Bob Harris: Evidence against Ferrie, please
Dreitzes
you have that Dave Ferrie was an assassination conspirator, and please cite
your sources.
Dave Reitzes
Robert Harris
(Dreitzes) wrote:
David,
As you know very well, I have posted my analysis and evidence about this
many, many times, both recently and over the years.
I consider Ferrie to be a primary suspect for a number of reasons. First,
he obviously lied to the FBI when he claimed he never knew Oswald. We know
from photographic evidence, that he was with him at a CAP picnic, and we
know that he was seen with Oswald in Clinton, La.
We also know that Oswald used the address of the same building that Ferrie
and Banister used, in his flyers. It is more than obvious that he lied to
the FBI, and did indeed, know Oswald.
That fact was further confirmed by people whom Ferrie worked with. Martin
reported him to the authorities for example. And it doesn't matter that he
was a bit of a crackpot. I've worked with a few folks over the years who
didn't have all four wheels on the pavement and none of them called the
cops to report that I or anyone else, was linked to any killers.
More corroboration comes from Ferrie himself, who should have just laughed
off the suggestion that Oswald had his library card. But instead, he
panicked and rushed out to interview Oswald's landlady and neighbors,
asking if Oswald was seen using his own library card, or his.
But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination. The notion that he would
just *coincidentally* go off his rocker and implicate Ferrie, who really
did know Oswald, is just ridiculous.
West and Myers, actually checked in to a different hotel when they first
arrived in Dallas, but then moved into the Cabana on 11/21. Braden was a
character with a long rap sheet, who apparently, lied to both the
Sheriff's office and then years later, to the HSCA, claiming that he was
only in DP Plaza to use the phone, and went up to the third floor of the
Daltex *after* the assassination, in direct contradiction to his first
statement to the officer who arrested him.
And yet, Ferrie, who had phoned West and used the same office that Braden
did in New Orleans, denied any connection to Jack Ruby. If that was true,
then the meeting at the Cabana was a millions-to-one coincidence.
Think of it this way, David - if Ferrie didn't know Jack Ruby, as he
claimed, then the odds of 3 of his acquaintances being with Ruby on the
night before the attack were identical to those that three of my friends
being there, or your father's or uncles, etc. Think about that David -
then call some of your older relatives and ask them if they had buddies
hanging with Ruby on 11/21/63:-)
And here's another of those little coincidences that are so critical to
the LN case, David: Several months ago, Paul Burke, a dedicated LNer and
Autocad user, and I battled for some time, about the possibility of a
shooter in the Daltex building. Burke did not seriously dispute my claim
that the lateral angle back to the windows behind the Daltex fire escape
was in perfect alignment with the known wounds in Kennedy and Connally.
But he did argue that a shooter on the second floor of the Daltex could
not have hit Kennedy at Z224 without putting the bullet through the
windshield of the Secret Service followup car. OTOH, Burke declared that
the angle from the *THIRD* floor was "perfect". Frankly, I hadn't looked
closely at that issue because the exact height of the security car
windshield was unknown, as well as the exact distance between the two cars
at that frame.
But after looking closely at the Zfilm and other photos, I was forced to
publicly concede, that in all probability, Burke was correct. The followup
car windshield did indeed, block the trajectory of a Z224 shot from the
second floor of the Daltex.
But I was also able to confirm that Burke was correct about that *third*
floor angle. From there, the trajectory was indeed, nearly "perfect"
(Burke's descriptor, not mine).
David, one of the few things Braden could *not* lie about, was the floor
he was on in the Daltex. After all, it was the elevator operator who
reported him. And which floor did that turn out to be? That's right, David
- Braden had to admit that he was indeed, on that same, *third* floor.
Ya, I know - just another "coincidence", right?? Of all the floors and
buildings Braden *could* have been in, he just randomly chose that one
place in thousands, that aligned perfectly with known shots and wound
locations.
I will try to post some more for you later, David. I have to get to work.
But let's talk about *motive* next. I say that Ferrie had more than anyone
on the planet, with the possible exception of the guy he was working for
on 11/22/63 and the exiles whom he worked closely with.
Bob Harris
Dreitzes
>
>In article <19990517083243...@ng14.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
>(Dreitzes) wrote:
>
>> For he umpteenth time, Mr. Harris, please enlighten us as to all the
>evidence
>> you have that Dave Ferrie was an assassination conspirator, and please cite
>> your sources.
>>
>> Dave Reitzes
>
>David,
>
>As you know very well, I have posted my analysis and evidence about this
>many, many times, both recently and over the years.
>
>I consider Ferrie to be a primary suspect for a number of reasons. First,
>he obviously lied to the FBI when he claimed he never knew Oswald. We know
>from photographic evidence, that he was with him at a CAP picnic,
We know from Ed Voebel that Oswald only attended two or three CAP meetings --
"four at the most." Why should Ferrie remember some kid from eight years
previous?
and we
>know that he was seen with Oswald in Clinton, La.
Hold that thought.
>We also know that Oswald used the address of the same building that Ferrie
>and Banister used, in his flyers.
The same building, yes. Not the same address, however. If anything, he more
likely chose 544 Camp because it was the former address of the anti-Castro
Cuban Revolutionary Council.
It is more than obvious that he lied to
>the FBI, and did indeed, know Oswald.
