questions that contain
"presumptions" in them, as it is impossible to answer without accepting
details the questions themselves introduce? You know...where are the
facts?
gc
greg
>
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
> morning of the assassination?
> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
The Warren Report stated that the bubble top was neither bullet proof, nor
bullet RESISTANT. This indicates to me that it would not have caused a
deflection. I'm no expert on these matters, though - just my understanding
of "resistant".
In any case, there may have been a back up plan at the Trade Mart.
Or... they may have just waited for another day... as seems to have been
the case previously.
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
> book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
> depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
> assassination?
Damn! Wouldn't you know it! Bonnie Ray didn't maention a blessed thing
about going back to the 6th floor in his original statement. He said he
went back up to the 5th floor with Shorty and Junior. Moreover, his later
"improved" version has it that they all agreed to meet back on the 6th
floor - an agreement that not only slipped everyone else's minds on the
day, but continued to slip their minds in all statements and testimonies.
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
> Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
> buildings along the presidential route?
What did the Secret Service themselves say about that failure?
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
> be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
> freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
> have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
I thought you blokes denied any route change? I tend to agree that there
wasn't.
> * Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
> the shot missed the president. If this is true why didn't anyone see or
> hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
> injuries from it? Police searched the area and found nothing. The
> purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
> 'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
The photo is not a myth. A friend of a friend of a former neighbour's
cousin (twice removed) had a hairdresser who had a customer who
definitely saw it.
> * If Oswald had no connection to the rifle why were his fingerprints
> and palmprint found on the rifle? Are we to believe the claims of
> Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
> Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
> they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
> information?
Nothing's true unless it's leaked?????
> * The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
> honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
> rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
> investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
> forward to testify to this?
Roger Craig did. And look what happened to him.
If any others had, you would no doubt just claim they were nuts, as
well, so what really is the point of your question?
In an age when government employees have
> been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
> information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
> still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
The twists and contortions, leaps and pirouettes to make a straw
argument are breathtaking.
> * If Oswald was innocent, a 'patsy', why did he:
> * Lie about having lunch with 'Junior' Jarman, a book
> depository employee?
He never said he had lunch with Jarman. You're going from one source for
this: Fritz' testimony. His own scrawled notes tell a different version
- a version backed in the reports of others who were involved in the
interrofations.
> *Leave the building after the assassination?
Because he was cleared to go. This was his own story - and also the
story being reported by the press inside the TSBD during the immediate
aftermath of the assassination.
> *Collect his pistol from his rooming house?
Put him on the bus and in the cab to get him there.
Having read through the rest of this, I can see there's nothing that
hasn't been debunked mercilessly in the past. Just the same old same old.
Bring something new to the table.
greg
Martin Shackelford
watching the television coverage or observing at Love Field and could
SEE there was no bubbletop. As for the bubbletop "ensuring any shots
would like have been deflected," the bubbletop wasn't bulletproof and
there is no guarantee it would have deflected "any shots."
2) You assume that the Sixth Floor SE corner window was the only firing
point. If it wasn't, Williams could have remained and the plan adjusted.
Who was standing in the West End Sixth Floor window, Mel (can be seen in
Tom Dillard's photo).
3) Where did you get the idea (unless from faulty conspiracy arguments)
that it was customary or even POSSIBLE to secure all windows in a major
downtown area. It wasn't and still isn't. Far too many windows, and far
too few personnel for the purpose.
4) There was no last minute motorcade route change--you seem to have
fallen for another faulty conspiracy claim. The route followed WAS "the
original route."
5) You ignore witnesses who reported a shot that hit the street near the
limousine; witnesses who reported a shot hitting the grass on the South
side of Elm St. Simply claiming that the photo of a "police detective"
(he wasn't identified as a police detective, but as an FBI agent)
pocketing a bullet (he puts something in his pocket) "is a myth" isn't
enough--and it's a SERIES of photos showing the sequence, not one photo.
Are you claiming the photos don't exist, or that anyone's interpretation
other than your own is incorrect? And on what basis? You would have to,
of course, ignore the statement of the police officer present that the
FBI agent picked up a bullet--it isn't just the photos.
6) Who said Oswald has "no connection" to the rifle? Clearly it couldn't
have been used to frame him if he had no connection to it. The idea that
prints were somehow transferred using fingerprint ink is nonsense.
7) The Mauser identification was clearly an error. This is a strawman
argument, as no serious researcher has argued this for years.
8) As for Oswald's "lies"--
He didn't say he had lunch with Junior Jarman--simply that Jarman was
also in the Domino Room having lunch--which Jarman confirmed. How
did Oswald know for sure that Jarman was there AT THAT TIME if he
didn't see him there?
He wasn't the only one to leave the building.
As for why he got his pistol, that would make sense if he thought he
was being set up.
It isn't enough to assert that the evidence he shot Tippit is
"overwhelming"--there is still controversy over this, despite
Dale Myers' impressive work on the case. You may be unfamiliar
with the new evidence published in 2004 by Harrison Livingstone
on the matter.
Perhaps he resisted arrest because he suspected they would try to
kill him rather than arrest him, and so he drew as much attention
to the situation as he could under the circumstances.
Perhaps he left his wedding ring behind because he didn't plan to
return to Marina.
As we don't know exactly what he was shown, it is hardly certain to
say that he lied about the rifle photographs.
You assume that the report that he said "It's all over now" is the
accurate one, out of several conflicting reports regarding what
he said at the theater. Assumptions aren't evidence.
9) It's curious, but it's not evidence.
10) The suicide attempt in Moscow may have been an attempt to enhance
his credibility as NOT CIA.
11) Almost no one argues that Oswald was a KGB agent. Another strawman.
A few have suggested that Marina was a KGB agent, using Oswald.
12) It is quite possible that the conspirators expected that Oswald
would never make it to the jail, and had to improvise alternative plans
when he did. Ruby was there with a gun as early as Friday, so there is
no evidence they waited 48 hours--opportunities were sought quickly, but
Ruby's mixed feelings may have slowed things down. He even called to
warn a police friend that there would be an attempt on Oswald.
13) Perhaps they thought silencing Ruby would raise too much suspicion,
seeing how much was raised by the killing of Oswald. Perhaps also they
counted on Ruby keeping his mouth shut. You'll note that he didn't live
long once there was a chance he might be freed on appeal.
14) Regarding Oswald's finances, you make too many assumptions again. As
for non-payment of rent, people get EVICTED, not ARRESTED for this.
15) As for the jacket, who knows? Maybe in the confusion of the day he
forgot where he left it. That it was found in the Domino Room seems to
support that he was IN the Domino Room at some point, as he said he was.
16) You assume that, had Holmes not delayed the transfer, there would
have been no other delay arranged.
17) Regarding Ruby on Friday, you seem to have answered your own
question. Also, Ruby was too far away from Oswald for a reliable kill.
18) If you want to play with the lie detector test, you also need to
look at Ruby's repeated statements that there was a conspiracy. I find
it odd if he never mentioned this to his rabbi, rather than proof there
was no conspiracy.
19) Friends of Ruby said a lot of things.
Martin
Robert Harris
wrote:
>
>
>* How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>morning of the assassination?
>Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
What would they have done if the motorcade was cancelled?
What would they have done if their people were spotted before the
motorcade arrived in the area?
They would simply have tried again, later.
>
>* How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
>book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
>depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
>assassination?
If they had been discovered by employees, they would undoubtedly, have
killed them or at least tied them up and gagged them.
>
>* How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
>Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
>buildings along the presidential route?
Because there were thousands of windows along the way - too many to
all be secured.
>
>* How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
>be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
>freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
>have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
They would have attacked somewhere else in Dallas.
Duh.. these are pretty easy questions.
>
>* Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
>the shot missed the president.
That's what Gerald Posner and pretty much everyone else believes.
How long have you been doing this stuff?
>If this is true why didn't anyone see or
>hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
>injuries from it?
James Tague did.
He suffered a tiny wound as a result of an obviously, missed shot.
>Police searched the area and found nothing.
Wrong again.
The same shot that caused Tague's wound, caused a fresh and visible
lead smear on the Main St. curbing.
>The
>purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
>'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
Perhaps, but I would bet the ranch that you can't prove it:-)
>
>* If Oswald had no connection to the rifle why were his fingerprints
>and palmprint found on the rifle?
Because he *was* connected to the rifle.
>Are we to believe the claims of
>Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
>Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
>they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
>information?
The rifle was originally found to be free of fingerprints.
Anything and everything discovered later by the FBI labs, has to be
considered suspect.
But this issue has nothing to do with the conspiracy question. It is
only related to Oswald's participation in the attack.
>
>* The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
>honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
>rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
>investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
>forward to testify to this?
ATF agent Frank Ellsworth, who took part in the original search of the
Depository stated that DPD officers told him, they found TWO rifles in
the building, including one on the fifth floor.
>In an age when government employees have
>been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
>information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
>still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
A small army of police officers and federal agents have blown their
whistles, but you guys just call them all liars or lunatics.
Would you like to see a list of some of them??
>
>* If Oswald was innocent, a 'patsy',
The question of Oswald's guilt, and the question of conspiracy, are
two seperate issues.
>why did he:
> * Lie about having lunch with 'Junior' Jarman, a book
>depository employee?
> *Leave the building after the assassination?
> *Collect his pistol from his rooming house?
> *Shoot Officer Tippit? (The evidence for this is
>'overwhelming')
> *Try to shoot his arresting officers?
> *Leave his wedding ring in a cup before he left for work?
> *Lie about the 'rifle photographs'?
> *Say "It's all over now." when he was arrested?
Oswald was very likely, involved in the assassination, if not as a
shooter, then in other ways. There is no doubt that he was on the
same page, politically, as the killers were.
>
>*Isn't it curious that someone who was extremely interested in
>politics, who subscibed to political periodicals and conversed
>frequently about political issues, did not take time out during his
>lunch break to see the most important political figure in the country?
>
>*If Oswald had made arrangements to spy for the CIA or military
>intelligence why did he attempt suicide in Moscow?
>
>*If Oswald had returned to the United States as a KGB agent why did he
>bring with him a Russian wife whose very presence would guarantee the
>attention of local and
>federal officials?
>
>*Why did these 'sophisticated, government-led conspirators' allow
>Oswald to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time
>when he could have 'confessed'.
>
>*Why didn't the conspirators silence Ruby as swiftly as they took
>care of Oswald?
>
>*If Oswald was knowingly involved in the conspiracy why was he so
>financially insecure?
NWR.
Are you actually claiming that there was no conspiracy because Oswald
didn't have much money?
>Oswald owed his New Orleans landlord 15 or 16
>days rent shortly before he left on his Mexico trip. If Oswald was
>conspiring to kill Kennedy at this time, as some conspiracy advocates
>claim, why would Oswald risk arrest by the police for non-payment of
>his rent?
>
>*Oswald arrived at the School Book Depository on the morning of
>November 22nd. 1963 wearing a blue jacket. It was later found in the
>'domino room' of the book depository late in
>November. If Oswald was correct in saying he left the building because
>he guessed there would be no further work that day why didn't he take
>his jacket with him?
>
>When considering Jack Ruby's part in that tragic weekend there are a
>number of questions conspiracists have never satisfactorially
>answered:
>
>*Because of Postal Inspector Holmes' unintentional movements which
>delayed the transfer of Oswald does this mean that Holmes was
>conspiratorially involved?
No, but it seems pretty obvious, that the post office assisted the
FBI, in removing documentation regarding authorized users of Oswald's
PO box, which they were required to retain.
>
>*If Ruby had wanted to silence Oswald, why didn't he kill Oswald on
>Friday evening when he had a perfect opportunity? (Ruby told a police
>officer, 'I didn't want to hit one of you guys'.)
Ruby didn't really *want* to kill Oswald at all, an act which was
bound to either result in his own death, or life in prison.
>
>*If Ruby were conspiratorially involved why did he volunteer to take a
>lie detector test against the wishes of his lawyers?
Because he knew he would fail the questions related to his
participation in the conspiracy, which of course, he did.
Ruby had to have wanted to make a deal, to at the very least, stay out
of the electric chair. But he would have been equally doomed, if he
had ratted out his partners, who included organized crime types.
He wanted to take the polygraph, so that he could be "caught' and make
it appear that he was forced to talk.
Unfortunately, the FBI was not about to let him tell any lies:-)
If you doubt that, then you need to read the analysis of his polygraph
by the HSCA polygraph panel. Their entire report is included in this
article:
http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html
>
>*If Ruby were conspiratorially involved isn't it logical to assume that
>his rabbi would have found some evidence of conspiracy in his many
>conversations with Ruby?
Why?
Ruby had no problem admitting to the murder of Oswald, and so would
have received whatever absolution his religion permitted him.
>
>*Why did Ruby leave his dog Sheba in the car when he walked to the
>Dallas police department from the Western Union Office? Ruby was so
>attached to his dogs he referred to Sheba as his 'wife' and the other
>dogs as his children. Friends of Ruby have said he would never have
>done that if he had planned the shooting in advance and known he would
>be taken into custody.
Why not?
The weather was cool in late November and regardless of where he left
the dog, he would have had to have a friend pick it up and take care
of it.
As a dog lover myself, I have no doubt, that in a situation where I
would never see my pet again, I would want to take her with me on the
very last opportunity we would have to be together.
Is this really the best arguments you guys can come up with:-)
Robert Harris
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
David VP
I could have sworn I wrote the above laundry list of questions myself.
A few more that could be added.........
1.) If Oswald was really going to Irving for "curtain rods" on
Thursday, why was he in such a big hurry to retrieve them? It HAD to be
Thursday evidently...why? He would be going to Irving the very next day
with Wes Frazier anyway (on Friday). He couldn't wait 24 more hours for
his "rods"? And WHY didn't Marina or Ruth Paine know a thing about any
curtain rods?
2.) Why does Oswald lie (twice) to Wesley Frazier re. the curtain rods?
(It's obvious the "rod" story was a lie...based on no rods being found
in LHO's home or in the TSBD after the shooting.)
3.) Why were ONLY Oswald bullets/fragments/shells found anywhere near
the shooting scene (TSBD/Parkland/Inside the limo)? How on EARTH did
the plotters manage to perfectly "plant" Oswald-incriminating bullet
fragments inside the President's limousine? Where did the plotters get
these fragments? Through what hard object was that bullet fired into
that produced those nice-looking "could be from the head shot"
fragments? (Fragments that look absolutely PERFECT with respect to the
question: Could these fragments have come out of JFK's head after he
was shot from behind?)
Did these same plotters smear lead on the inside of the windshield too?
Or was the lead smear from a bullet from some OTHER assassination
attempt involving the limousine that nobody knew about prior to 1963?
4.) Why did less than 5% of all DP earwitnesses hear shots from MORE
THAN JUST A SINGLE LOCATION (be it front or rear) on 11/22? If the
Oliver Stone theory of "3 Shooters" is anywhere near true, is it even
REMOTELY possible/probable that just FOUR measly witnesses would have
said they heard shots from "2 Locations"? (And even those few witnesses
must have GOTTEN IT WRONG, too...per Stone/Garrison/Groden's
theories...because they heard shots from just TWO (not 3) different
locales.
To think that 3 assassins were shooting up the joint FROM
OBVIOUSLY-OPPOSITE SIDES of Dealey Plaza...and yet having ZERO
witnesses hear shots from ALL THREE locations (and virtually zero from
even TWO distinctly-different directions!) is simply...impossible -- or
"preposterous"...take your pick.
And the standard pro-CT argument re. "silencers" being utilized is a
silly one for CTers to use -- unless those same CTers want to
completely toss aside all the various witnesses they've used for years
who have said they heard shots from the "front" (Knoll). Because it's
just silly to think (particularly within a "One Patsy" context) that
these brainless "plotters" would want to "silence" only SOME of the
non-LHO shots, but not others.
5.) Why did every single newsman/reporter who was in a direct position
to report the shooting to America and the world report hearing
precisely "three shots" immediately after the shooting? Which is the
exact number of gunshots that (amazingly) the plotters NEED to have
reported and heard throughout DP to make their "Perfect Patsy Plot" go
off like clockwork.
Were Merriman Smith, Bob Clark, Jack Bell, Jerry Haynes, Robert
MacNeil, Pierce Allman, and Jay Watson (among others) part of the
"cover up" and conspiracy too? (Which must, therefore, have begun just
MINUTES after the last shot was fired.)
6.) Why does Oswald tell lie after lie to police after his arrest if
he's truly an "innocent Patsy"? (Do "truly innocent" people NEED to lie
this much?)
More thoughts re. "Oswald's Lies":
www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B0006BT7X4
Oswald's Lone Guilt:
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=17758
Anthony Marsh
>
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
> morning of the assassination?
> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>
Then Oswald would not even try because it had been raining that morning
and he would expect the limousine has its roof on.
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
> book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
> depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
> assassination?
>
How could Oswald be sure that he wouldn't be interrupted? Hence he
picked a precarious sniper's nest.
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
> Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
> buildings along the presidential route?
>
Then Oswald would not have picked that window because he knew it would
be guarded. BTW, it was never standard practice close all windows and
guard all buildings in a US city. You are perpetuating a myth.
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
> be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
> freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
> have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
>
Another myth. The route was not changed at the last minute. Anyone could
know the exact route simply by reading a newspaper. Are you suggesting
that professional assassins are not even able to read a map?
> * Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
> the shot missed the president. If this is true why didn't anyone see or
> hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
> injuries from it? Police searched the area and found nothing. The
> purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
> 'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
>
Then why didn't anyone see or hear the impact of the bullet or suffer
injuries from the shot which the WC said missed? Or are you just
dismissing any witnesses who made claims of hearing such shots?
> * If Oswald had no connection to the rifle why were his fingerprints
> and palmprint found on the rifle? Are we to believe the claims of
> Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
> Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
> they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
> information?
>
Only a few wackos would bother to keep claiming that it was not Oswald's
rifle. How can you frame Oswald for the crime if you don't use his rifle?
> * The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
> honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
> rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
> investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
> forward to testify to this? In an age when government employees have
> been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
> information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
> still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
>
It doesn't matter how many investigators you can find to come forward to
testify. Maybe 4 or 5. But it is still just an honest mistake. It LOOKED
like a Mauser to Weitzman.
If everyone is leaking documents nowadays, then why are so many JFK
documents still being withheld?
> * If Oswald was innocent, a 'patsy', why did he:
> * Lie about having lunch with 'Junior' Jarman, a book
> depository employee?
Or why did the WC lie about their having seen Oswald?
> *Leave the building after the assassination?
Several people left the building. It was sealed off by the police. So,
every person who left the building is a suspect?
> *Collect his pistol from his rooming house?
You know how those boys down there in Texas are about their guns.
> *Shoot Officer Tippit? (The evidence for this is
> 'overwhelming')
Panic.
> *Try to shoot his arresting officers?
To avoid arrest. Duh!
> *Leave his wedding ring in a cup before he left for work?
To finally break up with Marina.
> *Lie about the 'rifle photographs'?
Maybe he didn't lie. Maybe the authorities lied about what he said.
> *Say "It's all over now." when he was arrested?
How do we know what he really said? Did you even quote him accurately?
>
> *Isn't it curious that someone who was extremely interested in
> politics, who subscibed to political periodicals and conversed
> frequently about political issues, did not take time out during his
> lunch break to see the most important political figure in the country?
>
Maybe he was dissing the President by staying in the Domino room.
> *If Oswald had made arrangements to spy for the CIA or military
> intelligence why did he attempt suicide in Moscow?
>
Was it a genuine attempt or only half-hearted to elicit sympathy?
> *If Oswald had returned to the United States as a KGB agent why did he
> bring with him a Russian wife whose very presence would guarantee the
> attention of local and
> federal officials?
Why not? He was already a known defector who had triggered intelligence
alerts. Surely he would not be ignored.
>
> *Why did these 'sophisticated, government-led conspirators' allow
> Oswald to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time
> when he could have 'confessed'.
Well, Oswald was supposed to be killed on Friday night, but Ruby could
not get off a clear shot.
>
> *Why didn't the conspirators silence Ruby as swiftly as they took
> care of Oswald?
>
Various Mafia Dons who were involved in the Castro were allowed to stay
alive by the CIA for many years, but rubbed out before they could testify.
> *If Oswald was knowingly involved in the conspiracy why was he so
> financially insecure? Oswald owed his New Orleans landlord 15 or 16
> days rent shortly before he left on his Mexico trip. If Oswald was
> conspiring to kill Kennedy at this time, as some conspiracy advocates
> claim, why would Oswald risk arrest by the police for non-payment of
> his rent?
>
Remember the rumor which started the cover-up? Oswald supposedly being
paid $6,500 to kill the President. Is that the going price for a
professional assassination of a President in 1963? I don't think so.
Look at the prices the CIA was willing to pay for assassinating Castro.
You'd be surprised at how some sleeper agents truly live their legends
in poverty. Don't you think the CIA would catch on if someone working a
minimum wage job was driving around in a Ferrari? Well, maybe not, when
they overlooked Ames. Anyway, I don't see you raising the same type of
question about Ruby walking around with thousands of dollars at the same
time he owes the government thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes. Or
David Ferrie without a job paying thousands of dollars in cash for his
airplanes.
> *Oswald arrived at the School Book Depository on the morning of
> November 22nd. 1963 wearing a blue jacket. It was later found in the
> 'domino room' of the book depository late in
> November. If Oswald was correct in saying he left the building because
> he guessed there would be no further work that day why didn't he take
> his jacket with him?
>
Because the rain had stopped and the weather was nice.
> When considering Jack Ruby's part in that tragic weekend there are a
> number of questions conspiracists have never satisfactorially
> answered:
>
> *Because of Postal Inspector Holmes' unintentional movements which
> delayed the transfer of Oswald does this mean that Holmes was
> conspiratorially involved?
>
No.
> *If Ruby had wanted to silence Oswald, why didn't he kill Oswald on
> Friday evening when he had a perfect opportunity? (Ruby told a police
> officer, 'I didn't want to hit one of you guys'.)
>
Because there were too many reporters in the way, so he couldn't get off
a clear shot.
> *If Ruby were conspiratorially involved why did he volunteer to take a
> lie detector test against the wishes of his lawyers?
>
Hoping that he could convince people that he was not involved in the
murder of the President.
> *If Ruby were conspiratorially involved isn't it logical to assume that
> his rabbi would have found some evidence of conspiracy in his many
> conversations with Ruby?
>
No, but why should we believe anything that his Rabbi said, especially
if he was a Mob flunky?
> *Why did Ruby leave his dog Sheba in the car when he walked to the
> Dallas police department from the Western Union Office? Ruby was so
> attached to his dogs he referred to Sheba as his 'wife' and the other
> dogs as his children. Friends of Ruby have said he would never have
> done that if he had planned the shooting in advance and known he would
> be taken into custody.
>
Maybe the Western Union had a no pets policy.
Forget what friends of a murderer say.
>
playiso...@email.com
could always try again later as they may have tried earlier in IL and
FL
2) didn't know
if you're going to kill a president, who cares about bystanders
3) didn't know
see 1
rest of points
use logic
putting holes in CT does not advance the WC or LN cause
A
Stug...@aol.com
that we must acknowledge that the assassination was a product of "chance"
is that EVERY human, including group endeavors, is some way a product of
chance. Some activities are well-planned but fail because of chance
events; some activities are poorly-planned but succeed out of sheer luck.
The idea that a "conspiracy" would not take any risks, would account for
every potential consideration, and must be perfectly executed is straw-man
invention. Any true discussion of chance also involves a discussion of
contingency; events are not always independent of each other and
oftentimes happen as a result of another event. The fact that someone
shot someone might not have occured if a certain set of conditions didn't
present themselves to a shooter; he may have simply postponed his attempt
to another day.
Mel Ayton wrote:
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
> morning of the assassination?
> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
They may not have known about the protective bubble. They may have had an
explosive device prepared if the protective bubble was in place. They may
have simply postponed the assassination to a later date if the rain had
come.
>
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
> book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
> depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
> assassination?
How could John Wilkes Booth be sure that Abe Lincoln's guard would have
left Lincoln's vicinity? Luck plays a major role in history, not simply
for people, but for entire civilizations. Ofcourse, they may have simply
looked for another window to shoot from, or made due with shooters from
other locations.
>
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
> Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
> buildings along the presidential route?
They could have scouted the security in other locations. They could have
planned to have shooters shoot from alternative locations in the event of
a security hike. They could have simply been desperate and willing to
take a risk and got lucky; that happens to people who take risks.
>
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
> be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
> freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
> have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
Why would they necessarily care? They would have gone to wherever the
limo had gone. If a military ambush had to be planned with as much
forethought as you and Rahn imply, the history of war would have to be
dramatically rewritten.
>
> * Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
> the shot missed the president. If this is true why didn't anyone see or
> hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
> injuries from it? Police searched the area and found nothing. The
> purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
> 'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
Plenty of witnesses saw what could have been bullet impacts. Don
Roberdeau could probably list about 8 for you. You need to study up. And
didn't James Tague suffer injuries from a misfired bullet?
>
> * If Oswald had no connection to the rifle why were his fingerprints
> and palmprint found on the rifle? Are we to believe the claims of
> Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
> Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
> they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
> information?
Who says he had no connection to the rifle? I didn't.
>
> * The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
> honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
> rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
> investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
> forward to testify to this? In an age when government employees have
> been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
> information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
> still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
The Mauser thing is an old red-herring debunked by conspiracy theorists
themselves. Which brings us to another point... the fact that conspiracy
theorists are willing to police their own while LNs are not.
You have Ken Rahn running around claiming that he has a one of a kind
bullet with properties unknown to any forensic chemist or forensic
metallurgist on Earth. Not a single LN has challenged him for primary
documentation. His bullets aren't only a metallurgical anamoly-- they
were packaged in a way that is unheard of in the world of bullet
manufacturing... in a purely random fashion. Shipped that way too. Not a
single LN has challenged Ken for that documentation. Those are bold
claims that require substantive proof. There are LNs on this forum who
know math, who know sampling, and who definitely know what it means to
document your claims. Where are they, Mel? Why haven't you said
anything?
>
> * If Oswald was innocent, a 'patsy', why did he:
> * Lie about having lunch with 'Junior' Jarman, a book
> depository employee?
See the posts by Junior Jarman-- there is serious question about him
having actually said he "had lunch" with them.
> *Leave the building after the assassination?
Others did, but Oswald can be guilty and there still be a conspiracy.
This is a red-herring.
James K. Olmstead
"Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141809858.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
> morning of the assassination?
These mythical conspirators could have adjusted plans with little or no
problem by having a kill zone selected for later in the day or trip when
JFK would be exposed. That's what writers call the "Plan B" attack. You
on the other hand have to establish that DP was the only kill zone and
that if the "bubble top' was used JFK would have been un harmed. You also
have to ignore considerations such as a "street demonstration" where shots
would have been fired, without motive and intent to kill, because the limo
had the top on as it passed through DP.
Conspiratorial Motive and intent to kill JFK is not limited to 12:30,
November 22, 1963 in DP, just because that's when it happened. What if 26
(A-Z) prior plans had failed?
> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
Have you fired a MC through material used in the bubble top, from the
distance fired?
>
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
> book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
> depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
> assassination?
How could Oswald? If the Mythical Conspirators could not maintain the SN
under complete control, how could Oswald?
>
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
> Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
> buildings along the presidential route?
How could Oswald? If Oswald had no need to worry about the DPD or SS why
should your Mythical Conspirators?
>
> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
> be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
> freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
> have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
Any and all last minute changes to the motorcade were by the direction of
JFK. It had been presented that the motorcade would follow a published
route, if the target failed to appear, within a specific time
period.....the next plan would have started.
>
> * Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
> the shot missed the president. If this is true why didn't anyone see or
> hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
> injuries from it? Police searched the area and found nothing. The
> purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
> 'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
Ct's are not the only ones to present a "missed shot" correct me if I'm
wrong but I believe Posner is one such supporter as well as a
"Commission". Many consider the SBT a myth, including the USG since they
first presented a scenario dealing with three shots and three seperate
hits. Spector himself says the SBT is not needed based on that original
three shot scenario.
>
> * If Oswald had no connection to the rifle why were his fingerprints
> and palmprint found on the rifle? Are we to believe the claims of
> Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
> Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
> they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
> information?
I believe it was those investigating that first presented the "planted"
fingerprints (palm print on barrel) because of the nature in which the
evidence was first withheld by the DPD, some CT's are just not satisfied
with the presentation of the 'answers". Why did the WC want a lie detector
test on Lt. Day over this issue?
As to Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle that's not a problem since it
is connected to him. The problem is that there are additional latent
images on the rifle that just might not belong to Oswald, when it is
presented that he had sole possession of the rifle at all times.
>
> * The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
> honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
> rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
> investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
> forward to testify to this? In an age when government employees have
> been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
> information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
> still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
There's nothing for them to be afraid of even if there was another rifle
found. Some type of "threat" to the Mythical Conspirators has to delveope
in order for fear to be a consideration. Another rifle in itself is no
threat unless it can be shown to have been used in the actual
assassination.
>
> * If Oswald was innocent, a 'patsy', why did he:
> * Lie about having lunch with 'Junior' Jarman, a book
> depository employee?
It has been countered quite logically that this was no lie.
> *Leave the building after the assassination?
Which law again required everyone to stay "in the building" after the
assassination?
> *Collect his pistol from his rooming house?
Oswald provided that answer.
> *Shoot Officer Tippit? (The evidence for this is
> 'overwhelming')
No it's not "overwhelming" it's still a controversy to this day.
> *Try to shoot his arresting officers?
Again, it has been shown quite logically that this might not be the case.
> *Leave his wedding ring in a cup before he left for work?
I have been married for over 35 years I do not wear my wedding ring. Why
is the wedding ring such a major issue to your position? Even when I did
wear my ring I took it off performing some military duties or when working
with machinery.
> *Lie about the 'rifle photographs'?
Why did Marina hide one in her shoe? If Oswald had been recorded when
interviewed statements dealing with Oswald lying all the time might have
had some credibility, but since there are no offical "statements" one has
to be carefull.
> *Say "It's all over now." when he was arrested?
You have that on some type of record, tape, film or signed statement by
Oswald?
>
> *Isn't it curious that someone who was extremely interested in
> politics, who subscibed to political periodicals and conversed
> frequently about political issues, did not take time out during his
> lunch break to see the most important political figure in the country?
Curiousity over actions one thinks another should do or should have done,
have no basis of concern in establishing guilt.
>
> *If Oswald had made arrangements to spy for the CIA or military
> intelligence why did he attempt suicide in Moscow?
Cover story.........a basic consideration of spycraft.
>
> *If Oswald had returned to the United States as a KGB agent why did he
> bring with him a Russian wife whose very presence would guarantee the
> attention of local and
> federal officials?
That's a big and limited "If".....what "IF" Oswald returned as a agent of
the USG not the KGB?
>
> *Why did these 'sophisticated, government-led conspirators' allow
> Oswald to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time
> when he could have 'confessed'.
Consider Oswald's agreement with the SS just minutes before he was killed.
No court of law has established any level of guilt on the part of Lee
Harvey Oswald in association with the death of JFK, so what would he
confess to exactly and why?
>
> *Why didn't the conspirators silence Ruby as swiftly as they took
> care of Oswald?
Could be another group of Mythical Conspirators handled Ruby.
>
> *If Oswald was knowingly involved in the conspiracy why was he so
> financially insecure? Oswald owed his New Orleans landlord 15 or 16
> days rent shortly before he left on his Mexico trip. If Oswald was
> conspiring to kill Kennedy at this time, as some conspiracy advocates
> claim, why would Oswald risk arrest by the police for non-payment of
> his rent?
Show that any effort was made to collect this rent. Assassin's can do
their work for reasons other then money.
>
> *Oswald arrived at the School Book Depository on the morning of
> November 22nd. 1963 wearing a blue jacket. It was later found in the
> 'domino room' of the book depository late in
> November. If Oswald was correct in saying he left the building because
> he guessed there would be no further work that day why didn't he take
> his jacket with him?
Did you ever leave a coat a work? Did you ever forget something so minor
you didn't have to worry about it?
Discribe the jacket the cab driver said Oswald was wearing. It's the same
jacket he left at work....why is this?
>
> When considering Jack Ruby's part in that tragic weekend there are a
> number of questions conspiracists have never satisfactorially
> answered:
>
> *Because of Postal Inspector Holmes' unintentional movements which
> delayed the transfer of Oswald does this mean that Holmes was
> conspiratorially involved?
Holmes was involved in several conspiratorial actions dealing with mail
opening that relate to Oswald. Care to address those issues of conspiracy
by the USG?
>
> *If Ruby had wanted to silence Oswald, why didn't he kill Oswald on
> Friday evening when he had a perfect opportunity? (Ruby told a police
> officer, 'I didn't want to hit one of you guys'.)
That answer seems to cover your own question.
>
> *If Ruby were conspiratorially involved why did he volunteer to take a
> lie detector test against the wishes of his lawyers?
Perhaps he knew he could fool it and that it would not be used against him
in a court of law.
>
> *If Ruby were conspiratorially involved isn't it logical to assume that
> his rabbi would have found some evidence of conspiracy in his many
> conversations with Ruby?
No, one does not always "confess" to a Rabbi.......I believe confession is
associated with another religion.
>
> *Why did Ruby leave his dog Sheba in the car when he walked to the
> Dallas police department from the Western Union Office? Ruby was so
> attached to his dogs he referred to Sheba as his 'wife' and the other
> dogs as his children. Friends of Ruby have said he would never have
> done that if he had planned the shooting in advance and known he would
> be taken into custody.
>
He also had a staff that he knew would have taken care of his dogs,
regardless of the circumstances.
jko
jack...@hotmail.com
sure you have heard before. I don't consider myself with either LN or CT
camp, I'm more in the"puzzled, wondering what the hell happened" camp.
Oswald should have come up with a better excuse for leaving the TSBD,
something like "the policemen told me to get out". "It's all over now'
could be interpreted that Mr. Oswald had enough of the DPD messing with
him that day (Baker's gun in his stomach, patrol car honking at his
rooming house, Officer Tippit questioning him). The defense that never was
would have locked horns over each of the prosecution's "evidence of guilt"
that you brought up, I am sure. In the end the jury would have decided
what was true. That's the way our Legal system works, the prosecution and
defense are always at war with each other. In the Simpson trial the
accused looked very guilty, how many accused murderers bleed their blood
at the crime scene, bleed in their vehicle and then at their home
following a despicable double murder and a jury find them innocent? Henry
Wade told the world on TV that he had "enough evidence to convict him
(Oswald)". If I had sat on that jury (sadly, that never was to be) both
the Prosecutor and the Defense would have to explain a lot of things to me
as I have a lot of questions about everything in this case before I'd pass
judgment on Mr. Oswald:
First I'd have to be convinced the murder weapon was the property of Mr.