I'm sorry, Bob, I just don't see that at all. Why would he remember one cadet
out of hundreds from eight years before? He even went around asking former
cadets if they remembered Oswald from their unit. Why would he go around asking
questions about Oswald and calling attention to himself if he actually *did*
know Oswald?
Furthermore, Jack Martin was in and out of Guy Banister's office all summer,
and it's clear from Martin's earliest statements that he himself never met
Oswald. He tried to convince the authorities that Oswald and Ferrie knew each
other, but when pressed for evidence, instead of simply saying, "I *saw* them
together!" he admitted he was only speculating based on what he'd heard on
television about Oswald being in the CAP. He even made up some ridiculous
stories about Ferrie "hypnoprogramming" Oswald to kill Kennedy, Ferrie training
with rifles at Lake Pontchartrain (where Ferrie -- contrary to popular belief
-- was hanging out in earlier years, *not* 1963), etc.
It's clear as day that if Oswald had been in Banister's office with Ferrie --
as Martin *later* claimed -- he would have said so right away in 1963, when he
was trying to get Ferrie arrested because of a personal grudge against him.
>That fact was further confirmed by people whom Ferrie worked with. Martin
>reported him to the authorities for example.
Yes, see above.
And it doesn't matter that he
>was a bit of a crackpot. I've worked with a few folks over the years who
>didn't have all four wheels on the pavement and none of them called the
>cops to report that I or anyone else, was linked to any killers.
Yes, but again, look at *why* Martin did what he did -- because he was pissed
off at Ferrie for purportedly souring G. Wray Gill on Martin -- and look at
what he said, which was all clearly made up. Why make stories up when all he
had to do was say, "Of course he knew Oswald! I *saw* them together!"
>More corroboration comes from Ferrie himself, who should have just laughed
>off the suggestion that Oswald had his library card. But instead, he
>panicked and rushed out to interview Oswald's landlady and neighbors,
>asking if Oswald was seen using his own library card, or his.
Bob, just one time, listen to me. Jessie Garner said that Ferrie came by either
the night of the assassination or the next night. Was it during the day? No:
"It was the evening, late after dark." And Ferrie left New Orleans around 6 pm
for Kenner, La. Ferrie was out of town that night, the following night, and the
night after that; he arrived back in town on Monday, November 25. He had his
library card with him and it was not a new card; it had expired shortly before.
Moreover, nobody -- *nobody* -- reported any strange man asking about some
library card in November 1963, at the time when the US was hysterical over
tracking down possible confederates of Oswald. Second, Garner testified at the
Shaw trial, and said that a funny man, whom she identified as Ferrie, came to
her door. She didn't say a word about a library card; she didn't say that the
man asked her anything. She said that as soon as she realized he wasn't a law
enforcement agent, she asked him leave. She never mentioned a library card
until 1978, with the HSCA. An Oswald neighbor says that Ferrie came around
asking about a library card, but again, this was years after the fact, after
Ferrie was dead.
Third, not a soul at the DPD saw any library card of Ferrie's. It's not in the
list of Oswald's possessions -- as even such a purported "smoking gun" as
Oswald's DD 1173 card is. No one recalled such a card. Not a soul in New
Orleans was notified about such a card on 11-22-63. The first person *in the
world* to mention such a thing was Jack Martin, who claimed he'd heard about it
on TV, which no one else in the entire world did. It was one of the handful of
stupid stories he started spreading the day after the assassination.
Last, if Ferrie were a conspirator, *why* would he let Oswald run around with
his library card? I mean, *assuming* for a minute that there had even been a
good reason for Oswald to have it in the first place, why would Ferrie let him
get arrested with it?
>
>But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
>acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
>Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination. The notion that he would
>just *coincidentally* go off his rocker and implicate Ferrie, who really
>did know Oswald, is just ridiculous.
>
>West
Jean Aase, aka West, is *not* an acquaintance of Ferrie's, Bob. For the
hundredth time, *someone* at G. Wray Gill's office -- possibly Ferrie, possibly
not -- called the number of the switchboard at Asse's apartment house, which --
if Lawrence Meyers can be credited -- was quite a jumpin' place. To this day,
Aase denies knowing Ferrie, she barely knew Lawrence Meyers (Meyers basically
characterized her as a high-class hooker, I believe), and she only met Ruby
that one night. She couldn't be less relevant. This is a lame factoid.
and Myers, actually checked in to a different hotel when they first
>arrived in Dallas, but then moved into the Cabana on 11/21.
Describe Meyers' relationship to David Ferrie. I'm not familiar with the
allegation.
Braden was a
>character with a long rap sheet, who apparently, lied to both the
>Sheriff's office and then years later, to the HSCA, claiming that he was
>only in DP Plaza to use the phone, and went up to the third floor of the
>Daltex *after* the assassination, in direct contradiction to his first
>statement to the officer who arrested him.
>
Braden was someone who, as I understand it, often worked out of an office that
happened to be in the same building as G. Wray Gill's office, where Ferrie
often worked. To my knowledge, Bob, that's the extent of their "connection." Do
you know anything more about the two of them? If not, strike three.
>And yet, Ferrie, who had phoned West
We don't know that.
and used the same office that Braden
>did in New Orleans,
That's not true. Ferrie worked for G. Wray Gill. Braden worked for an oil guy
named Vernon Main, Jr. Main and Gill happened to have offices in the same
building. So what?
denied any connection to Jack Ruby. If that was true,
>then the meeting at the Cabana was a millions-to-one coincidence.
Meyers was in town for the Pepsi Cola bottlers' convention, which, yes,
coincidentally was that same week. Braden was in town with three friends on oil
business; all four stayed at the Cabana. Like Ferrie at the skating rink, if
Braden was up to anything sinister, he brought along some witnesses just for
the hell of it. Furthermore, we've heard from several witnesses to what
transpired that night, and the witnesses are unanimous that nothing sinister
happened and no talk about the assassination occurred. Bob, one of those
witnesses is *Beverly Oliver* -- don't you think that she of all people would
report on conspiratorial goings-on had there actually been any?
Bill Kelly has a good article on that night at the Cabana Lounge at Deanie
Richards' JFK Place. I urge you to check it out.
>Think of it this way, David - if Ferrie didn't know Jack Ruby, as he
>claimed, then the odds of 3 of his acquaintances being with Ruby on the
>night before the attack were identical to those that three of my friends
>being there, or your father's or uncles, etc. Think about that David -
>then call some of your older relatives and ask them if they had buddies
>hanging with Ruby on 11/21/63:-)
>
Again, Bob -- you're making it all up. Ferrie didn't know West; Ferrie didn't
know Braden, except perhaps in the most casual way; if Ferrie knew Meyers, you
haven't shown us how. And there's absolutely no reason to think that Ferrie
knew Ruby. Even if Ferrie made that phone call on September 24, 1963, it didn't
go to West, and West didn't even know Ruby at the time. There's nothing there,
Bob. You're grasping at straws.
Bob, I have no particular interest in clearing Braden from suspicion, but
Braden has nothing to do with David Ferrie. Like others before you, you're
*assuming* they knew each other because they worked out of the same building.
But have you ever heard Braden talk about G. Wray Gill? Have you ever heard
Ferrie discuss knowing Vernon Main, Jr.? They were in two separate offices in
the same building. Do you have any evidence that they had any more of a
relationship than that? I've never heard any of Ferrie's friends mention
Braden, for example. Have you?
>I will try to post some more for you later, David. I have to get to work.
>But let's talk about *motive* next. I say that Ferrie had more than anyone
>on the planet, with the possible exception of the guy he was working for
>on 11/22/63 and the exiles whom he worked closely with.
>
>
>
>Bob Harris
You're wrong about that too, Bob. That's propaganda you've swallowed whole.
Ferrie *liked* Kennedy. He was angry at him in 1961 and he *got over it.* He
was thrilled to have a Catholic president and he approved of Kennedy's position
on civil rights. Ferrie was anti-Communist but he was not this alleged "rabid
right-winger" -- quite the contrary.
Look over the evidence again, Bob. You seem to very conscious of "spin" -- look
at what you believe about Ferrie and ask yourself if the evidence supports it
or if it's only the result of Garrison's spin. I suspect it is.
Dave Reitzes
Robert Harris
> For he umpteenth time, Mr. Harris, please enlighten us as to all the evidence
> you have that Dave Ferrie was an assassination conspirator, and please cite
> your sources.
>
> Dave Reitzes
(minor correction to my last post in this thread)
David,
As you know very well, I have posted my analysis and evidence about this
many, many times, both recently and over the years.
I consider Ferrie to be a primary suspect for a number of reasons. First,
he obviously lied to the FBI when he claimed he never knew Oswald. We know
from photographic evidence, that he was with him at a CAP picnic, and we
know that he was seen with Oswald in Clinton, La.
We also know that Oswald used the address of the same building that Ferrie
and Banister used, in his flyers. It is more than obvious that he lied to
the FBI, and did indeed, know Oswald.
That fact was further confirmed by people whom Ferrie worked with. Martin
reported him to the authorities for example. And it doesn't matter that he
was a bit of a crackpot. I've worked with a few folks over the years who
didn't have all four wheels on the pavement and none of them called the
cops to report that I or anyone else, was linked to any killers. The
notion that he would just *coincidentally* go off his rocker and implicate
Ferrie, who really did know Oswald, is just ridiculous.
More corroboration comes from Ferrie himself, who should have just laughed
off the suggestion that Oswald had his library card. But instead, he
panicked and rushed out to interview Oswald's landlady and neighbors,
asking if Oswald was seen using his own library card, or his.
But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination.
West and Myers, actually checked in to a different hotel when they first
arrived in Dallas, but then moved into the Cabana on 11/21. Braden was a
character with a long rap sheet, who apparently, lied to both the
Sheriff's office and then years later, to the HSCA, claiming that he was
only in DP Plaza to use the phone, and went up to the third floor of the
Daltex *after* the assassination, in direct contradiction to his first
statement to the officer who arrested him.
And yet, Ferrie, who had phoned West and used the same office that Braden
did in New Orleans, denied any connection to Jack Ruby. If that was true,
then the meeting at the Cabana was a millions-to-one coincidence.
Think of it this way, David - if Ferrie didn't know Jack Ruby, as he
claimed, then the odds of 3 of his acquaintances being with Ruby on the
night before the attack were identical to those that three of my friends
being there, or your father's or uncles, etc. Think about that David -
then call some of your older relatives and ask them if they had buddies
hanging with Ruby on 11/21/63:-)
And here's another of those little coincidences that are so critical to
I will try to post some more for you later, David. I have to get to work.
ritchie linton
>
> Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >More corroboration comes from Ferrie himself, who should have just laughed
> >off the suggestion that Oswald had his library card. But instead, he
> >panicked and rushed out to interview Oswald's landlady and neighbors
>
> who is the victim of what they see as false allegations gone out and tried
> to disprove the allegations, to prove their innocence? It is impossible
> that one would ever do anything but laugh off being accused of a
> connection to a murder?@@@@@
@@@@@@@ BINGO.And worse- not just any murder, but the assassination of the
president!