Oswald and that he had possession of the weapon prior to the
assassination, that the chain of evidence of the ballistics evidence had
not been breached and that the FBI crime lab was not compromised in it's
analysis..
(1) Playing the part of Oswald, how can someone get their hands on and
then sneak my rifle (or an exact duplicate with my prints on the
duplicate) into the building that I work at and use it to shoot at the
President of the US (without leaving their prints on the weapon) without
anyone seeing this happen? How did they get the rifle past me performing
my work duties? How did they get it past the other employees and
supervisors at work? How did they know I wouldn't have an solid alibi
(like standing on the steps or looking out the 2nd floor windows with the
others visible in the Altgens photo and making a rude remark about Jackie
that was overheard, something that would get me being there remembered)?
How did they know I (or anyone) wouldn't walk up those stairs and catch
them in the act?
(2) Once my weapons has been used in the manner described above, how did
the shooter depart the building without leaving prints on the weapon &
clip and in the sniper's nest without being seen or arrested?
At this point in the trial, if the defense cannot convince me that Mr.
Oswald has been "framed" somehow by someone in these crucial areas and
explained to me how this was done, then it's looking pretty bad for Mr.
Oswald in my mind at this point. It looks to me like he brought his weapon
to work and participated in the murder of the President at this point.
There may be other shooters involved but this man is certainly one of them
in my mind. He may have fired at the storm drains or the curbs and not
shot the President or Governor Connally but he is involved in the
assassination (in my mind). His involvement hopefully will unravel in
court and all guilty parties (in any others existed) would be exposed and
held accountable.
Unfortunately, Mr. Ruby denied the world the opportunity to get these
questions answered by Mr. Oswald in an American Court of Law.
One can only speculate what the Dallas D.A. Henry Wade might have gotten
out of Mr. Oswald in the form of Oswald confessing to his participation
and possible confederates if there had just been more time to work with
the man in police custody.
For me, Oswald left and impression that he was involved with someone or
some group/organization at the midnight press conference when he
emphasized the word "SOMEONE" to come forth and offer him legal
assistance. Oswald also emphasized the word "REPRESENTATION". Whoever he
may have been referring to left Mr. Oswald holding the bag, so to speak,
IMHO.
A trial would have answered so much of the mystery. What you see in the
arguments & theories laid out by so many de3dicated, good-intentioned
researchers is really the issues that would have been explored in Court,
had Oswald lived.
Jackson
Martin Shackelford
weekend, so he had to come ahead of time. And the Paines were aware they
had curtain rods in their garage.
2) According to Frazier, the package carried by Oswald on Friday morning
was consistent with containing curtain rods. He had formerly worked at a
department store where curtain rods were sold.
3) You seem to be relying on the NAA work supporting the Single Bullet
Theory. Bullet lot comparisons, as it turns out, are meaningless, so the
lead smear doesn't tell us anything. If Oswald fired bullets at a rifle
range, as various witnesses testified, bullets from his rifle might well
have been obtainable.
4) Earwitness testimony in an environment filled with echoes tends to be
very confused--I wouldn't advise relying on it for any theory.
5) You assume that he was lying about everything.
Martin
David VP wrote:
> Excellent, Mel.
> I could almost swear I wrote every word of the above thread-starting
> post myself.
>
> Other questions that could be added would be:
>
> * If Oswald was really going to Irving for "curtain rods" on Thursday,
> why was he in such a big hurry to retrieve them? It HAD to be Thursday
> evidently...why? He would be going to Irving the very next day with Wes
> Frazier anyway (on Friday). He couldn't wait 24 more hours for his
> "rods"? And WHY didn't Marina or Ruth Paine know a thing about any
> curtain rods?
>
> * Why does Oswald lie (twice) to Wesley Frazier re. the curtain rods?
> (It's obvious the "rod" story was a lie...based on no rods being found
> in LHO's home or in the TSBD after the shooting.)
>
> * Why were ONLY Oswald bullets/fragments/shells found anywhere near the
> shooting scene (TSBD/Parkland/Inside the limo)? How on EARTH did the
> plotters manage to perfectly "plant" Oswald-incriminating bullet
> fragments inside the President's limousine? Where did the plotters get
> these fragments? Through what hard object was that bullet fired into
> that produced those nice-looking "could be from the head shot"
> fragments? (Fragments that look absolutely PERFECT with respect to the
> question: Could these fragments have come out of JFK's head after he
> was shot from behind?)
>
> Did these same plotters smear lead on the inside of the windshield too?
> Or was the lead smear from a bullet from some OTHER assassination
> attempt involving the limousine that nobody knew about prior to 1963?
>
> * Why did less than 5% of all DP earwitnesses hear shots from just A
> SINGLE LOCATION (be it front or rear) on 11/22? If the Oliver Stone
> theory of "3 Shooters" is anywhere near true, is it even REMOTELY
> possible/probable that just FOUR measly witnesses would have said they
> heard shots from "2 Locations"? (And even those few witnesses must have
> GOTTEN IT WRONG, too...per Stone/Garrison/Groden's theories...because
> they heard shots from just TWO (not 3) different locales.
>
> To think that 3 assassins were shooting up the joint FROM
> OBVIOUSLY-OPPOSITE SIDES of Dealey Plaza...and yet having ZERO
> witnesses hear shots from ALL THREE locations (and virtually none from
> even TWO locales!) is simply...impossible (or "preposterous"...take
> your pick).
>
> * Why did every single newsman/reporter who was in a direct position to
> report the shooting to America and the world report hearing precisely
> "three shots" immediately after the shooting? Which is the exact number
> of gunshots that (amazingly) the plotters NEED to have reported and
> heard throughout DP to make their "Perfect Patsy Plot" go off like
> clockwork.
>
> Were Merriman Smith, Bob Clark, Jay Bell, Jerry Haynes, and Jay Watson
> (among other reporters) part of the "cover up" and conspiracy too?
> (Which must, therefore, have begun just MINUTES after the last shot was
> fired.)
>
> * Why does Oswald tell lie after lie to police after his arrest if he's
WhiskyJoe
> Why did these 'sophisticated, government-led conspirators' allow Oswald
to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time when he
could have 'confessed'.
This is a very excellent point.
Supposedly, the police helped setup Oswald to be killed by Ruby. The most
amazing part about this is not that the police allowed Oswald almost 48
hours to live. The amazing part is that they allow the press to have
multiple opportunities to question Oswald, on movie picture cameras, with
sound, during those 48 hours.
They need Oswald to answer some questions. So they take him out of his
cell and run him past a bunch of reports where they ask him any question
they want and he can give any answer he wants. For all they know, he
could, at any time, name names, on camera. And when they are done, what do
they do? Why they run him pass the gauntlet of reporters again to go back
to his cell of course.
Have another eyewitness show up who can point out Oswald at the window or
at the Tippet murder scene? That calls for a couple of more runs by Oswald
past the reporters, of course. Even after Oswald declares that he's just a
patsy and the police know he's liable to talk, he's liable to implicate
the other conspirators which could lead back to them being exposed, they
can't let a little thing like that interfere with Oswald's First Amendment
Rights. So Oswald is still allowed to continue talking to reporters later.
What could the police have done differently? Gosh, I don't know. How about
clearing the building of reporters? Yes, the reporters may raise a minor
fuss about that, but not the kind of fuss they will raise if Oswald names
names. The whole purpose of killing Oswald is to shut him up. So why allow
him multiple opportunities to talk to reporters? Why not just leave him in
his cell until it's his time to die?
So the whole story is, is that Oswald was setup as the patsy, even though
he was in on the conspiracy, at least to the point that he knew who was
involved after the fact. First of all, this makes no sense. Why frame
someone who is part of the conspiracy? Why not frame someone who is truly
innocent, who knows nothing? This way there is no way you will have to use
Ruby to kill him. You know, beyond all doubt, that that man will never
talk, because he knows nothing.
So apparently, the idea was to frame Oswald, have him arrested, and let
him take the blame. They could have killed him easily in the theater,
surely the bad cops must have known Oswald was at the theater long before
the good cops did. They have the perfect opportunity to kill him there, in
the dark, and plant a gun, so they have the perfect excuse for killing
him, self defense. But instead of doing this, they decide to have him
arrested and let him stand trial and take the blame. But then, after
Oswald was arrested, they discovered something they did not anticipate.
And that was, that for some reason, Oswald seem to feel some resentment
toward his fellow conspirators for framing him. So he declares himself to
be a "Patsy". So this changes everything. They can't let him go to trial.
So they arrange for Ruby to kill Oswald. But there are several problems.
Why do the police only allow Ruby to get off one shot? One shot is not
necessarily fatal.
Why doesn't Ruby shoot Oswald in the head, as is done in standard mob
hits, to make a sure kill? Why is Oswald only shot with one bullet and
that in the abdomen?
If this plan doesn't work well, if Oswald survives, then the police will
not have one, but two men, who have a reason for feeling resentment toward
their fellow conspirators.
And even if the plan works perfectly, it will substitute one man who feels
resentment for being made to go to jail while his fellow conspirators go
free, with another man who feels resentment for being made to go to jail
while his fellow conspirators go free.
So, the critical questions are:
1. Why frame someone who has some information about the other
conspirators? Why not frame someone who knows nothing?
2. Why not kill Oswald? Why do they allow him to be arrested? Why would
they not anticipate that arresting Oswald is not a good idea? After all,
he now has nothing to lose. He's sure to be executed. He might as well
talk and there is no time like the present. He could, and would have,
talked to reporters immediately about who was involved.
3. Could they not kill Oswald because it would look bad? How could it look
bad when Oswald was struggling against the police for several seconds
while they tried to get his gun away from him. If they kill him then, no
one can seriously question the police for their actions.
3. Why allow Oswald so much access to reporters, on camera, while in jail?
4. Why allow Ruby to take only one shot?
5. Why did they not anticipate that they will have the same problem with
Ruby that they had with Oswald, for very similar reasons?
Mel Ayton
The only rational response in a sea of speculation and irrational
reasoning. Conspiracy advocates are again twisting the recorded facts
of the case.Read the responses about Ruby again - same old, same old.
These people will simply not accept anything that takes away from their
ridiculous non-factual theories.
*Book Depository windows - what kind of intelligent conspirator would
not be aware that agents of police officers would not be scanning the
buildings?
*Roger Craig - I thought his ridiculous fantasizing had been cleared
up.
* You don't try to shoot your arresting officers if you are INNOCENT.
* Wedding ring - A coincidence, then, that he broke up with Marina on
the morning of the assasination? and left her the remaining money he
had, apart from a few dollars?
*Time and time again the photographs have been proven to be genuine-
and Marina admitted taking them - yet conspiracy advocates STILL claim
they were doctored.
*There is absoultely no reason why the Dallas police officer would lie
about Oswald saying 'It's all over now'. This is yet another example
how CT's simply pour doubt on everything.
*'Dissing the president by staying in the domino room' and 'The Weather
was nice' - these are risible.
*If you want to know why Giancana was 'rubbed out' read a biography of
Tony Accardo.Likewise, if you want to know why Hoffa was 'rubbed oit'
read Charles Brandt's book, 'I Heard You Paint Houses'.Rosselli?, no
problem, it was Santo.What's unusual about gangsters who get killed? -
happens all the time - the Castro plot is a red herring.
These comments are the same type of 'wriggling' that got OJ Simpson
off.
Anthony Marsh
> "Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141809858.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>> morning of the assassination?
>
> These mythical conspirators could have adjusted plans with little or no
> problem by having a kill zone selected for later in the day or trip when
> JFK would be exposed. That's what writers call the "Plan B" attack. You
> on the other hand have to establish that DP was the only kill zone and
> that if the "bubble top' was used JFK would have been un harmed. You also
> have to ignore considerations such as a "street demonstration" where shots
> would have been fired, without motive and intent to kill, because the limo
> had the top on as it passed through DP.
>
> Conspiratorial Motive and intent to kill JFK is not limited to 12:30,
> November 22, 1963 in DP, just because that's when it happened. What if 26
> (A-Z) prior plans had failed?
>
>> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>
> Have you fired a MC through material used in the bubble top, from the
> distance fired?
>
I believe similar tests have been done. And probably a precise test
could be done. Are you suggesting that such a test should be done? I
have offered to include specific tests in my group of shooting tests.
But I would require that suggesters stipulate as to what material is
used for the test. Do you have any suggestions? Want to fire it
yourself? Record it? Document it?
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
>> book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
>> depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
>> assassination?
>
> How could Oswald? If the Mythical Conspirators could not maintain the SN
> under complete control, how could Oswald?
Indeed. Most snipers operate in teams of two with the spotter acting as
protection for the main sniper.
>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
>> Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
>> buildings along the presidential route?
>
> How could Oswald? If Oswald had no need to worry about the DPD or SS why
> should your Mythical Conspirators?
>
>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
>> be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
>> freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
>> have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
>
> Any and all last minute changes to the motorcade were by the direction of
> JFK. It had been presented that the motorcade would follow a published
> route, if the target failed to appear, within a specific time
> period.....the next plan would have started.
>
There was in fact no last minute change to the route. And JFK had no
direct input on the motorcade route. That decision was between the Dallas
SS and Dallas police.
But in fact the motorcade was running late due to JFK's wishes and
actions. So, just to be a PITA I could make up the same type of ridiculous
questions and ask how the conspirators knew that the motorcade was running
late. Duh! By listening to the radio and who cares if it is 5 minutes late
when they are already in place!
I notice that our antagonist never asked any questions about
unidentified prints.
>
>> * The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
>> honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
>> rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
>> investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
>> forward to testify to this? In an age when government employees have
>> been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
>> information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
>> still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
>
> There's nothing for them to be afraid of even if there was another rifle
> found. Some type of "threat" to the Mythical Conspirators has to delveope
> in order for fear to be a consideration. Another rifle in itself is no
> threat unless it can be shown to have been used in the actual
> assassination.
>
It could have been left behind by Castor from the day before.
Anthony Marsh
That is why they placed an insurance shot on the grassy knoll. Who did
not start shooting until it looked like JFK would escape alive. And no
one would bother him because he had genuine SS identification.
>
>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
>> be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
>> freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
>> have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
>
> Why would they necessarily care? They would have gone to wherever the
> limo had gone. If a military ambush had to be planned with as much
> forethought as you and Rahn imply, the history of war would have to be
> dramatically rewritten.
>
>
Well, all they had to do was listen to the radio.
Look for a parallel in the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
>> * Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
>> the shot missed the president. If this is true why didn't anyone see or
>> hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
>> injuries from it? Police searched the area and found nothing. The
>> purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
>> 'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
>
> Plenty of witnesses saw what could have been bullet impacts. Don
> Roberdeau could probably list about 8 for you. You need to study up. And
> didn't James Tague suffer injuries from a misfired bullet?
>
No one can yet prove which shot injured Tague. There have even been WC
defenders who claim that it was not a shot which injured Tague. One
claimed that he was never injured at all and made up the story seeking
fame. Another claimed that he cut himself shaving. Another claimed that
the mark on the curb was caused by a car's wheel weight scrapping it.
And no WC defenders dare to ask Ken the simple statistics problems that I
have asked many times which Ken constantly ducks because he considers it
rude to challenge a scientist.
Anthony Marsh
> Excellent, Mel.
> I could have sworn I wrote the above laundry list of questions myself.
>
> A few more that could be added.........
>
> 1.) If Oswald was really going to Irving for "curtain rods" on
> Thursday, why was he in such a big hurry to retrieve them? It HAD to be
> Thursday evidently...why? He would be going to Irving the very next day
Maybe Oswald's only mission was not getting the curtain rods. Maybe it
was time to confront Marina and either get her to rejoin him or
permanently separate.
> with Wes Frazier anyway (on Friday). He couldn't wait 24 more hours for
> his "rods"? And WHY didn't Marina or Ruth Paine know a thing about any
> curtain rods?
>
Did Oswald tell them everything? He didn't even tell them about the
alias he had used for the room in the rooming house.
> 2.) Why does Oswald lie (twice) to Wesley Frazier re. the curtain rods?
> (It's obvious the "rod" story was a lie...based on no rods being found
> in LHO's home or in the TSBD after the shooting.)
>
How do you know that. You only assume it was a lie because you are
unaware of anyone finding curtain rods. Maybe they were found in the
TSBD and made to disappear.
> 3.) Why were ONLY Oswald bullets/fragments/shells found anywhere near
> the shooting scene (TSBD/Parkland/Inside the limo)? How on EARTH did
And how do you know that? I don't agree with John Hunt's theory, but he
has suggested that some evidence was made to disappear. And maybe
authorities lied about other pieces of evidence which they could not fit
into a lone assassin scenario, such as the dent of the chrome topping or
the hole in the floor of the limousine.
> the plotters manage to perfectly "plant" Oswald-incriminating bullet
> fragments inside the President's limousine? Where did the plotters get
By using Oswald's rifle and ammunition.
> these fragments? Through what hard object was that bullet fired into
> that produced those nice-looking "could be from the head shot"
> fragments? (Fragments that look absolutely PERFECT with respect to the
> question: Could these fragments have come out of JFK's head after he
> was shot from behind?)
>
We can't be sure which fragments you are talking about. The two large
fragments found in the front seat are not solely indicative of a head
wound. They could have been from Connally's wrist wound.
> Did these same plotters smear lead on the inside of the windshield too?
> Or was the lead smear from a bullet from some OTHER assassination
> attempt involving the limousine that nobody knew about prior to 1963?
>
Well, don't put it past the SS to lie about that just as they lied about
the dent of the chrome topping. I don't see you ridiculing them for that
obvious lie.
The lead smear on the inside of the windshield could have come from a
shot which hit Connally's wrist. In fact, detailed analysis might show
that the windshield was not damaged at Z-313.
> 4.) Why did less than 5% of all DP earwitnesses hear shots from MORE
> THAN JUST A SINGLE LOCATION (be it front or rear) on 11/22? If the
> Oliver Stone theory of "3 Shooters" is anywhere near true, is it even
> REMOTELY possible/probable that just FOUR measly witnesses would have
> said they heard shots from "2 Locations"? (And even those few witnesses
> must have GOTTEN IT WRONG, too...per Stone/Garrison/Groden's
> theories...because they heard shots from just TWO (not 3) different
> locales.
Two of the 3 shooters might be so close to each other in the TSBD that
no one could distinguish the difference.
>
> To think that 3 assassins were shooting up the joint FROM
> OBVIOUSLY-OPPOSITE SIDES of Dealey Plaza...and yet having ZERO
> witnesses hear shots from ALL THREE locations (and virtually zero from
> even TWO distinctly-different directions!) is simply...impossible -- or
> "preposterous"...take your pick.
>
The grassy knoll shooter was not even supposed to fire unless the
President had not been killed by the time he passed that position.
Something went wrong. The Oswald rifle jammed and there was a gap of 5
seconds.
> And the standard pro-CT argument re. "silencers" being utilized is a
> silly one for CTers to use -- unless those same CTers want to
> completely toss aside all the various witnesses they've used for years
> who have said they heard shots from the "front" (Knoll). Because it's
> just silly to think (particularly within a "One Patsy" context) that
> these brainless "plotters" would want to "silence" only SOME of the
> non-LHO shots, but not others.
Conspirators would want to have some shots very loud, especially
Oswald's rifle in order to frame him. Other shots from other directions
could be silencers, but I now tend to doubt it. BTW, designing a
silencer for the M-C is no piece of cake.
>
> 5.) Why did every single newsman/reporter who was in a direct position
> to report the shooting to America and the world report hearing
> precisely "three shots" immediately after the shooting? Which is the
> exact number of gunshots that (amazingly) the plotters NEED to have
> reported and heard throughout DP to make their "Perfect Patsy Plot" go
> off like clockwork.
Because of their locations on Houston Street, as most witnesses heard
only the three shots from the sniper's nest.
>
> Were Merriman Smith, Bob Clark, Jack Bell, Jerry Haynes, Robert
> MacNeil, Pierce Allman, and Jay Watson (among others) part of the
> "cover up" and conspiracy too? (Which must, therefore, have begun just
> MINUTES after the last shot was fired.)
>
Could be. Who says the cover-up had to start that early?
> 6.) Why does Oswald tell lie after lie to police after his arrest if
> he's truly an "innocent Patsy"? (Do "truly innocent" people NEED to lie
> this much?)
>
Truly innocent people need to lie all the time because they are paranoid
and the police are trying to railroad them.
Anthony Marsh
> On 10 Mar 2006 00:24:25 -0500, "Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>> morning of the assassination?
>> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>
> What would they have done if the motorcade was cancelled?
>
As it was in another city due to threats. Maybe the original plans were
for another city and Dallas was the backup plan.
> What would they have done if their people were spotted before the
> motorcade arrived in the area?
>
They would have flashed their SS identification and told the people to
move along.
> They would simply have tried again, later.
>
>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
>> book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
>> depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
>> assassination?
>
> If they had been discovered by employees, they would undoubtedly, have
> killed them or at least tied them up and gagged them.
>
Or flashed their SS identification and told them to go down to the first
floor and stay away from the windows.
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
>> Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
>> buildings along the presidential route?
>
> Because there were thousands of windows along the way - too many to
> all be secured.
>
And because the police and SS never before secured all the windows along
a motorcade route in a US city.
>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
>> be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
>> freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
>> have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
>
> They would have attacked somewhere else in Dallas.
>
> Duh.. these are pretty easy questions.
>
>
>> * Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
>> the shot missed the president.
>
> That's what Gerald Posner and pretty much everyone else believes.
>
> How long have you been doing this stuff?
>
>
>> If this is true why didn't anyone see or
>> hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
>> injuries from it?
>
> James Tague did.
>
> He suffered a tiny wound as a result of an obviously, missed shot.
>
Unless his injury was caused by a bullet which did hit someone in the
limousine and fragmented.
Anthony Marsh
> 1) You assume that the plan was inflexible; also that no one was
> watching the television coverage or observing at Love Field and could
> SEE there was no bubbletop. As for the bubbletop "ensuring any shots
> would like have been deflected," the bubbletop wasn't bulletproof and
> there is no guarantee it would have deflected "any shots."
>
No guarantee, but highly likely. This can be tested if you like.
> 2) You assume that the Sixth Floor SE corner window was the only firing
> point. If it wasn't, Williams could have remained and the plan adjusted.
> Who was standing in the West End Sixth Floor window, Mel (can be seen in
> Tom Dillard's photo).
>
Or the lookout man could have flashed his SS identification and told him
to go down to the first floor.
> 3) Where did you get the idea (unless from faulty conspiracy arguments)
> that it was customary or even POSSIBLE to secure all windows in a major
> downtown area. It wasn't and still isn't. Far too many windows, and far
> too few personnel for the purpose.
>
Probably from Prouty, who pretended to be an expert.
Maybe he got distracted when a cop almost shot him to death.
Anthony Marsh
> Mel Ayton wrote:
>>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>> morning of the assassination?
>> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>
> The Warren Report stated that the bubble top was neither bullet proof,
> nor bullet RESISTANT. This indicates to me that it would not have caused
> a deflection. I'm no expert on these matters, though - just my
> understanding of "resistant".
>
Au contraire. A material does not have to be bullet proof or bullet
resistant in order to deflect a bullet. This can be demonstrated
experimentally.
> In any case, there may have been a back up plan at the Trade Mart.
>
> Or... they may have just waited for another day... as seems to have been
> the case previously.
>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
>> book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
>> depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
>> assassination?
>
> Damn! Wouldn't you know it! Bonnie Ray didn't maention a blessed thing
> about going back to the 6th floor in his original statement. He said he
> went back up to the 5th floor with Shorty and Junior. Moreover, his
> later "improved" version has it that they all agreed to meet back on the
> 6th floor - an agreement that not only slipped everyone else's minds on
> the day, but continued to slip their minds in all statements and
> testimonies.
>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
>> Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
>> buildings along the presidential route?
>
> What did the Secret Service themselves say about that failure?
>
That was not a failure or an oversight. It was routine practice. Routine
sloppiness.
Anthony Marsh
> "Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141809858.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>> morning of the assassination?
>
> These mythical conspirators could have adjusted plans with little or no
> problem by having a kill zone selected for later in the day or trip when
> JFK would be exposed. That's what writers call the "Plan B" attack. You
> on the other hand have to establish that DP was the only kill zone and
> that if the "bubble top' was used JFK would have been un harmed. You also
> have to ignore considerations such as a "street demonstration" where shots
> would have been fired, without motive and intent to kill, because the limo
> had the top on as it passed through DP.
>
> Conspiratorial Motive and intent to kill JFK is not limited to 12:30,
> November 22, 1963 in DP, just because that's when it happened. What if 26
> (A-Z) prior plans had failed?
>
>> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>
> Have you fired a MC through material used in the bubble top, from the
> distance fired?
>
Such a test could be arranged. Why would it HAVE to be fired from the
assumed distance if we can't prove what the muzzle velocity of that
particular shot would have been?
robert harris
"Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com> wrote:
> Excellent, David,
Hi Mel,
Why do you only respond to people on your side? If your theories were
correct, don't you think you would be able to defend them?
Why don't your reply to what I said, instead of evading it?
(reposted)
>
>
>* How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>morning of the assassination?
>Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
What would they have done if the motorcade was cancelled?
What would they have done if their people were spotted before the
motorcade arrived in the area?
They would simply have tried again, later.
>
>* How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
>book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
>depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
>assassination?
If they had been discovered by employees, they would undoubtedly, have
killed them or at least tied them up and gagged them.
>
>* How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
>Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
>buildings along the presidential route?
Because there were thousands of windows along the way - too many to
all be secured.
>
>* How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
>be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
>freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
>have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
They would have attacked somewhere else in Dallas.
Duh.. these are pretty easy questions.
>
>* Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
>the shot missed the president.
That's what Gerald Posner and pretty much everyone else believes.
How long have you been doing this stuff?
>If this is true why didn't anyone see or
>hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
>injuries from it?
James Tague did.
He suffered a tiny wound as a result of an obviously, missed shot.
>Police searched the area and found nothing.
Wrong again.
The same shot that caused Tague's wound, caused a fresh and visible
lead smear on the Main St. curbing.
>The
>purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
>'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
Perhaps, but I would bet the ranch that you can't prove it:-)
>
>* If Oswald had no connection to the rifle why were his fingerprints
>and palmprint found on the rifle?
Because he *was* connected to the rifle.
>Are we to believe the claims of
>Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
>Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
>they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
>information?
The rifle was originally found to be free of fingerprints.
Anything and everything discovered later by the FBI labs, has to be
considered suspect.
But this issue has nothing to do with the conspiracy question. It is
only related to Oswald's participation in the attack.
>
>* The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
>honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
>rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
>investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
>forward to testify to this?
ATF agent Frank Ellsworth, who took part in the original search of the
Depository stated that DPD officers told him, they found TWO rifles in
the building, including one on the fifth floor.
>In an age when government employees have
>been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
>information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
>still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
A small army of police officers and federal agents have blown their
whistles, but you guys just call them all liars or lunatics.
Would you like to see a list of some of them??
>
>* If Oswald was innocent, a 'patsy',
The question of Oswald's guilt, and the question of conspiracy, are
two seperate issues.
>why did he:
> * Lie about having lunch with 'Junior' Jarman, a book
>depository employee?
> *Leave the building after the assassination?
> *Collect his pistol from his rooming house?
> *Shoot Officer Tippit? (The evidence for this is
>'overwhelming')
> *Try to shoot his arresting officers?
> *Leave his wedding ring in a cup before he left for work?
> *Lie about the 'rifle photographs'?
> *Say "It's all over now." when he was arrested?
Oswald was very likely, involved in the assassination, if not as a
shooter, then in other ways. There is no doubt that he was on the
same page, politically, as the killers were.
>
>*Isn't it curious that someone who was extremely interested in
>politics, who subscibed to political periodicals and conversed
>frequently about political issues, did not take time out during his
>lunch break to see the most important political figure in the country?
>
>*If Oswald had made arrangements to spy for the CIA or military
>intelligence why did he attempt suicide in Moscow?
>
>*If Oswald had returned to the United States as a KGB agent why did he
>bring with him a Russian wife whose very presence would guarantee the
>attention of local and
>federal officials?
>
>*Why did these 'sophisticated, government-led conspirators' allow
>Oswald to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time
>when he could have 'confessed'.
>
>*Why didn't the conspirators silence Ruby as swiftly as they took
>care of Oswald?
>
>*If Oswald was knowingly involved in the conspiracy why was he so
>financially insecure?
NWR.
Are you actually claiming that there was no conspiracy because Oswald
didn't have much money?
>Oswald owed his New Orleans landlord 15 or 16
>days rent shortly before he left on his Mexico trip. If Oswald was
>conspiring to kill Kennedy at this time, as some conspiracy advocates
>claim, why would Oswald risk arrest by the police for non-payment of
>his rent?
>
>*Oswald arrived at the School Book Depository on the morning of
>November 22nd. 1963 wearing a blue jacket. It was later found in the
>'domino room' of the book depository late in
>November. If Oswald was correct in saying he left the building because
>he guessed there would be no further work that day why didn't he take
>his jacket with him?
>
>When considering Jack Ruby's part in that tragic weekend there are a
>number of questions conspiracists have never satisfactorially
>answered:
>
>*Because of Postal Inspector Holmes' unintentional movements which
>delayed the transfer of Oswald does this mean that Holmes was
>conspiratorially involved?
No, but it seems pretty obvious, that the post office assisted the
FBI, in removing documentation regarding authorized users of Oswald's
PO box, which they were required to retain.
>
>*If Ruby had wanted to silence Oswald, why didn't he kill Oswald on
>Friday evening when he had a perfect opportunity? (Ruby told a police
>officer, 'I didn't want to hit one of you guys'.)
Ruby didn't really *want* to kill Oswald at all, an act which was
bound to either result in his own death, or life in prison.
>
>*If Ruby were conspiratorially involved why did he volunteer to take a
>lie detector test against the wishes of his lawyers?
Because he knew he would fail the questions related to his
participation in the conspiracy, which of course, he did.
Ruby had to have wanted to make a deal, to at the very least, stay out
of the electric chair. But he would have been equally doomed, if he
had ratted out his partners, who included organized crime types.
He wanted to take the polygraph, so that he could be "caught' and make
it appear that he was forced to talk.
Unfortunately, the FBI was not about to let him tell any lies:-)
If you doubt that, then you need to read the analysis of his polygraph
by the HSCA polygraph panel. Their entire report is included in this
article:
http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html
>
>*If Ruby were conspiratorially involved isn't it logical to assume that
>his rabbi would have found some evidence of conspiracy in his many
>conversations with Ruby?
Why?
Ruby had no problem admitting to the murder of Oswald, and so would
have received whatever absolution his religion permitted him.
>
>*Why did Ruby leave his dog Sheba in the car when he walked to the
>Dallas police department from the Western Union Office? Ruby was so
>attached to his dogs he referred to Sheba as his 'wife' and the other
>dogs as his children. Friends of Ruby have said he would never have
>done that if he had planned the shooting in advance and known he would
>be taken into custody.
Why not?
The weather was cool in late November and regardless of where he left
the dog, he would have had to have a friend pick it up and take care
of it.
As a dog lover myself, I have no doubt, that in a situation where I
would never see my pet again, I would want to take her with me on the
very last opportunity we would have to be together.
Is this really the best arguments you guys can come up with:-)
Robert Harris
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
--
Robert Harris
www.jfkhistory.com
robert harris
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> Excellent, Mel.
> I could almost swear I wrote every word of the above thread-starting
> post myself.
>
> Other questions that could be added would be:
>
> * If Oswald was really going to Irving for "curtain rods" on Thursday,
> why was he in such a big hurry to retrieve them? It HAD to be Thursday
> evidently...why? He would be going to Irving the very next day with Wes
> Frazier anyway (on Friday). He couldn't wait 24 more hours for his
> "rods"? And WHY didn't Marina or Ruth Paine know a thing about any
> curtain rods?
>
> * Why does Oswald lie (twice) to Wesley Frazier re. the curtain rods?
> (It's obvious the "rod" story was a lie...based on no rods being found
> in LHO's home or in the TSBD after the shooting.)
David, you really do need to do your homework.
There were indeed, curtain rods found in the Paine's garage, wrapped in
brown paper and matching perfectly with Frazier's description.
Ruth Paine testified to their presence in her garage, in her WC
testimony, although she said she hadn't examined them for a long time -
even before the assassination.
The WC was eager to examine her garage, for the obvious reason, that if
they were not there any more, then that would suggest that Oswald took
them.
So, they went out to Paine's home on the 23rd, and to their great
relief, the rods were sitting on a shelf, neatly wrapped in brown paper.
That should have settled the issue, except for one small problem.
Years later, as DPD documents were released, forms were found which
documented the fingerprints on those curtain rods, and claiming they
weren't Oswald's.
But those forms were dated 3-15-64, eight days before they were picked up
from Paine's garage.
Obviously, they had been put back in the garage, sometime prior to the
23rd so that they could be confirmed by the WC.
I have no doubt that you will just label this as blunder number two
zillion, by those Keystone cops in Dallas. But accurate dating procedures
are critical in any police department, evidence lockup. They are trained
to be fanatical about it, since they could lose a prosecution if a wrong
date, destroyed their chain of evidence.
Of course, this little scam doesn't exhonerate Oswald. But it tells us a
great deal about the authorities whom you rely on to support your theory
that one man carried out the attack alone.
Robert Harris
--
Robert Harris
www.jfkhistory.com
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Mel Ayton wrote:
> >
> > * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
> > top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
> > morning of the assassination?
> > Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
> > limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
> >
>
> Then Oswald would not even try because it had been raining that morning
> and he would expect the limousine has its roof on.
I`m sure Oz was up on all the nuances of the limo. The only problem
I can see the bubble causing a shooter would be image refraction.
> > * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
> > book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
> > depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
> > assassination?
> >
>
> How could Oswald be sure that he wouldn't be interrupted? Hence he
> picked a precarious sniper's nest.