Well done, Blackburst, I say.Its all too believable that Ferrie knew
something of Oswald, and that he knew thus how it might look. I am sure he
scared s*****s by the apparent association.I know I would have been=
especially if I had any reason to think that Oswald was already connected
to the government, as Ferrie did. I mean, look what they were calling
Oswald on the TV-a 'loner'. If you had reason to suspect otherwise, what
would you have done?Especially if you thought he might still have your
libray card...
I think Dean Andrews did the best job of describing what would
ensue.Andrews was candid enough to admit that he would "testify to
anything"= which he pretty much did.
I think we all need to pause awhile sometimes and consider the effect of
real fear when one is caught in a large event such as this.Fear has always
been a real motive in human behaviour.The question is, what caused the
fear?
I agree with Blackburst= they(Ferrie, Andrews, Shaw et. al.) could see
right away where this might lead others.They were scared. They were the
first to know that Oswald was not as presented on TV.
Ritchie
Blackburst
>I consider Ferrie to be a primary suspect for a number of reasons. First,
>he obviously lied to the FBI when he claimed he never knew Oswald.
That's not the way I read Ferrie's interviews. He said he did not recall
ever meeting Oswald, but that a profile picture of Oswald bore a certain
familiarity. After he spoke to Ed Voebel and a few others within days of
the assassination, he was ready to concede that Oswald may have been a
member of the Moisant Airport CAP squadron when he was assisting with the
unit.
>We know
>from photographic evidence, that he was with him at a CAP picnic,
It was a "bivouac", in August 1955, eight years before the assassination.
Oswald was 15, one of nearly a thousand cadets Ferrie worked with over the
years, and was only in the squadron a few weeks.
>we
>know that he was seen with Oswald in Clinton, La.
I don't think it is a fair representation of the evidence to say this, not
to acknowledge that, while you and many others believe the Clinton
accounts, just as many others have reasonable doubts.
>We also know that Oswald used the address of the same building that Ferrie
>and Banister used, in his flyers
On some pamphlets, correct.
>It is more than obvious that [Ferrie] lied to
>the FBI, and did indeed, know Oswald.
Again, he didn't deny ever meeting him, he just didn't recollect him.
>That fact was further confirmed by people whom Ferrie worked with. Martin
>reported him to the authorities for example. And it doesn't matter that he
>was a bit of a crackpot.
I have just assembled numerous Jack Martin accounts and interviews before
me, and it is hard to discern what it is that Martin was claiming. In
1963, he made no substantive allegations. In 1966, he was saying that he
had seen Oswald, Ferrie and Banister together.
You can't discount the fact that there is contemporaneous documentation of
Martin's vendetta against Ferrie BEFORE the assassination. On May 31,
1963, Martin wrote to an officer of Eastern Air Lines that "This guy
(Ferrie) is a real 10kt. jerk, and anyone who would use him as a pilot and
entrust human life in his hands needs a pyschiatrist." This is a few weeks
before Martin sued Jim Garrison. The voice of moderation?
>More corroboration comes from Ferrie himself, who should have just laughed
>off the suggestion that Oswald had his library card. But instead, he
>panicked and rushed out to interview Oswald's landlady and neighbors
You are saying that, never in the history of jurisprudence has a person
who is the victim of what they see as false allegations gone out and tried
to disprove the allegations, to prove their innocence? It is impossible
that one would ever do anything but laugh off being accused of a
connection to a murder?
> three of Ferrie's
>acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
>Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination.
I know that someone in Gill's office called the number of the rooming
house of one of these people. Can you offer a citation that proves they
were acquainted with Ferrie?
>Ferrie, who had phoned West and used the same office that Braden
>did in New Orleans, denied any connection to Jack Ruby
Room 1701 and room 1707 of the Pere Marquette building were the same
office???
>But let's talk about *motive* next. I say that Ferrie had more than anyone
>on the planet
I don't. Do you discount the evidence that, while Ferrie was pissed about
the Bay of Pigs in 1961, he had voted for JFK and supported some of his
policies? Ferrie was an anticommunist who was sorta liberal on social
issues. Sound like any president we know?
>Ferrie had more than anyone
>on the planet, with the possible exception of the guy he was working for
>on 11/22/63
If you mean Banister, Ferrie was never employed by Banister. He was
employed fulltime by G. Wray Gill.
>with the possible exception of the guy he was working for
>on 11/22/63 and the exiles whom he worked closely with.
>
About 2 years earlier.
Again, Bob, I respect your analysis of the evidence, but I don't think
it's as strong as you do. We all give Oswald a very broad presumption of
innocence, but Ferrie never seems to be accorded the same presumption.
jpsh...@my-dejanews.com
black...@aol.com (Blackburst) wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> >I consider Ferrie to be a primary suspect for a number of reasons. First,
> >he obviously lied to the FBI when he claimed he never knew Oswald.
>
> ever meeting Oswald, but that a profile picture of Oswald bore a certain
> familiarity. After he spoke to Ed Voebel and a few others within days of
> the assassination, he was ready to concede that Oswald may have been a
> member of the Moisant Airport CAP squadron when he was assisting with the
> unit.