Quite adequate for the task as it turned out.
> > * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
> > Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
> > buildings along the presidential route?
> >
>
> Then Oswald would not have picked that window because he knew it would
> be guarded. BTW, it was never standard practice close all windows and
> guard all buildings in a US city. You are perpetuating a myth.
>
> > * How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
> > be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
> > freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
> > have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
> >
>
> Another myth. The route was not changed at the last minute. Anyone could
> know the exact route simply by reading a newspaper. Are you suggesting
> that professional assassins are not even able to read a map?
>
> > * Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
> > the shot missed the president. If this is true why didn't anyone see or
> > hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
> > injuries from it? Police searched the area and found nothing. The
> > purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
> > 'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
> >
>
> Then why didn't anyone see or hear the impact of the bullet or suffer
> injuries from the shot which the WC said missed? Or are you just
> dismissing any witnesses who made claims of hearing such shots?
Could have been an accidental discharge while getting into position.
> > * If Oswald had no connection to the rifle why were his fingerprints
> > and palmprint found on the rifle? Are we to believe the claims of
> > Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
> > Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
> > they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
> > information?
> >
>
> Only a few wackos would bother to keep claiming that it was not Oswald's
> rifle. How can you frame Oswald for the crime if you don't use his rifle?
And fire from Oz`s work using Oz`s fingerprints.
> > * The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
> > honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
> > rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
> > investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
> > forward to testify to this? In an age when government employees have
> > been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
> > information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
> > still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
> >
>
> It doesn't matter how many investigators you can find to come forward to
> testify. Maybe 4 or 5. But it is still just an honest mistake. It LOOKED
> like a Mauser to Weitzman.
> If everyone is leaking documents nowadays, then why are so many JFK
> documents still being withheld?
>
> > * If Oswald was innocent, a 'patsy', why did he:
> > * Lie about having lunch with 'Junior' Jarman, a book
> > depository employee?
>
> Or why did the WC lie about their having seen Oswald?
They did say they say or heard Oz on the upper floors of the TSBD
when they broke for lunch.
> > *Leave the building after the assassination?
>
> Several people left the building. It was sealed off by the police. So,
> every person who left the building is a suspect?
Just the ones who left their rifles with their fingerprints on them.
> > *Collect his pistol from his rooming house?
>
> You know how those boys down there in Texas are about their guns.
Especially violent leftist political fanatics like Oz..
> > *Shoot Officer Tippit? (The evidence for this is
> > 'overwhelming')
>
> Panic.
You bet. He had already committed one murder he could expect to burn
for.
> > *Try to shoot his arresting officers?
> To avoid arrest. Duh!
But many are unable to make the connection between attempted murders
and successful ones. Double-duh.
> > *Leave his wedding ring in a cup before he left for work?
>
> To finally break up with Marina.
Just a coincidence he did this the day before he was implicated in a
few murders, eh?
> > *Lie about the 'rifle photographs'?
>
> Maybe he didn't lie. Maybe the authorities lied about what he said.
Ah, yes, that is the type of thinking that prevents many from
figuring out what happened that day.
> > *Say "It's all over now." when he was arrested?
>
> How do we know what he really said? Did you even quote him accurately?
<snicker> The guy doesn`t seem a talker, but everything he says is
disputed. Marina reounts conversations with her husband which are
diregarded by many. Cops say he said this and that, and that counts for
zip. Yet, when he gives a reason for his arrest that makes no sense
whatsoever (because he lived in the Soviet Union), and that is considered
golden by the CT.
> >
> > *Isn't it curious that someone who was extremely interested in
> > politics, who subscibed to political periodicals and conversed
> > frequently about political issues, did not take time out during his
> > lunch break to see the most important political figure in the country?
> >
>
> Maybe he was dissing the President by staying in the Domino room.
And the people who were framing him were counting on this "dissing"?
Is it any wonder that the WC version of events is the only reasonable
explaination available?
> > *If Oswald had made arrangements to spy for the CIA or military
> > intelligence why did he attempt suicide in Moscow?
> >
>
> Was it a genuine attempt or only half-hearted to elicit sympathy?
Unfortunately a unsuccesful attempt.
> > *If Oswald had returned to the United States as a KGB agent why did he
> > bring with him a Russian wife whose very presence would guarantee the
> > attention of local and
> > federal officials?
>
> Why not? He was already a known defector who had triggered intelligence
> alerts. Surely he would not be ignored.
Yah, he was KGB gathering information ablout what books Texas school
kids were reading.
> > *Why did these 'sophisticated, government-led conspirators' allow
> > Oswald to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time
> > when he could have 'confessed'.
>
> Well, Oswald was supposed to be killed on Friday night, but Ruby could
> not get off a clear shot.
"supposed to be"? Ruby said he considered shooting Oz then, but
rejected it.
So he instead took a shirt that had no buttons from the domino room
instead, in case a description of the shooters clothing had gone out.
> > When considering Jack Ruby's part in that tragic weekend there are a
> > number of questions conspiracists have never satisfactorially
> > answered:
> >
> > *Because of Postal Inspector Holmes' unintentional movements which
> > delayed the transfer of Oswald does this mean that Holmes was
> > conspiratorially involved?
> >
>
> No.
No, if Oz was taken out earlier, Ruby would have missed him being
taken out. Mere chance and happenstance intersected the path of these
two violent and unstable individuals
> > *If Ruby had wanted to silence Oswald, why didn't he kill Oswald on
> > Friday evening when he had a perfect opportunity? (Ruby told a police
> > officer, 'I didn't want to hit one of you guys'.)
> >
>
> Because there were too many reporters in the way, so he couldn't get off
> a clear shot.
Yah, I`m sure after the first shot, the reporters would have formed
a human barricade around Oz to protect him.
> > *If Ruby were conspiratorially involved why did he volunteer to take a
> > lie detector test against the wishes of his lawyers?
> >
>
> Hoping that he could convince people that he was not involved in the
> murder of the President.
He wasn`t. Nor was he part of a conspiracy. Just Jack Ruby,
occasionally impulsive and violent, and the right man in the right
place.
> > *If Ruby were conspiratorially involved isn't it logical to assume that
> > his rabbi would have found some evidence of conspiracy in his many
> > conversations with Ruby?
> >
>
> No, but why should we believe anything that his Rabbi said, especially
> if he was a Mob flunky?
>
> > *Why did Ruby leave his dog Sheba in the car when he walked to the
> > Dallas police department from the Western Union Office? Ruby was so
> > attached to his dogs he referred to Sheba as his 'wife' and the other
> > dogs as his children. Friends of Ruby have said he would never have
> > done that if he had planned the shooting in advance and known he would
> > be taken into custody.
> >
>
> Maybe the Western Union had a no pets policy.
So did the Dallas lockup.
> Forget what friends of a murderer say.
Oz didn`t have any friends.
>
> >
Martin Shackelford
yourself.
1) A well-informed conspirator would KNOW that windows weren't
thoroughly screened. A lone nut, on the other hand, probably wouldn't.
2) You make some of your points by blending responses and pretending
that everyone agrees on the items you criticize. Clearly Roger Craig was
wrong about the Mauser. Very few CTs still argue for a Mauser.
3) In the theater, it seems likely that Oswald was trying to avoid being
shot himself by creating a highly visible event.
4) Apparently Oswald wasn't expecting to stay in Dallas. There are more
interpretations that the one you seem to insist upon.
5) Most now accept the backyard photos as authentic, particularly since
Marina confirmed this to Walt Brown in 1995.
6) One officer reported Oswald as saying "It's all over now." Other
officers reported him saying other things. Maybe he said them all, maybe
some officers invented quotes, who knows.
7) What raised doubts was not simply that "gangsters get killed all the
time"--we ALL know that, Mel. Questions arose when a bunch of them who
were being sought to testify in the JFK matter all died in a very short
period of time, as did other witnesses.
You are much better at dismissing and avoiding issues than addressing them.
Martin
Peter Fokes
mmm ?
PF
David VP
11/22. But that really only further proves that Oswald was a lying
double-murderer, rather than an innocent Pawn/Patsy.
And why didn't Ruth Paine or Marina know anything about Oswald's coming
to the Paine home on Thursday to get the rods? Ruth was quite surprised
when Lee showed up on Thursday, and so was Marina. It was the first
time he'd ever come without calling first to ask specific permission
from Ruth.
And Lee said nothing to Ruth about wanting to pick up some curtain rods
there. That's a key point....unless you feel that Lee would have just
said nothing to Ruth and slipped out of her house with Ruth's property
in tow. They were the Paine's curtain rods after all, NOT Lee's and
Marina's property.
Via Ruth Paine's WC testimony re. the "rods":
Mr. JENNER - Had there been any conversation between you and Lee
Oswald, or between you and Marina, or any conversation taking place in
your presence prior to this occasion, in which the subject of curtain
rods was mentioned?
Mrs. PAINE - No; there was no such conversation.
Mr. JENNER - Was the subject of curtain rods--had that ever been
mentioned during all of these weekends that Lee Oswald had come to your
home, commencing, I think you said, with his first return on October 4,
1963?
Mrs. PAINE - It. had not been mentioned.
----
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; they {the curtain rods} were stored in the garage,
wrapped in loose brown paper.
Mr. JENNER - Is it the brown paper of the nature and character you
described yesterday that you get at the market and have in a roll?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Had you wrapped that package yourself?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Now, curtain rods can be of various types. One type of
curtain rod, as I remember, is a solid brass rod. Others are hollow.
Some are shaped. Would you describe these curtain rods, please?
Mrs. PAINE - They were a light weight.
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me; do you still have them?
Mrs. PAINE - I still have them.
----
Senator COOPER - Did you wrap these rods in the paper? Had you wrapped
them?
Mrs. PAINE - Sometime previously I had.
Senator COOPER - How long before?
Mrs. PAINE - Oh, possibly a year.
Senator COOPER - As far as you know, they had never been changed?
Mrs. PAINE - Moved about, but not changed.
----
So, via Robert H.'s theory....Oswald literally STOLE Ruth Paine's
curtain rods from the Paine garage on the morning of 11/22, and then
either left them in the TSBD after 12:33 PM on that day, or took them
home with him to 1026 Beckley (even though there's nothing in the
record by Mrs. Robert Reid, Mary Bledsoe, Cecil McWatters, William
Whaley, or Earlene Roberts about any of these witnesses seeing Oswald
carrying any brown paper package after 12:33 PM on Nov. 22nd).
The cops/FBI/Santa Claus' elves then, after 11/22 sometime, retrieved
the rods where Oswald left them and then "planted" them back into the
Paine garage (without any non-plotters noticing this...as per usual).
So...once again -- IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN "PLANTED" BY EVIL-DOERS...IT
WAS DONE THAT WAY.
Correct?
CTers give a new meaning to "paranoia" every time they open their
mouths. This thread alone reeks of CTer desperation. Incredible. But
keep going...it's quite hilarious.
Next up --
Can some staunch CTer who's in the proverbial "Oswald Didn't Kill
Tippit Either" camp tell the world how the actual Tippit murder weapon
was "planted" on Lee Oswald without him even knowing it, just after
somebody ELSE killed Officer Tippit with it. (That one is always good
for a few giggles.)
greg
> greg wrote:
>
>> Mel Ayton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>>> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>>> morning of the assassination?
>>> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>>> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>>
>>
>> The Warren Report stated that the bubble top was neither bullet proof,
>> nor bullet RESISTANT. This indicates to me that it would not have
>> caused a deflection. I'm no expert on these matters, though - just my
>> understanding of "resistant".
>>
>
> Au contraire. A material does not have to be bullet proof or bullet
> resistant in order to deflect a bullet. This can be demonstrated
> experimentally.
Thank you, Tony. The questions then become, how likely was it that
bullets would deflect? In any risk assessment, would that likelihood be
sufficient to abort?
>> In any case, there may have been a back up plan at the Trade Mart.
>>
>> Or... they may have just waited for another day... as seems to have
>> been the case previously.
>>
>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
>>> book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
>>> depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
>>> assassination?
>>
>>
>> Damn! Wouldn't you know it! Bonnie Ray didn't maention a blessed thing
>> about going back to the 6th floor in his original statement. He said
>> he went back up to the 5th floor with Shorty and Junior. Moreover, his
>> later "improved" version has it that they all agreed to meet back on
>> the 6th floor - an agreement that not only slipped everyone else's
>> minds on the day, but continued to slip their minds in all statements
>> and testimonies.
>>
>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
>>> Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
>>> buildings along the presidential route?
>>
>>
>> What did the Secret Service themselves say about that failure?
>>
>
> That was not a failure or an oversight. It was routine practice. Routine
> sloppiness.
Yep. I knew it was routine practice. I consider sloppiness a failure.
greg
greg
> "Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1141809858.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>>top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>>morning of the assassination?
>>Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>>limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>>
>>book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
>>depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
>>assassination?
>>
>>Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
>>buildings along the presidential route?
>>
>>be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
>>freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
>>have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
>>
>>the shot missed the president. If this is true why didn't anyone see or
>>hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
>>injuries from it? Police searched the area and found nothing. The
>>purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
>>'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
>>
>>and palmprint found on the rifle? Are we to believe the claims of
>>Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
>>Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
>>they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
>>information?
>>
>>honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
>>rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
>>investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
>>been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
>>information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
>>still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
>>
>> * Lie about having lunch with 'Junior' Jarman, a book
>>depository employee?
>>'overwhelming')
>>
>>*Isn't it curious that someone who was extremely interested in
>>politics, who subscibed to political periodicals and conversed
>>frequently about political issues, did not take time out during his
>>lunch break to see the most important political figure in the country?
>>
>>intelligence why did he attempt suicide in Moscow?
>>
>>bring with him a Russian wife whose very presence would guarantee the
>>attention of local and
>>federal officials?
>>
>>Oswald to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time
>>when he could have 'confessed'.
>>
>>care of Oswald?
>>
>>financially insecure? Oswald owed his New Orleans landlord 15 or 16
>>days rent shortly before he left on his Mexico trip. If Oswald was
>>conspiring to kill Kennedy at this time, as some conspiracy advocates
>>claim, why would Oswald risk arrest by the police for non-payment of
>>his rent?
>>
>>November 22nd. 1963 wearing a blue jacket. It was later found in the
>>'domino room' of the book depository late in
>>November. If Oswald was correct in saying he left the building because
>>he guessed there would be no further work that day why didn't he take
>>his jacket with him?
>>
>>number of questions conspiracists have never satisfactorially
>>answered:
>>
>>*Because of Postal Inspector Holmes' unintentional movements which
>>delayed the transfer of Oswald does this mean that Holmes was
>>conspiratorially involved?
>>
>>Friday evening when he had a perfect opportunity? (Ruby told a police
>>officer, 'I didn't want to hit one of you guys'.)
>>
>>lie detector test against the wishes of his lawyers?
>>
>>his rabbi would have found some evidence of conspiracy in his many
>>conversations with Ruby?
>>
>>Dallas police department from the Western Union Office? Ruby was so
>>attached to his dogs he referred to Sheba as his 'wife' and the other
>>dogs as his children. Friends of Ruby have said he would never have
>>done that if he had planned the shooting in advance and known he would
>>be taken into custody.
>
>
> What does one receive for ansering questions that contain
> "presumptions" in them, as it is impossible to answer without accepting
> details the questions themselves introduce? You know...where are the
> facts?
Well said, Gary. These types of posts are made periodically. They contain
basically the same pat questions - only the name of the poster differs.
What gets me is how they all pretend those questions have never been
addressed. I suggest that the real aim is just to waste the time of other
posters making counters arguments he will not even bother attempting to
address. As a tactic, it's pretty good, because unfortunately, the
"presumptions in them" cannot be left unchallenged.
greg
James K. Olmstead
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3fKdnfgUMbW...@comcast.com...
> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> "Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141809858.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>>> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>>> morning of the assassination?
>>
>> These mythical conspirators could have adjusted plans with little or no problem by having a kill zone selected for
>> later in the day or trip when JFK would be exposed. That's what writers call the "Plan B" attack. You on the other
>> hand have to establish that DP was the only kill zone and that if the "bubble top' was used JFK would have been un
>> harmed. You also have to ignore considerations such as a "street demonstration" where shots would have been fired,
>> without motive and intent to kill, because the limo had the top on as it passed through DP.
>>
>> Conspiratorial Motive and intent to kill JFK is not limited to 12:30, November 22, 1963 in DP, just because that's
>> when it happened. What if 26 (A-Z) prior plans had failed?
>>
>>> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>>> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>>
>> Have you fired a MC through material used in the bubble top, from the distance fired?
>>
>
> I believe similar tests have been done. And probably a precise test could be done. Are you suggesting that such a test
> should be done? I have offered to include specific tests in my group of shooting tests. But I would require that
> suggesters stipulate as to what material is used for the test. Do you have any suggestions? Want to fire it yourself?
> Record it? Document it?
Tony: I'm not sure how extensive any bubble top tests were made in the
past, and yes I would suggest such a test be conducted. As to the
material I have no idea at this time what to suggest. I "clip" my firing
pins on the MC's that I have, so they will not fire. (I don't like
firearms in my house with the grand kids and all). If in the near future
any opportunity for production on my work developes, I would have no
problem suggesting such tests be conducted, recorded and documented. I'm
not a "ballistic's" guy and I'm tied up with getting the FBI on
re-examination of the fingerprint evidence, a project that may take
several months once started. I'm just waiting now for the Fingerprint
Division to get back to me on my formal requests, I would have no problem
supporting the efforts on any testing.