>
> >from photographic evidence, that he was with him at a CAP picnic,
>
> Oswald was 15, one of nearly a thousand cadets Ferrie worked with over the
> years, and was only in the squadron a few weeks.
>
> >know that he was seen with Oswald in Clinton, La.
>
> to acknowledge that, while you and many others believe the Clinton
> accounts, just as many others have reasonable doubts.
>
>
> On some pamphlets, correct.
>
> >the FBI, and did indeed, know Oswald.
>
>
> >reported him to the authorities for example. And it doesn't matter that he
> >was a bit of a crackpot.
>
> me, and it is hard to discern what it is that Martin was claiming. In
> 1963, he made no substantive allegations. In 1966, he was saying that he
> had seen Oswald, Ferrie and Banister together.
>
> You can't discount the fact that there is contemporaneous documentation of
> Martin's vendetta against Ferrie BEFORE the assassination. On May 31,
> 1963, Martin wrote to an officer of Eastern Air Lines that "This guy
> (Ferrie) is a real 10kt. jerk, and anyone who would use him as a pilot and
> entrust human life in his hands needs a pyschiatrist." This is a few weeks
> before Martin sued Jim Garrison. The voice of moderation?
>
Wasn't Martin actually out of town for awhile in the Summer of '63?
>
> >More corroboration comes from Ferrie himself, who should have just laughed
> >off the suggestion that Oswald had his library card. But instead, he
> >panicked and rushed out to interview Oswald's landlady and neighbors
>
> You are saying that, never in the history of jurisprudence has a person
> who is the victim of what they see as false allegations gone out and tried
> to disprove the allegations, to prove their innocence? It is impossible
> that one would ever do anything but laugh off being accused of a
> connection to a murder?
>
> > three of Ferrie's
> >acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
> >Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination.
>
> I know that someone in Gill's office called the number of the rooming
> house of one of these people. Can you offer a citation that proves they
> were acquainted with Ferrie?
>
> >Ferrie, who had phoned West and used the same office that Braden
> >did in New Orleans, denied any connection to Jack Ruby
>
> Room 1701 and room 1707 of the Pere Marquette building were the same
> office???
>
> >But let's talk about *motive* next. I say that Ferrie had more than anyone
> >on the planet
>
> I don't. Do you discount the evidence that, while Ferrie was pissed about
> the Bay of Pigs in 1961, he had voted for JFK and supported some of his
> policies? Ferrie was an anticommunist who was sorta liberal on social
> issues. Sound like any president we know?
>
> >Ferrie had more than anyone
> >on the planet, with the possible exception of the guy he was working for
> >on 11/22/63
>
> If you mean Banister, Ferrie was never employed by Banister. He was
> employed fulltime by G. Wray Gill.
>
> >with the possible exception of the guy he was working for
> >on 11/22/63 and the exiles whom he worked closely with.
> >
>
> About 2 years earlier.
>
> Again, Bob, I respect your analysis of the evidence, but I don't think
> it's as strong as you do. We all give Oswald a very broad presumption of
> innocence, but Ferrie never seems to be accorded the same presumption.
>
>
Jerry Shinley
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
John McAdams
>>From: reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
>>
Dave Reitzes posted an excellent refutation of the "Ferrie and Ruby
were connected" business, up 'till right here:
>
>Meyers was in town for the Pepsi Cola bottlers' convention, which, yes,
>coincidentally was that same week. Braden was in town with three friends on oil
>business; all four stayed at the Cabana. Like Ferrie at the skating rink, if
>Braden was up to anything sinister, he brought along some witnesses just for
>the hell of it. Furthermore, we've heard from several witnesses to what
>transpired that night, and the witnesses are unanimous that nothing sinister
>happened and no talk about the assassination occurred. Bob, one of those
>witnesses is *Beverly Oliver* -- don't you think that she of all people would
>report on conspiratorial goings-on had there actually been any?
>
Huh? Beverly Oliver wasn't with those folks! She claimed to have
supper with Ruby, but she didn't mention the "Cabana" thing. She
didn't mention anybody else there. Wasn't it Forth Worth where she
supposedly ate with Ruby (somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this).
However *if* she had heard this "Meyers" business before her book came
out, you can be certain that some version of it would have been there!
>Bill Kelly has a good article on that night at the Cabana Lounge at Deanie
>Richards' JFK Place. I urge you to check it out.
>
>
Want to post the URL?
Does it accept Oliver's testimony?
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>In article <19990517083243...@ng14.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
>(Dreitzes) wrote:
>
>
>But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
>acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
>Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination. The notion that he would
>just *coincidentally* go off his rocker and implicate Ferrie, who really
>did know Oswald, is just ridiculous.
>
Bob, in the first place, the claim that Ferrie "really did" know
Oswald is a buff factoid. And those three folks were not
"acquaintances" of Ferrie's. But we'll let that pass for the sake of
argument.
Consider your methodology for trying to "connect" Ruby and Ferrie.
Suppose *before* the assassination you had gotten a list of all
Ferrie's acquaintances and picked three of them. Then suppose you had
picked *one* person who would be connected with the assassination
(Ruby, in this case). And suppose you had picked *one* time when they
had to meet (in this case, the night before the assassination). The
odds against that would be very high.
But in this case, buff "researchers" are rummaging through all
Ferrie's "acquaintances" and rummaging through all Ruby's
"connections" to find a "link." Finding *somebody* among *all* of the
people who had some distant connection with Ferrie who would have
*some* connection with Ruby is very likely indeed.
Using this same logic, I'm "connected" with Leonid Brezhnev, Mother
Teresa, and Hillery Clinton. I don't know any of those folks, but I
know somebody who does [did] know them.
Robert Harris
6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 17 May 1999 14:26:01 GMT, reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
>
> >In article <19990517083243...@ng14.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
> >(Dreitzes) wrote:
> >
> >
> >But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
> >acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
> >Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination. The notion that he would
> >just *coincidentally* go off his rocker and implicate Ferrie, who really
> >did know Oswald, is just ridiculous.
> >
>
> Bob, in the first place, the claim that Ferrie "really did" know
> Oswald is a buff factoid.
Whew!
Glad you cleared that up, John. I really like how you never clutter up
your posts with a lot of evidence and analysis to support your
assertions:-)
> And those three folks were not
> "acquaintances" of Ferrie's.
Sure, John. When Ferrie came to pick up his mail in exactly the same
office that Braden worked, in one of Carlos Marcellos' office buildings,
they always made it a point to ignore each other.
And the call by Ferrie, to Jean West's apt. building in Chicago was just a
wrong number, huh?
> But we'll let that pass for the sake of
> argument.
>
> Consider your methodology for trying to "connect" Ruby and Ferrie.
OK
>
> Suppose *before* the assassination you had gotten a list of all
> Ferrie's acquaintances and picked three of them.
OK
> Then suppose you had
> picked *one* person who would be connected with the assassination
> (Ruby, in this case).
Ruby will do, ok.
> And suppose you had picked *one* time when they
> had to meet (in this case, the night before the assassination). The
> odds against that would be very high.
Yes, especially when we are talking about acquaintances flying in from
Chicago and California.
>
> But in this case, buff "researchers" are rummaging through all
> Ferrie's "acquaintances" and rummaging through all Ruby's
> "connections" to find a "link."
Yes, I think good researchers should look closely at Ruby's connections to
Oswald and to other suspects. That's what the better HSCA people did, and
what any good cop would do.
Are you saying this is not a good tactic?
> Finding *somebody* among *all* of the
> people who had some distant connection with Ferrie who would have
> *some* connection with Ruby is very likely indeed.
John, that is about the silliest argument I have heard this year.
The fact that three Ferrie acquaintances were meeting with Ruby on the eve
of the assassination in a small motel a short distance from DP, was not a
coincidence.
Neither was it a coincidence that Braden turned out to be the only
professional criminal stopped in DP that day, and that Braden turned up in
the Daltex building.
>
> Using this same logic, I'm "connected" with Leonid Brezhnev, Mother
> Teresa, and Hillery Clinton. I don't know any of those folks, but I
> know somebody who does [did] know them.
So, exactly how many of your friends were meeting with Ruby on 11/21/63, John?
And how many of that same group turned up in DP that day, in a probable
sniper's location?
You are deliberately mis-stating my argument when you claim that I am only
describing someone Ferrie knew, being vaguely connected to someone Ruby
knew. We aren't talking about a 2nd cousin of Ferrie's running into Ruby's
barber at the 7-11, John.
Ferrie lied when he denied knowing Ruby, just like he lied when he said he
didn't know Oswald.
I tell you what, John. Talk to any detective on MPD and give him all the
details of this meeting at the Cabana and then ask him if he would presume
that this was an innocent coincidence as you claim it was.
And while you're at it, please ask him about the "coincidence" that Oswald
chose to use the address out of thousands of others, of the building that
Ferrie and Banister worked out of, for his leaflets.
It gets pretty silly after while, doesn't it John?
Robert Harris
Dreitzes
>From: cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
>
[snip]
>Sure, John. When Ferrie came to pick up his mail in exactly the same
>office that Braden worked
For, oh, about the twentieth time or so, would someone please help Mr.
Harris out by citing a primary source for this assertion?
[snip]
>And the call by Ferrie, to Jean West's apt. building in Chicago was just a
>wrong number, huh?
For about, oh, the twentieth time or so, would someone please help Mr.
Harris out by citing primary sources indicating that:
1. Jean Aase (alias West) or an acquaintance of hers received this phone
call.
2. Jean Aase (alias West) was acquainted with David Ferrie. (I assume that
West is one of the three alleged Ferrie associates to whom Mr. Harris
keeps referring.)
>The fact that three Ferrie acquaintances were meeting with Ruby on the eve
>of the assassination in a small motel a short distance from DP, was not a
>coincidence.
Also, I can only assume that Lawrence Meyers and Jim Braden are the other
two alleged Ferrie acquaintances.
For about, oh, the twentieth time or so, would someone please help Mr.
Harris out by citing primary sources demonstrating that:
1. David Ferrie and Lawrence Meyers were acquainted.
2. David Ferrie and Jim Braden were acquainted.
[snip]
Lastly . . .
>Ferrie lied when he denied knowing Ruby, just like he lied when he said he
>didn't know Oswald.
For, oh, about the twentieth time or so, would someone help Mr. Harris out
by citing primary sources demonstrating that:
1. David Ferrie was acquainted with Jack Ruby.
2. David Ferrie had reason to recall, in November 1963, a brief
acquaintance with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1955, when Oswald attended "two or
three" ("four at the most") Civil Air Patrol meetings, according to his
friend Edward Voebel -- only one such meeting of which has been verified
to have also included Ferrie.
Thank you.