>
>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that Bonnie Ray Williams, a
>>> book depository employee, would leave the 6th. floor of the book
>>> depository and join friends on the 5th. floor moments before the
>>> assassination?
>>
>> How could Oswald? If the Mythical Conspirators could not maintain the SN under complete control, how could Oswald?
>
> Indeed. Most snipers operate in teams of two with the spotter acting as protection for the main sniper.
>
Bonnie Ray's activities make the Oswald did it alone suspect on the
surface, dealing with the nature of this "question". BRW fills the
position in theory as securing the SN for the shooter.
>>
>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the Secret Service and
>>> Dallas Police would be negligent in not securing the windows of high
>>> buildings along the presidential route?
>>
>> How could Oswald? If Oswald had no need to worry about the DPD or SS why should your Mythical Conspirators?
>>
>>
>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure the presidential route would
>>> be changed at the last minute to facilitate easier access to Stemmons
>>> freeway? If the original route was adhered to the 'conspirators' would
>>> have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, moving target.
>>
>> Any and all last minute changes to the motorcade were by the direction of JFK. It had been presented that the
>> motorcade would follow a published route, if the target failed to appear, within a specific time period.....the next
>> plan would have started.
>>
>
> There was in fact no last minute change to the route. And JFK had no direct input on the motorcade route. That
> decision was between the Dallas SS and Dallas police.
No route changes, but JFK was firm about seating arrangements and car
positions.
>
> But in fact the motorcade was running late due to JFK's wishes and actions. So, just to be a PITA I could make up the
> same type of ridiculous questions and ask how the conspirators knew that the motorcade was running late. Duh! By
> listening to the radio and who cares if it is 5 minutes late when they are already in place!
It is difficult to have BRW in the SN and then quickly replace him with
another without some type of co-operation or advance knowledge of
activities. The same goes for having Oswald waiting in some dark corner
waiting for BRW to leave.....it has too many considerations of error.
>
>>> * Many Conspiracy Theorists claim that there was a second shooter but
>>> the shot missed the president. If this is true why didn't anyone see or
>>> hear the impact of a bullet or suffer
>>> injuries from it? Police searched the area and found nothing. The
>>> purported photo of a 'police detective' allegedly seen
>>> 'pocketing the bullet' is a myth.
>>
>> Ct's are not the only ones to present a "missed shot" correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Posner is one such
>> supporter as well as a "Commission". Many consider the SBT a myth, including the USG since they first presented a
>> scenario dealing with three shots and three seperate hits. Spector himself says the SBT is not needed based on that
>> original three shot scenario.
>>
>>> * If Oswald had no connection to the rifle why were his fingerprints
>>> and palmprint found on the rifle? Are we to believe the claims of
>>> Oliver Stone et al, that 'Government Agents' lifted
>>> Oswald's prints after his murder and applied them to the rifle? And if
>>> they did why hasn't one of them come forward or 'leaked' this
>>> information?
>>
>> I believe it was those investigating that first presented the "planted" fingerprints (palm print on barrel) because
>> of the nature in which the evidence was first withheld by the DPD, some CT's are just not satisfied with the
>> presentation of the 'answers". Why did the WC want a lie detector test on Lt. Day over this issue?
>>
>> As to Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle that's not a problem since it is connected to him. The problem is that
>> there are additional latent images on the rifle that just might not belong to Oswald, when it is presented that he
>> had sole possession of the rifle at all times.
>>
>
> I notice that our antagonist never asked any questions about unidentified prints.
Hopefully the issue will become a major consideration. Additional latent
images, not belonging to Oswald, are under the law exculpatory and remove
him as the only suspected shooter.
>
>>
>>> * The identification of the rifle initially as a German Mauser was an
>>> honest mistake. If it was not a mistake and there was indeed a second
>>> rifle why haven't any of the dozens of Dallas policeman who
>>> investigated the 6th. floor of the Texas School Book Depository come
>>> forward to testify to this? In an age when government employees have
>>> been leaking everything from secret documents to incriminating
>>> information about presidents are we to believe these policemen are
>>> still afraid of the 'conspirators'?
>>
>> There's nothing for them to be afraid of even if there was another rifle found. Some type of "threat" to the Mythical
>> Conspirators has to delveope in order for fear to be a consideration. Another rifle in itself is no threat unless it
>> can be shown to have been used in the actual assassination.
>>
>
> It could have been left behind by Castor from the day before.
There are several reasons but the actions on Weds with Castor and others
is a major consideration.
jko
James K. Olmstead
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:RMadnQxN_4v...@comcast.com...
> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> "Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141809858.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>>> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>>> morning of the assassination?
>>
>> These mythical conspirators could have adjusted plans with little or no problem by having a kill zone selected for
>> later in the day or trip when JFK would be exposed. That's what writers call the "Plan B" attack. You on the other
>> hand have to establish that DP was the only kill zone and that if the "bubble top' was used JFK would have been un
>> harmed. You also have to ignore considerations such as a "street demonstration" where shots would have been fired,
>> without motive and intent to kill, because the limo had the top on as it passed through DP.
>>
>> Conspiratorial Motive and intent to kill JFK is not limited to 12:30, November 22, 1963 in DP, just because that's
>> when it happened. What if 26 (A-Z) prior plans had failed?
>>
>>> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>>> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>>
>> Have you fired a MC through material used in the bubble top, from the distance fired?
>>
>
> Such a test could be arranged. Why would it HAVE to be fired from the assumed distance if we can't prove what the
> muzzle velocity of that particular shot would have been?
Tony: I would assume that any test firing would have to take the distance
factors into consideration....I'm not making any demands that they "HAVE"
to.
jko
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1141997946.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Excellent, Mel.
>> I could almost swear I wrote every word of the above thread-starting
>> post myself.
>>
>> Other questions that could be added would be:
>>
>> * If Oswald was really going to Irving for "curtain rods" on Thursday,
>> why was he in such a big hurry to retrieve them? It HAD to be Thursday
>> evidently...why? He would be going to Irving the very next day with Wes
>> Frazier anyway (on Friday). He couldn't wait 24 more hours for his
>> "rods"? And WHY didn't Marina or Ruth Paine know a thing about any
>> curtain rods?
>>
>> * Why does Oswald lie (twice) to Wesley Frazier re. the curtain rods?
>> (It's obvious the "rod" story was a lie...based on no rods being found
>> in LHO's home or in the TSBD after the shooting.)
>
>
> David, you really do need to do your homework.
>
> There were indeed, curtain rods found in the Paine's garage, wrapped in
> brown paper and matching perfectly with Frazier's description.
Those curtain rods were not found in LHO's home or in the TSBD, as per
his specification. They were found in the Paine's garage, nowhere near
the TSBD.
Anthony Marsh
>> Why did these 'sophisticated, government-led conspirators' allow Oswald
> to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time when he
> could have 'confessed'.
>
> This is a very excellent point.
>
> Supposedly, the police helped setup Oswald to be killed by Ruby. The most
> amazing part about this is not that the police allowed Oswald almost 48
> hours to live. The amazing part is that they allow the press to have
> multiple opportunities to question Oswald, on movie picture cameras, with
> sound, during those 48 hours.
>
You say police as if that is a monolithic whole. All it takes is one
dirty cop, not the whole department. Ever see Serpico?
> They need Oswald to answer some questions. So they take him out of his
> cell and run him past a bunch of reports where they ask him any question
> they want and he can give any answer he wants. For all they know, he
> could, at any time, name names, on camera. And when they are done, what do
> they do? Why they run him pass the gauntlet of reporters again to go back
> to his cell of course.
>
What if Oswald doesn't know the names? What if he doesn't know who set
him up as the patsy. One of the advantages to framing someone is often
the person does not know or can not prove who set him up.
> Have another eyewitness show up who can point out Oswald at the window or
> at the Tippet murder scene? That calls for a couple of more runs by Oswald
> past the reporters, of course. Even after Oswald declares that he's just a
> patsy and the police know he's liable to talk, he's liable to implicate
> the other conspirators which could lead back to them being exposed, they
> can't let a little thing like that interfere with Oswald's First Amendment
> Rights. So Oswald is still allowed to continue talking to reporters later.
>
> What could the police have done differently? Gosh, I don't know. How about
> clearing the building of reporters? Yes, the reporters may raise a minor
> fuss about that, but not the kind of fuss they will raise if Oswald names
> names. The whole purpose of killing Oswald is to shut him up. So why allow
> him multiple opportunities to talk to reporters? Why not just leave him in
> his cell until it's his time to die?
>
Did Ruby name names? No. But he did give an interview to the press
suggesting that he had been put into a position by conspirators to kill
Oswald.
>
>
> So the whole story is, is that Oswald was setup as the patsy, even though
> he was in on the conspiracy, at least to the point that he knew who was
> involved after the fact. First of all, this makes no sense. Why frame
> someone who is part of the conspiracy? Why not frame someone who is truly
> innocent, who knows nothing? This way there is no way you will have to use
> Ruby to kill him. You know, beyond all doubt, that that man will never
> talk, because he knows nothing.
>
Conspirators can frame someone who is part of the conspiracy to let him
take the fall for them, or to redirect attention. It is called false
sponsorship. Look at the Aquino assassination. Done by the government,
but framed organized crime.
> So apparently, the idea was to frame Oswald, have him arrested, and let
> him take the blame. They could have killed him easily in the theater,
> surely the bad cops must have known Oswald was at the theater long before
You theorize a perfect conspiracy. Things are not always that perfect.
Maybe the bad cops could not get there quickly enough and the good cops
were not told to kill Oswald.
> the good cops did. They have the perfect opportunity to kill him there, in
> the dark, and plant a gun, so they have the perfect excuse for killing
> him, self defense. But instead of doing this, they decide to have him
> arrested and let him stand trial and take the blame. But then, after
> Oswald was arrested, they discovered something they did not anticipate.
> And that was, that for some reason, Oswald seem to feel some resentment
> toward his fellow conspirators for framing him. So he declares himself to
> be a "Patsy". So this changes everything. They can't let him go to trial.
> So they arrange for Ruby to kill Oswald. But there are several problems.
>
> Why do the police only allow Ruby to get off one shot? One shot is not
> necessarily fatal.
>
Maybe those particular cops were not the bad cops.
> Why doesn't Ruby shoot Oswald in the head, as is done in standard mob
> hits, to make a sure kill? Why is Oswald only shot with one bullet and
> that in the abdomen?
>
> If this plan doesn't work well, if Oswald survives, then the police will
> not have one, but two men, who have a reason for feeling resentment toward
> their fellow conspirators.
>
> And even if the plan works perfectly, it will substitute one man who feels
> resentment for being made to go to jail while his fellow conspirators go
> free, with another man who feels resentment for being made to go to jail
> while his fellow conspirators go free.
>
>
>
> So, the critical questions are:
>
> 1. Why frame someone who has some information about the other
> conspirators? Why not frame someone who knows nothing?
>
Exactly what did Oswald know about the conspirators?
> 2. Why not kill Oswald? Why do they allow him to be arrested? Why would
> they not anticipate that arresting Oswald is not a good idea? After all,
> he now has nothing to lose. He's sure to be executed. He might as well
> talk and there is no time like the present. He could, and would have,
> talked to reporters immediately about who was involved.
>
> 3. Could they not kill Oswald because it would look bad? How could it look
> bad when Oswald was struggling against the police for several seconds
> while they tried to get his gun away from him. If they kill him then, no
> one can seriously question the police for their actions.
>
> 3. Why allow Oswald so much access to reporters, on camera, while in jail?
>
> 4. Why allow Ruby to take only one shot?
>
> 5. Why did they not anticipate that they will have the same problem with
> Ruby that they had with Oswald, for very similar reasons?
>
>
You also need to look at some historical precedents. Take a look at the
way the Watergate burglars took the fall and why one broke rank, and how
the CIA was involved.
Bud
I`m not sure what other issues other than Oz`s guilt would have been
resolved with a trial. How an actual trial would have played out is an
interesting thing to consider, though. I think a defense of Oz would
have an uphill fight, with strikes against it from the start,
especially had the trial been held in conservative Dallas. A defector
isn`t going to have many friends on a jury in Dallas in the sixties.
But I think it is the lies Oz told the interrogators that hurt Oz the
most. I have to think that a jurist isn`t going to be able to resolve
why an innocent man would resort to telling such blatent lies. It easy
to say the law enforcement personel made up the things Oz told them,
but I suspect a jury would give a lot of weight if the people who sat
in for the interrogations got on the stand and corroborated things,
like Oz telling them that he ate with Norman and Jarman. If they
thought this was a reliable relating of what Oz told the interogators,
I think it would be huge in their minds. Would Truly lie about where he
was at lunch, and with who. Would Danny Acre, Givens, anyone else? Just
because CT decide to disregard the reports of the interrogators doesn`t
mean that jurors wouldn`t give them a great deal of weight.
Another thing to consider in a trial format is that CT here tend to
contest all, contest often. A defense lawyer really doesn`t have that
luxury, he has to pick his shots. If Oz insisted to stick to his story
that he did not own a rifle, then he would be putting his lawyer in a
very tough spot with all the evidence there was that Oz did actually
own one. If a defense decides to hinge it`s hopes on putting distance
between Oz and the weapon found, then if the prosecutor wins that point
by convincing the jury he did own that rifle, then the prosecutor has
gone a long way to winning it`s case. The defense only really has one
thing going for it, and that is only one person saw Oz shooting, and
that person was from a distance, and refused to ID Oz as the man he
saw. Other than that, the defense doesn`t have a lot going for it. If
Oz kept his mouth shut, he really would have been much better off, as
the things he said only could be used against him, with nothing he told
the interogators having much use in his defense.
>
> Jackson
Anthony Marsh
Please explain why you think that these types of test would have to take
the distance factors into consideration. What do you gain or lose?
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3fKdnfgUMbW...@comcast.com...
>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> "Mel Ayton" <Melvy...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1141809858.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>>>> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>>>> morning of the assassination?
>>> These mythical conspirators could have adjusted plans with little or no problem by having a kill zone selected for
>>> later in the day or trip when JFK would be exposed. That's what writers call the "Plan B" attack. You on the other
>>> hand have to establish that DP was the only kill zone and that if the "bubble top' was used JFK would have been un
>>> harmed. You also have to ignore considerations such as a "street demonstration" where shots would have been fired,
>>> without motive and intent to kill, because the limo had the top on as it passed through DP.
>>>
>>> Conspiratorial Motive and intent to kill JFK is not limited to 12:30, November 22, 1963 in DP, just because that's
>>> when it happened. What if 26 (A-Z) prior plans had failed?
>>>
>>>> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>>>> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>>> Have you fired a MC through material used in the bubble top, from the distance fired?
>>>
>> I believe similar tests have been done. And probably a precise test could be done. Are you suggesting that such a test
>> should be done? I have offered to include specific tests in my group of shooting tests. But I would require that
>> suggesters stipulate as to what material is used for the test. Do you have any suggestions? Want to fire it yourself?
>> Record it? Document it?
>
> Tony: I'm not sure how extensive any bubble top tests were made in the
> past, and yes I would suggest such a test be conducted. As to the
As far as I know absolutely no bubble top simulation tests were done
with M-C ammo. Other, similar tests have been done to demonstrate the
advantages of different window materials.
How is that? Could have been left by an investigator.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> greg wrote:
>>
>>> Mel Ayton wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> * How could 'conspirators' have been sure that the protective 'bubble
>>>> top' on the presidential limousine would have been taken down on the
>>>> morning of the assassination?
>>>> Had the rainy weather continued it would have remained on the
>>>> limousine ensuring any shots would likely have been deflected.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Warren Report stated that the bubble top was neither bullet
>>> proof, nor bullet RESISTANT. This indicates to me that it would not
>>> have caused a deflection. I'm no expert on these matters, though -
>>> just my understanding of "resistant".
>>>
>>
>> Au contraire. A material does not have to be bullet proof or bullet
>> resistant in order to deflect a bullet. This can be demonstrated
>> experimentally.
>
> Thank you, Tony. The questions then become, how likely was it that
> bullets would deflect? In any risk assessment, would that likelihood be
> sufficient to abort?
>
76%.
No.
David VP
post) it would seem. Just read that last ultra-weak and laughably-absurd
post he wrote in a futile, desperate attempt to grasp at ANY type of
"perceived" conspiracy in order to take the noose from around the one
killer's (Oswald's) neck. .......
"The Oswald rifle jammed".
"Other shots from other directions could be silencers".
"Two of the 3 shooters might be so close to each other..."
"Could be...".
"Maybe they {the curtain rods} were found in the TSBD and made to
disappear."
"Maybe Oswald's only mission was not getting the curtain rods."
"Maybe it was..."
"Detailed analysis might show..."
"And maybe authorities lied about other pieces of evidence..."
"Well, don't put it past the SS to lie about that..."
"The grassy knoll shooter was not even supposed to fire..."
IOW -- The "CT Mantra" rears its head again (and all at once it seems, via
Tony's last "definitive" post of all-encompassing fakery & authoritative
lies) -- with that Motto/Mantra being: "NOTHING IN THIS CASE IS WHAT IT
ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE NOR WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE; EVERYBODY WHO *COULD* BE A
LIAR....*IS* A LIAR; EVERYTHING THAT *COULD* HAVE BEEN "FAKED"....*WAS*
FAKED WITHOUT QUESTION (No Matter How Silly This Stupid Theory Sounds;
~Mark VII~).
Was there even ONE honest and forthright person connected with the
JFK/Tippit cases? Per Tony, it's doubtful there was.
Blind and wholly-unprovable accusations of wrong-doing (and
FELONY-committing acts) aimed at virtually every "official" in this whole
case is a pitiful excuse for "research".
Robert Harris
David, it seems that every time the evidence contradicts your
theories, you go into a rant against "conspiracy buffs".
Why did you snip everything related to the fact that 8 days before the
WC confirmed those curtain rods in the Paine's garage, they were
actually sitting in a DPD evidence lockup??
Yes, I think Oswald took the curtain rods to work with him that day,
and that they were later discovered in the Depository.
I know you want to believe that the only reason most people disagree
with you, is that they are all loony tunes, but you if you would slow
down and take an objective look at the evidence, you might come to a
different conclusion.
The simple facts are:
1. The curtain rods in the garage were wrapped in brown paper and
unlike the rifle, matched perfectly with Frazier's description.
2. Documented evidence from the DPD places the curtain rods in their
custody, 8 days prior to the WC's examination of the garage.
3. The curtain rods *had* to be present in the garage then, or
Oswald's claim that he carried them to work would have been
corroborated.
These are the facts, David. I'm sorry they make you so angry.
BTW, David, do you own a MC rifle?
If so, here is a great reality check for ya. Wrap it up (scope
included) in brown wrapping paper and then show it to your neighbors,
telling them that you just got this great new set of curtain rods.
After you do that, tell us if you were able to keep a straight face
when you said there were curtain rods in that huge and bulky package.
Then tell us how many of your neighbors believed you and how many
looked at you as though you were nuts:-)
Robert Harris
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
James K. Olmstead
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:r7WdnRaQwaR7EYjZ...@comcast.com...
because distance is a factor needed to be considered, I'm not outlining
any specific test or proceedure....I made a comment about testing
jko
James K. Olmstead
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:X8SdnSltfrAzEIjZ...@comcast.com...
then perhaps a test is a consideration by those interested
It is presented by testimony that no investigator left such latents, nor
is there any FBI report on eliminated prints such as those found on the
boxes belonging to Lucy and Studebaker, who handled the boxes.
Investigators of concern are Lt. Day and SA Latona, neither is listed in
any report as having touched the area where lifts were made. It is only
the areas of the rifle that were taped that are of concern. That's the
fingerprint evidence. The latent image noted by Lt. Day under the scope
was "lost" since it was never taped, we only have photographic record that
that latent exsisted.
Chances are two of the latents on the tape (CE 637) belong to Lt. Day, but
that is not confirmed by any record in the JFK Records Collection.
Only Lt. Day had opportunity to touch the trigger guard before he applied
the tape. Anyone else can be considered "a shooter". Latona states in
testimony Day did not leave any prints under the lift....problem is the
FBI never introduced the lift as evidence or made any WC exhibit of these
fingerprints.
jko
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> David, it seems that every time the evidence contradicts your
> theories, you go into a rant against "conspiracy buffs".
>
> Why did you snip everything related to the fact that 8 days before the
> WC confirmed those curtain rods in the Paine's garage, they were
> actually sitting in a DPD evidence lockup??
>
> Yes, I think Oswald took the curtain rods to work with him that day,
> and that they were later discovered in the Depository.
>
> I know you want to believe that the only reason most people disagree
> with you, is that they are all loony tunes, but you if you would slow
> down and take an objective look at the evidence, you might come to a
> different conclusion.
>
> The simple facts are:
>
> 1. The curtain rods in the garage were wrapped in brown paper and
> unlike the rifle, matched perfectly with Frazier's description.
<snicker> What was Oz`s description of the package he carried into
work that day?
> 2. Documented evidence from the DPD places the curtain rods in their
> custody, 8 days prior to the WC's examination of the garage.
>
> 3. The curtain rods *had* to be present in the garage then, or
> Oswald's claim that he carried them to work would have been
> corroborated.
>
> These are the facts, David. I'm sorry they make you so angry.
>
> BTW, David, do you own a MC rifle?
>
> If so, here is a great reality check for ya. Wrap it up (scope
> included) in brown wrapping paper and then show it to your neighbors,
> telling them that you just got this great new set of curtain rods.
Oz didn`t "show" his package to anyone. Frazier glanced at it, and
Oz gave the half-assed curtain rod lie, the one he had laid the
groundwork for earlier.
> After you do that, tell us if you were able to keep a straight face
> when you said there were curtain rods in that huge and bulky package.
>
> Then tell us how many of your neighbors believed you and how many
> looked at you as though you were nuts:-)
I can`t imagine their interest level rising to the level of
suspicion to doubt me. Obviously WBF`s interest level didn`t.
David VP
And if you, Bob, would look objectively at some additional things,
you'll see the CT version doesn't hold up either.
You think LHO had curtain rods with him on 11/22 AM. And these must
have been Ruth Paine's OWN rods (that Ruth had, herself, wrapped up in
her own garage for more than a full year prior to 11/22, per her WC
testimony).
OK. So, via this scenario, CTers must believe all of the following:
1.) Oswald is in such a big all-fire hurry for those important curtain
rods, he simply HAS to have them on Thursday night...instead of waiting
until Friday (his normal weekend visiting day to see Marina at the
Paine house).
2.) Oswald then STEALS the rods from the Paine garage. The word "steal"
applies here in this CT scenario, because Ruth Paine was not asked by
Lee if he could take those curtain rods. He never uttered a WORD to
either Ruth or Marina about coming to the Paine home on 11/21 to "get
some curtain rods". And Oswald never said to Mrs. Paine: "Do you mind
if I take/borrow those curtain rods you've got in your garage?"
3.) Oswald then hides the curtain-rod package in the TSBD somewhere.
(At least they are "hidden" well enough all morning to where nobody
ever saw them (the package) inside the building. Why do this, if the
pkg. only has "innocent" rods inside?
4.) Oswald then, at 12:33 PM on 11/22, after going to the EXTRA TROUBLE
of retrieving these precious and highly-desired curtain rods, just
FORGETS to take them home with him. And he also leaves behind the
jacket he wore with him to work on the 22nd. So, he's in such a rush to
leave the building, that he forgets to take home TWO items that belong
to him.
5.) Oswald then LIES to police about ever having carted ANY type of a
large or bulky package into work at all on 11/22. Why? If the package
REALLY had only innocent "curtain rods" inside, telling the police
where they could find said rods would go a long way toward exonerating
him for the murder of JFK. And it would align with Wes Frazier's story
(which is a tale that Oswald KNOWS, or should know, is bound to come
from witness Frazier's lips at some point in time).
The cops were all "in" on the cover-up too, right? That MUST be a
CTer's answer to #5, certainly. Oswald probably DID tell the police
about the curtain-rod package. But the police just "used" that
statement to then PLACE A RIFLE INSIDE THE SAME PACKAGE. Right? How
convenient for the plotters indeed.
Oswald, the perfect Patsy, is kind enough to go to Irving a day earlier
than usual...and then steal an innocent article (curtain rods) from
Mrs. Paine (without Paine knowing a thing about this of course)....and
then Oswald obligingly, as it turns out for the cover-uppers afterward,
hauls the package into the TSBD and stashes it someplace where nobody
else sees it at all.
And then...the BIG "break" for these scheming plotters -- Oswald then
decides to help the cover-up operatives even MORE by LEAVING THE RODS
IN THE BUILDING, instead of taking them with him on 11/22!
OK...Robert.....why don't you break down the above common-sense 11/22
observations "objectively" for all us screwy LNers. That oughta be an
interesting conspiracy-oriented essay.
You can title that essay: "Here's Why Oswald Did All These Odd Things
That Make Him Look Guilty As Hell, But He's Really Totally Innocent".
Anthony Marsh
Yes, I think I have said about a dozen times that I am prepared to do
the test. Of course, after the test is done then you will say that it is
invalid because I did not use X material. Nice trick. So tell me now
before I do the test what the X material should be.
So what? Don't rely on testimony.
There was a klutzy investigator there who should not have been handling
the evidence, but did.
Anthony Marsh
You just restated what you said before. I asked you WHY you think
distance is a factor needed to be considered. WHY?
> jko
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Mr. Marsh sees more and more unsupportable CTs with each passing day (and
> post) it would seem. Just read that last ultra-weak and laughably-absurd
> post he wrote in a futile, desperate attempt to grasp at ANY type of
> "perceived" conspiracy in order to take the noose from around the one
> killer's (Oswald's) neck. .......
>
Typical WC defender tactic. Just make up false quotes and attribute them
to me. And as always quote out of context.
> "The Oswald rifle jammed".
Yes it did. The dent on the lip of the cartridge indicates that.
> "Other shots from other directions could be silencers".
Who said that an in what context?
> "Two of the 3 shooters might be so close to each other..."
Yes, two shooters might be on the same floor.
> "Could be...".
Tell me that you've never said "could be . . ."
> "Maybe they {the curtain rods} were found in the TSBD and made to
> disappear."
Maybe that is one possible explanation.
> "Maybe Oswald's only mission was not getting the curtain rods."
Indeed, I believe Oswald's mission was to give Marina an ultimatum.
> "Maybe it was..."
You have a problem with "maybe"?
> "Detailed analysis might show..."
I am talking about that might be possible to prove with the proper study.
> "And maybe authorities lied about other pieces of evidence..."
Maybe they did.
> "Well, don't put it past the SS to lie about that..."
Well, considering that the SS lied about the dent of the chrome topping,
maybe they lied about other things.
> "The grassy knoll shooter was not even supposed to fire..."
>
He did not start firing immediately, but waited about 9 seconds.
>
> IOW -- The "CT Mantra" rears its head again (and all at once it seems, via
> Tony's last "definitive" post of all-encompassing fakery & authoritative
> lies) -- with that Motto/Mantra being: "NOTHING IN THIS CASE IS WHAT IT
> ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE NOR WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE; EVERYBODY WHO *COULD* BE A
> LIAR....*IS* A LIAR; EVERYTHING THAT *COULD* HAVE BEEN "FAKED"....*WAS*
> FAKED WITHOUT QUESTION (No Matter How Silly This Stupid Theory Sounds;
> ~Mark VII~).
>
I have never said anything like that. You are bearing false witness.
> Was there even ONE honest and forthright person connected with the
> JFK/Tippit cases? Per Tony, it's doubtful there was.
>
When have I ever said that everyone was dishonest?
> Blind and wholly-unprovable accusations of wrong-doing (and
> FELONY-committing acts) aimed at virtually every "official" in this whole
> case is a pitiful excuse for "research".
>
>
I have proved the few times where I have alleged there was wrong-doing.
I didn't see YOU prove that the Zapruder film is authentic.
James K. Olmstead
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:FqKdnSfTEbK...@comcast.com...
Tony: I think you have a problem, since I don't demand any test or any
standards concerning such a test be conducted or up held by anyone.
Especially when the purposed test is only academic because the bubble top
was not used. You are free to conduct any test by any standards you
select. Don't wait for me to join in, I think I'll pass on any
opportunity to be involved in your tests.
I don't rely only on testimony, however that's where the information is
found.
> There was a klutzy investigator there who should not have been handling the evidence, but did.
Prove it, show me the latent image or images that this "klutzy
investigator" left on the rifle. Just what body part are you pulling this
statement from? Have you even examined the fingerprint evidence? Have you
actually handled it? I have.
jko
James K. Olmstead
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:FqKdnSbTEbI...@comcast.com...
Tony: I can only restate once again that I believe it is a factor of
consideration. You can take my opinion or leave it since I could care less
about discussion on this issue with you. If you can't figure out why
somebody would mention distance as a factor, on your own, perhaps you have
no qualifications for conducting any test.
jko
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Yes, I think Oswald took the curtain rods to work with him that day,
and that they were later discovered in the Depository. ... If you would
slow down and take an objective look at the evidence, you might come to a
different conclusion."
>
>
> And if you, Bob, would look objectively at some additional things,
> you'll see the CT version doesn't hold up either.
>
> You think LHO had curtain rods with him on 11/22 AM. And these must
> have been Ruth Paine's OWN rods (that Ruth had, herself, wrapped up in
> her own garage for more than a full year prior to 11/22, per her WC
> testimony).
>
> OK. So, via this scenario, CTers must believe all of the following:
>
> 1.) Oswald is in such a big all-fire hurry for those important curtain
> rods, he simply HAS to have them on Thursday night...instead of waiting
> until Friday (his normal weekend visiting day to see Marina at the
> Paine house).
>
> 2.) Oswald then STEALS the rods from the Paine garage. The word "steal"
> applies here in this CT scenario, because Ruth Paine was not asked by
> Lee if he could take those curtain rods. He never uttered a WORD to
> either Ruth or Marina about coming to the Paine home on 11/21 to "get
> some curtain rods". And Oswald never said to Mrs. Paine: "Do you mind
> if I take/borrow those curtain rods you've got in your garage?"
>
Oh my God! You are appalled at the idea that Oswald might steal some
curtain rods, but think nothing of accusing him of a double murder?
> 3.) Oswald then hides the curtain-rod package in the TSBD somewhere.
> (At least they are "hidden" well enough all morning to where nobody
> ever saw them (the package) inside the building. Why do this, if the
> pkg. only has "innocent" rods inside?
>
You seem incredulous that Oswald could figure out some place to hide the
curtain rods yet you can't explain where he hid the rifle from everyone?
> 4.) Oswald then, at 12:33 PM on 11/22, after going to the EXTRA TROUBLE
> of retrieving these precious and highly-desired curtain rods, just
> FORGETS to take them home with him. And he also leaves behind the
> jacket he wore with him to work on the 22nd. So, he's in such a rush to
> leave the building, that he forgets to take home TWO items that belong
> to him.
>
Why did Oswald leave his jacket behind?
Anthony Marsh
I know the fact that you think it is a consideration. Again, I ask you
WHY you think that. Answer the question.
> jko
Anthony Marsh
I think that somewhere along the way you indicated that you think such a
test would be a good idea. So I asked you for your suggestion on what
material to use. China? Plastic water bottles? What?
I am not talking about any lower body parts, only the fingers. Have I
handled Oswald's rifle? No. Have you? No. What's your point? Have you
talked to Rusty Livingstone? No. Have I? Yes. What's your point?
Martin Shackelford
range, the bullet would lose velocity. For purposes of the JFK
assassination, I don't think the range would be a factor, due to the
relatively short distances involved.
Martin
Anthony Marsh
> Within a certain range, distance wouldn't be a factor--beyond that
> range, the bullet would lose velocity. For purposes of the JFK
> assassination, I don't think the range would be a factor, due to the
> relatively short distances involved.
>
True, but that wasn't my point. I don't mind telling you, because I am
sure that you can understand what I know he can not. We are talking
about using WCC ammo at an ASSUMED distance, where we think the first
shot could be fired. Pick a frame. I'll pick Z-210 as that was the first
clear shot after the tree. What is the distance to the target? We know
it is 177 feet. What is the muzzle velocity for that shot from the TSBD?
That's the point. We don't know. Maybe it was higher than average. Let's
say 2200 fps. How much velocity is lost during that distance of 177
feet? We don't know for sure. We can estimate at a first order of
approximation 177 fps. So what is the impact velocity? 2200-177 = 2023
fps. What is the muzzle velocity of the test shot I fire? We don't know
yet. Using the SMI bullets it could be 2030 fps, so at the distance to
the target only 7 feet away the impact velocity would be 2023 fps. What
if I used the WCC ammo, but the first shot was a fouling shot or had a
reduced muzzle velocity as some test shots did? Then the impact velocity
might be even less than 2023 and firing at the target 177 feet away
might produce an impact velocity of only 1600 fps. Not the same thing as
2023 fps. It gets even worse if I use the Norma ammo. That is about 5%
faster than the WCC ammo. So I might get a muzzle velocity of 2273 fps.
Then to get the impact velocity down to 2023 the target would have to be
placed 250 feet away.
David VP
In the "He's Innocent, But Is Part Of The Plot In Some Fashion" CT
scenario (which nearly all CTers believe at the very least, if they've
got any active brain cells in their heads, that is) -- "stealing" them
(and not saying a thing about "curtain rods" to Ruth Paine or Marina)
is utterly stupid on LHO's part. Because, in such a case, the more
people who can verify the package as "curtain rods", the better Oswald
is going to be.
Of course, to believe such a silly thing as "Oswald Was Part Of The JFK
Plot, But Didn't Shoot Anybody, And Only Went To Irving On An
Unannounced Thursday Night Instead Of Friday In Order To STEAL Some
Curtain Rods From Ruth Paine" -- we'd have to believe, I suppose, that
Lee Oswald was the dumbest of all Patsies to come down the pike. ....
In such a silly scenario, Oswald knows he's bringing a
perfectly-innocent, non-lethal item into work on 11/22 (unless he
figured he would be assigned the job of beating to death the passing
President with the curtain rods) .... and he knows there's a plot
brewing to kill Kennedy that very day from the very Plaza that his
workplace overlooks ....