Dave Reitzes
Robert Harris
(Dreitzes) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Harris mangles statistical concepts
> >From: cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >Sure, John. When Ferrie came to pick up his mail in exactly the same
> >office that Braden worked
>
> For, oh, about the twentieth time or so, would someone please help Mr.
> Harris out by citing a primary source for this assertion?
David, I know you are aware of the many postings both from me and from
others, that document this. In fact, you have responded to posts by Bill
Kelly which very specifically prove the point. This is from Bill's post on
5/21/99.
"Braden then catches up with them in Houson and they fly on to New Orleans
where Braden kept office space with Vernon Main, Jr. in Room 1701 of the
Pere Marquette office building, just down the hall from Gill. (Peter
Noyes, p. 158 Legacy of Doubt, Pinnacle, 1973)"
Yes, Gill used office 1707, just down the hall from Braden. But as Anthony
Summers related on p. 454 of "Conspiracy" (paperback edition), Ferrie also
received mail in the same office Braden worked out of,
"In his work for Marcellos, Ferrie worked out of an office in New Orleans'
Pere Marquette Buyilding. This was designated Room 1706, which was
incorrect, but he did have his mail sent to Room 1701. A check of federal
records shows that Eugene Brading gave that same building and the same
floor, as his New Orleans address. He told parole authorities that he used
Room 1701."
So yes David - much as you may hate the fact, Ferrie did indeed, pick up
his mail in exactly, the same office that Braden worked in.
>
> [snip]
>
> >And the call by Ferrie, to Jean West's apt. building in Chicago was just a
> >wrong number, huh?
>
> For about, oh, the twentieth time or so, would someone please help Mr.
> Harris out by citing primary sources indicating that:
>
> 1. Jean Aase (alias West) or an acquaintance of hers received this phone
> call.
Gosh, you sure got me there, David!
I just can't prove, to save my life that Jean West (or whatever her alias
was) actually answered the phone! Maybe it was just a "coincidence" that
Ferrie called that one, out of say a hundred or so thousand apt.
buildings.
>
> 2. Jean Aase (alias West) was acquainted with David Ferrie. (I assume that
> West is one of the three alleged Ferrie associates to whom Mr. Harris
> keeps referring.)
That's just a repeat of your last question, David. You want to exploit the
fact that no-one can prove who actually answered the telephone.
With the possible exception of Dr. McAdams, I seriously doubt that you
will find another soul on the planet who believes that it was just a fluke
that Jean West lived in that building, and that Ferrie was calling someone
else.
>
> >The fact that three Ferrie acquaintances were meeting with Ruby on the eve
> >of the assassination in a small motel a short distance from DP, was not a
> >coincidence.
>
> Also, I can only assume that Lawrence Meyers and Jim Braden are the other
> two alleged Ferrie acquaintances.
>
> For about, oh, the twentieth time or so, would someone please help Mr.
> Harris out by citing primary sources demonstrating that:
>
> 1. David Ferrie and Lawrence Meyers were acquainted.
Meyers and West were together, David. Considering Ferrie's sexual
preferences, it's doubtful that he was calling her for a date.
Of course, since you believe Ferrie was calling someone else, this
probably doesn't matter much to you, but I assure you that everyone else
who takes this case even remotely seriously, considers it probable that
Ferrie was contacting Meyers.
You really should read some of the HSCA reports about this, David. HSCA
investigators who were certainly, not wild-eyed conspiracists, asked a
large number of witnesses about Meyers, and were obviously, much more
suspicious of him than they were his girlfriend.
Of course, they were investigators, not advocates.
>
> 2. David Ferrie and Jim Braden were acquainted.
Of course they were. Ferrie collected his mail from the same office that
Braden worked in.
But then, since I don't have a video tape of them shaking hands, I guess I
can't *PROVE* it, right David?
David, do you lose sleep at night wondering why they convicted poor,
innocent Timothy McVeigh? After all, no-one has a picture of him setting
off the O.C. bomb, do they?
If you raise the bar high enough, you can always demand a higher level of
proof, David? If we have circumstantial evidence, that's not good enough.
Neither are witnesses, regardless of how many or how credible they are.
You can just say they all conspired to lie.
Your advocacy goes beyond ridiculous, David. There is not a cop or
professional investigator on the planet who would not at the very least,
be *extremely* suspicious of this kind of connection between two long-time
suspects.
Your claim that three people who were clearly, connected to David Ferrie,
just wound up by sheer coincidence, with Jack Ruby, 12 hours before the
assassination, is nonsense.
>
> [snip]
>
> Lastly . . .
>
> >Ferrie lied when he denied knowing Ruby, just like he lied when he said he
> >didn't know Oswald.
>
> For, oh, about the twentieth time or so, would someone help Mr. Harris out
> by citing primary sources demonstrating that:
>
> 1. David Ferrie was acquainted with Jack Ruby.
The alternative is a billion-to-one (OK, 10 million to 1) coincidence,
David.
>
> 2. David Ferrie had reason to recall, in November 1963, a brief
> acquaintance with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1955, when Oswald attended "two or
> three" ("four at the most") Civil Air Patrol meetings, according to his
> friend Edward Voebel -- only one such meeting of which has been verified
> to have also included Ferrie.
Bullshit!
Corrie positively identified Ferrie, David. So did other witnesses in
Clinton. And your efforts to demean those people with your silly "witness
conspiracy" is a joke, David. Do you really think that kind of argument
convinces anyone?