And yet he carts the bulky package into work wrapped up like a mummy
anyway (having to KNOW what the consequences of doing this might be
later on, because he KNOWS there's a plot to kill the President, and,
per Oliver Stone, Oswald is going to be some useless type of "contact"
on the 2nd Floor of the Depository; as he "waits for a call that never
comes"; what call this was supposed to be is never defined) .... and
even though the package has only innocent curtain rods in it, he
decides to hide the package somewhere in the building where nobody'll
see it. ....
And then he decides to leave the rods behind in the TSBD after 12:33 on
11/22, and then decides he's GOING TO LIE TO POLICE about taking ANY
package into work on 11/22 (even though they are only
perfectly-innocent curtain rods)!
Gee, what a nice "Patsy" Lee Harvey Oswald was....he tried to frame
HIMSELF even. He was just "aiding" the Patsy-framers when he wouldn't
tell the police he really had curtain rods with him that morning...and
he was trying to help his frame-up even more by making the
"curtain-rod" incident look more "suspicious" and covert by stealing
them from the Paine garage, instead of creating a better alibi for
himself re. the package by asking Ruth Paine if he could have the rods.
You don't find cooperative "Patsies" like Oswald every day of the week.
Good thing for the "real killers" they had such a nice guy like Oswald
working for them....in that he was willing to take the WHOLE blame for
TWO murders he evidently never committed on November 22nd. And he was
also willing to "play along" with the Patsy-Framers by ACTING LIKE THE
GUILTIEST MAN IN DALLAS just following both the JFK and Tippit crimes.
What a guy he was.
Robert Harris
>>> "Yes, I think Oswald took the curtain rods to work with him that day, and that they were later discovered in the Depository. ... If you would slow down and take an objective look at the evidence, you might come to a different conclusion."
David, you seem to make a career out of exaggerating the positions of
people who disagree with you.
What exactly, do you get out of that?
>
>
>And if you, Bob, would look objectively at some additional things,
>you'll see the CT version doesn't hold up either.
>
>You think LHO had curtain rods with him on 11/22 AM. And these must
>have been Ruth Paine's OWN rods (that Ruth had, herself, wrapped up in
>her own garage for more than a full year prior to 11/22, per her WC
>testimony).
>
>OK. So, via this scenario, CTers must believe all of the following:
>
>1.) Oswald is in such a big all-fire hurry for those important curtain
>rods, he simply HAS to have them on Thursday night...instead of waiting
>until Friday (his normal weekend visiting day to see Marina at the
>Paine house).
No-one claimed that the purpose of his trip to the house was to get
the curtain rods. (except you of course:-)
Guesswork about his motives is just not in the same league with
Frazier's description of the package, the fact that it matched
perfectly with Paine's package, and the fact that curtain rods turned
up at DPD when they were supposed to be in the garage.
>
>2.) Oswald then STEALS the rods from the Paine garage. The word "steal"
>applies here in this CT scenario, because Ruth Paine was not asked by
>Lee if he could take those curtain rods. He never uttered a WORD to
>either Ruth or Marina about coming to the Paine home on 11/21 to "get
>some curtain rods". And Oswald never said to Mrs. Paine: "Do you mind
>if I take/borrow those curtain rods you've got in your garage?"
So, the guy was capable of committing a double murder, but too good to
lift a set of curtain rods that were laying around, unused for a
year??
>
>3.) Oswald then hides the curtain-rod package in the TSBD somewhere.
>(At least they are "hidden" well enough all morning to where nobody
>ever saw them (the package) inside the building. Why do this, if the
>pkg. only has "innocent" rods inside?
You have no reason to believe they were "hidden". They could have been
tossed in a corner practically anywhere and remained unnoticed for a
few hours.
>
>4.) Oswald then, at 12:33 PM on 11/22, after going to the EXTRA TROUBLE
>of retrieving these precious and highly-desired curtain rods, just
>FORGETS to take them home with him.
Well, in one way or another, he has just been involved in a murder.
I think we can forgive a bit of absent-mindedness, can't we?
>And he also leaves behind the
>jacket he wore with him to work on the 22nd. So, he's in such a rush to
>leave the building, that he forgets to take home TWO items that belong
>to him.
I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Obviously, Oswald was in a tremendous rush. He got home, grabbed his
pistol and headed straight for Ruby's apartment.
>
>5.) Oswald then LIES to police about ever having carted ANY type of a
>large or bulky package into work at all on 11/22. Why? If the package
>REALLY had only innocent "curtain rods" inside, telling the police
>where they could find said rods would go a long way toward exonerating
>him for the murder of JFK. And it would align with Wes Frazier's story
>(which is a tale that Oswald KNOWS, or should know, is bound to come
>from witness Frazier's lips at some point in time).
Oswald had no interest in exhonerating himself.
I don't think you are quite up to understanding that one, yet:-)
>
>The cops were all "in" on the cover-up too, right?
David, this is great stuff for a junior high school debate tournament,
but it isn't very useful in discussion among intelligent adults who
care about things like this.
We need to deal with the evidence honestly and objectively.
And that evidence suggests that Oswald was carrying curtain rods that
morning. It is not conclusive, I will readily admit, but it is the
only explanation that matches the known evidence.
>That MUST be a
>CTer's answer to #5, certainly. Oswald probably DID tell the police
>about the curtain-rod package. But the police just "used" that
>statement to then PLACE A RIFLE INSIDE THE SAME PACKAGE. Right? How
>convenient for the plotters indeed.
Have you noticed how much easier it is to refute your conspiracy
theories than mine:-)
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Oh my God! You are appalled at the idea that Oswald might steal some curtain rods, but think nothing of accusing him of a double murder?"
>
>
> In the "He's Innocent, But Is Part Of The Plot In Some Fashion" CT
> scenario (which nearly all CTers believe at the very least, if they've
That is not true. In the first place, you can not generalize like that.
In the second place, you as a WC defender have no right to claim to
speak for conspiracy believers.
> got any active brain cells in their heads, that is) -- "stealing" them
> (and not saying a thing about "curtain rods" to Ruth Paine or Marina)
> is utterly stupid on LHO's part. Because, in such a case, the more
> people who can verify the package as "curtain rods", the better Oswald
> is going to be.
>
Why do you feel the need to constantly dream up strawman arguments?
> Of course, to believe such a silly thing as "Oswald Was Part Of The JFK
> Plot, But Didn't Shoot Anybody, And Only Went To Irving On An
> Unannounced Thursday Night Instead Of Friday In Order To STEAL Some
> Curtain Rods From Ruth Paine" -- we'd have to believe, I suppose, that
> Lee Oswald was the dumbest of all Patsies to come down the pike. ....
>
> In such a silly scenario, Oswald knows he's bringing a
It is only a silly scenario because you intended it to look that way to
foist upon people positions that they have never taken.
> perfectly-innocent, non-lethal item into work on 11/22 (unless he
> figured he would be assigned the job of beating to death the passing
> President with the curtain rods) .... and he knows there's a plot
> brewing to kill Kennedy that very day from the very Plaza that his
> workplace overlooks ....
>
> And yet he carts the bulky package into work wrapped up like a mummy
> anyway (having to KNOW what the consequences of doing this might be
Mummy?
David VP
the curtain rods."
Oswald, of course, did. And we know for a fact he's a liar.
So....you think Oswald DID have curtain rods with him on 11/22 AM; and we
all know that Oswald told W. Frazier that the reason for going to Irving
on Thursday was to get said rods; so that fits nicely for you, Robert.....
But you're now saying that you DON'T think the reason for Oswald going to
Irving was to get those rods.....rods that you, yourself, say he did
retrieve??
Three letters come to mind here ..... W,T, and F???
Why did Oswald go to Irving, unannounced, on Thursday then?
>> "He {LHO} got home, grabbed his pistol, and headed straight for Ruby's apartment."
I'm shocked you actually believe he "grabbed his pistol".
Nice hunk of guesswork re. Ruby's apartment. You, obviously, just
pulled that out of your hat (or elsewhere), without a shred of proof.
Tony Szamboti
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1142062531....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Why did these 'sophisticated, government-led conspirators' allow Oswald
> to spend 48 hours in jail before silencing him? A period of time when he
> could have 'confessed'.
>
> This is a very excellent point.
>
> Supposedly, the police helped setup Oswald to be killed by Ruby. The most
> amazing part about this is not that the police allowed Oswald almost 48
> hours to live. The amazing part is that they allow the press to have
> multiple opportunities to question Oswald, on movie picture cameras, with
> sound, during those 48 hours.
>
> They need Oswald to answer some questions. So they take him out of his
> cell and run him past a bunch of reports where they ask him any question
> they want and he can give any answer he wants. For all they know, he
> could, at any time, name names, on camera. And when they are done, what do
> they do? Why they run him pass the gauntlet of reporters again to go back
> to his cell of course.
>
> Have another eyewitness show up who can point out Oswald at the window or
> at the Tippet murder scene? That calls for a couple of more runs by Oswald
> past the reporters, of course. Even after Oswald declares that he's just a
> patsy and the police know he's liable to talk, he's liable to implicate
> the other conspirators which could lead back to them being exposed, they
> can't let a little thing like that interfere with Oswald's First Amendment
> Rights. So Oswald is still allowed to continue talking to reporters later.
>
> What could the police have done differently? Gosh, I don't know. How about
> clearing the building of reporters? Yes, the reporters may raise a minor
> fuss about that, but not the kind of fuss they will raise if Oswald names
> names. The whole purpose of killing Oswald is to shut him up. So why allow
> him multiple opportunities to talk to reporters? Why not just leave him in
> his cell until it's his time to die?
>
>
>
> So the whole story is, is that Oswald was setup as the patsy, even though
> he was in on the conspiracy, at least to the point that he knew who was
> involved after the fact. First of all, this makes no sense. Why frame
> someone who is part of the conspiracy? Why not frame someone who is truly
> innocent, who knows nothing? This way there is no way you will have to use
> Ruby to kill him. You know, beyond all doubt, that that man will never
> talk, because he knows nothing.
The real reason Oswald was killed is because they didn't really have a
case against him and if they had gone to trial he would have been
acquitted. The paraffin tests turned out to be negative, the FBI couldn't
find his prints on the gun, one of the shell casings had a dent in it on
the sixth floor and couldn't have been used to fire a round. The fact that
he did mail order the rifle and bullet CE399, which was traceable to the
rifle, was found at Parkland would have been enough to get to court maybe
but the whole scenario would have been questioned real hard and exposed a
conspiracy. I don't believe Oswald was killed because he knew anything
about the conspiracy. The problem for the conspirators is that the props
they framed Oswald with wouldn't have withstood the close scrutiny that a
trial would have wrought and the conspiracy would have been exposed. They
needed to end it that weekend and they did. However, they still wanted and
got the insurance of the Warren Commission to keep it covered.
>
> So apparently, the idea was to frame Oswald, have him arrested, and let
> him take the blame. They could have killed him easily in the theater,
> surely the bad cops must have known Oswald was at the theater long before
> the good cops did. They have the perfect opportunity to kill him there, in
> the dark, and plant a gun, so they have the perfect excuse for killing
> him, self defense. But instead of doing this, they decide to have him
> arrested and let him stand trial and take the blame. But then, after
> Oswald was arrested, they discovered something they did not anticipate.
> And that was, that for some reason, Oswald seem to feel some resentment
> toward his fellow conspirators for framing him. So he declares himself to
> be a "Patsy". So this changes everything. They can't let him go to trial.
> So they arrange for Ruby to kill Oswald. But there are several problems.
>
> Why do the police only allow Ruby to get off one shot? One shot is not
> necessarily fatal.
One shot can be made to be fatal. How do you know that it wasn't a special
bullet? Oswald was also given cardiac massage while gutshot which probably
contributed to his demise.
>
> Why doesn't Ruby shoot Oswald in the head, as is done in standard mob
> hits, to make a sure kill? Why is Oswald only shot with one bullet and
> that in the abdomen?
>
> If this plan doesn't work well, if Oswald survives, then the police will
> not have one, but two men, who have a reason for feeling resentment toward
> their fellow conspirators.
>
> And even if the plan works perfectly, it will substitute one man who feels
> resentment for being made to go to jail while his fellow conspirators go
> free, with another man who feels resentment for being made to go to jail
> while his fellow conspirators go free.
The conspiracy had a lot of things which didn't go exactly right but they
wroked hard to keep it going. Oswald's fingerprints found on the rifle
after his death in an area that the FBI wouldn't have looked, because it
was in an area accessible only when the gun was broken down, is one
example. There are many more.
>
>
>
> So, the critical questions are:
>
> 1. Why frame someone who has some information about the other
> conspirators? Why not frame someone who knows nothing?
>
> 2. Why not kill Oswald? Why do they allow him to be arrested? Why would
> they not anticipate that arresting Oswald is not a good idea? After all,
> he now has nothing to lose. He's sure to be executed. He might as well
> talk and there is no time like the present. He could, and would have,
> talked to reporters immediately about who was involved.
>
> 3. Could they not kill Oswald because it would look bad? How could it look
> bad when Oswald was struggling against the police for several seconds
> while they tried to get his gun away from him. If they kill him then, no
> one can seriously question the police for their actions.
>
> 3. Why allow Oswald so much access to reporters, on camera, while in jail?
>
> 4. Why allow Ruby to take only one shot?
>
> 5. Why did they not anticipate that they will have the same problem with
> Ruby that they had with Oswald, for very similar reasons?
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>>> "No-one claimed that the purpose of his trip to the house was to get
> the curtain rods."
>
>
> Oswald, of course, did. And we know for a fact he's a liar.
>
> So....you think Oswald DID have curtain rods with him on 11/22 AM; and we
> all know that Oswald told W. Frazier that the reason for going to Irving
> on Thursday was to get said rods; so that fits nicely for you, Robert.....
>
> But you're now saying that you DON'T think the reason for Oswald going to
> Irving was to get those rods.....rods that you, yourself, say he did
> retrieve??
>
> Three letters come to mind here ..... W,T, and F???
>
> Why did Oswald go to Irving, unannounced, on Thursday then?
>
>
To give Marina an ultimatum. You tend to overlook the fact that players
in this play also had personal lives.
Robert Harris
>>> "No-one claimed that the purpose of his trip to the house was to get
>the curtain rods."
>
>
>Oswald, of course, did. And we know for a fact he's a liar.
You are absolutely correct, David.
In fact, you are probably much more correct than you realize:-)
Ok, let's talk about that David. In fact, let me give you an
assignment, straight out of JFKAssassination 101.
Both his mother and brother confirmed that Lee Oswald was obsessed
with a television program, during the three highly impressionable
years prior to him writing that letter to the Young Socialists at the
tender age of 16.
That TV program was nominated for an Emmy in it's first year and was
about a gentleman name Herbert Philbrick.
Your assignment, should you accept it David, is to zip around the web
a bit, and find out everything you can about Mr. Philbrick, his book,
his movie, and that TV series.
If you do your job, you will learn infinitely more about the case than
you will in the next hundred, tedious rounds of "debate" with me.
Oh btw, if you want to earn some extra credit, and learn more about
Oswald's dishonest nature, read a few passages from *Das Kapital* the
book that Oswald told a reporter was a primary reason why turned to
communism during those years:-)
Ask youself how much influence Mr. Marx's style would have had on a
boy that age.
David VP
>> "To give Marina an ultimatum. You tend to overlook the fact that players
in this play also had personal lives."
Where did you get your crystal ball? Does Wal*Mart sell those? Or did
you make your own?
Anthony Marsh
Nice try. I am basing my opinion on what Marina said about the visit and
that he asked her to move back in with her.
mam
Did Lee say "you move in with me or it is all over"; or, "I want a divorce
if you don't move back with me"; "I am going to beat you if you do not
move back with me"; to me - these are examples of "ultimatum" a drawing of
a line in the sand. Maybe you have a different slant.
WEBSTER: a final offer or demand.
(dictionary from Wal-Mart):)
Please cite where Lee gave Marina an "ultimatum".
Martha
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_5ydnX3Xr4F...@comcast.com...
>> David VP wrote:
>>>>> "Why did Oswald go to Irving, unannounced, on Thursday then?"
>>>>> "To give Marina an ultimatum. You tend to overlook the fact that
>>>>> players
>>> in this play also had personal lives."
>>>
>>>
>>> Where did you get your crystal ball? Does Wal*Mart sell those? Or did
>>> you make your own?
>>>
>>>
>> Nice try. I am basing my opinion on what Marina said about the visit and
>> that he asked her to move back in with her.
>>
>
> Did Lee say "you move in with me or it is all over"; or, "I want a divorce
> if you don't move back with me"; "I am going to beat you if you do not
> move back with me"; to me - these are examples of "ultimatum" a drawing of
> a line in the sand. Maybe you have a different slant.
>
As far as I know, we do not have a recording or a transcript of their
last moments together. I am telling you what Oswald's meaning was, not
his exact words. The way Marina described it was that Oswald asked her
to move back in with him.
And I can also make up strawman questions. I can claim that he said, "If
you don't have sex with me, I'm going to beat you to death." But somehow
I don't think that would be productive. I never tried to quote Oswald.
Only convey the gist of the conversation.
> WEBSTER: a final offer or demand.
> (dictionary from Wal-Mart):)
>
> Please cite where Lee gave Marina an "ultimatum".
>
I am not sure that Marina ever used the word "ultimatum." It is the word
I used to describe their conversation.
> Martha
>