And your belief that Oswald just "coincidentally" used the address of the
building where Ferrie and Banister worked, on his flyers, is almost as
preposterous as your other coincidences.
BTW, David - excuse me for changing the subject, but how many snipers do
you think were in on the attack in Dealey Plaza?
Robert Harris
Dreitzes
For, oh, about the twenty-first time or so, would someone please help Mr.
Harris
out by citing a primary source for this assertion?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >And the call by Ferrie, to Jean West's apt. building in Chicago was just a
>> >wrong number, huh?
>>
>> For about, oh, the twentieth time or so, would someone please help Mr.
>> Harris out by citing primary sources indicating that:
>>
>> 1. Jean Aase (alias West) or an acquaintance of hers received this phone
>> call.
>
>
>Gosh, you sure got me there, David!
>
>I just can't prove, to save my life that Jean West (or whatever her alias
>was) actually answered the phone! Maybe it was just a "coincidence" that
>Ferrie called that one, out of say a hundred or so thousand apt.
>buildings.
For about, oh, the twenty-first time or so, would someone please help Mr.
Harris out by citing primary sources indicating that:
1. Jean Aase (alias West) or an acquaintance of hers received this phone call.
>> 2. Jean Aase (alias West) was acquainted with David Ferrie. (I assume that
>> West is one of the three alleged Ferrie associates to whom Mr. Harris
>> keeps referring.)
>
>That's just a repeat of your last question, David. You want to exploit the
>fact that no-one can prove who actually answered the telephone.
Pardon me, Bob, but I asked the kind folks at this newsgroup to help you out.
The least you could do is stay out of the way.
>With the possible exception of Dr. McAdams, I seriously doubt that you
>will find another soul on the planet who believes that it was just a fluke
>that Jean West lived in that building, and that Ferrie was calling someone
>else.
I always enjoy hearing your opinions. Now, let the people with evidence talk.
Assuming there are any.
>>
>> >The fact that three Ferrie acquaintances were meeting with Ruby on the eve
>> >of the assassination in a small motel a short distance from DP, was not a
>> >coincidence.
>>
>> Also, I can only assume that Lawrence Meyers and Jim Braden are the other
>> two alleged Ferrie acquaintances.
>>
>> For about, oh, the twentieth time or so, would someone please help Mr.
>> Harris out by citing primary sources demonstrating that:
>>
>> 1. David Ferrie and Lawrence Meyers were acquainted.
>
>
>Meyers and West were together, David. Considering Ferrie's sexual
>preferences, it's doubtful that he was calling her for a date.
>
>Of course, since you believe Ferrie was calling someone else, this
>probably doesn't matter much to you, but I assure you that everyone else
>who takes this case even remotely seriously, considers it probable that
>Ferrie was contacting Meyers.
>
For about, oh, the twenty-first time or so, would someone please help Mr.
Harris out by citing primary sources demonstrating that:
1. David Ferrie and Lawrence Meyers were acquainted.
>You really should read some of the HSCA reports about this, David. HSCA
>investigators who were certainly, not wild-eyed conspiracists, asked a
>large number of witnesses about Meyers, and were obviously, much more
>suspicious of him than they were his girlfriend.
>
>Of course, they were investigators, not advocates.
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. David Ferrie and Jim Braden were acquainted.
>
>
>Of course they were. Ferrie collected his mail from the same office that
>Braden worked in.
For about, oh, the twenty-second time . . .
>But then, since I don't have a video tape of them shaking hands, I guess I
>can't *PROVE* it, right David?
>
>David, do you lose sleep at night wondering why they convicted poor,
>innocent Timothy McVeigh? After all, no-one has a picture of him setting
>off the O.C. bomb, do they?
>
>
>If you raise the bar high enough, you can always demand a higher level of
>proof, David? If we have circumstantial evidence, that's not good enough.
>Neither are witnesses, regardless of how many or how credible they are.
>You can just say they all conspired to lie.
>
>Your advocacy goes beyond ridiculous, David. There is not a cop or
>professional investigator on the planet who would not at the very least,
>be *extremely* suspicious of this kind of connection between two long-time
>suspects.
>
>Your claim that three people who were clearly, connected to David Ferrie,
For about, oh, the twenty-third time . . .
>just wound up by sheer coincidence, with Jack Ruby, 12 hours before the
>assassination, is nonsense.
>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Lastly . . .
>>
>> >Ferrie lied when he denied knowing Ruby, just like he lied when he said he
>> >didn't know Oswald.
>>
>> For, oh, about the twentieth time or so, would someone help Mr. Harris out
>> by citing primary sources demonstrating that:
>>
>> 1. David Ferrie was acquainted with Jack Ruby.
>
>
>The alternative is a billion-to-one (OK, 10 million to 1) coincidence,
>David.
Bob, if you have nothing to say in defense of your theory, at least stop
changing the subject.
For, oh, about the twenty-first time or so, would someone help Mr. Harris out
by citing primary sources demonstrating that:
1. David Ferrie was acquainted with Jack Ruby.
>> 2. David Ferrie had reason to recall, in November 1963, a brief
>> acquaintance with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1955, when Oswald attended "two or
>> three" ("four at the most") Civil Air Patrol meetings, according to his
>> friend Edward Voebel -- only one such meeting of which has been verified
>> to have also included Ferrie.
>
>
>Bullshit!
>
>Corrie positively identified Ferrie, David.
Anyone who still believes the Clinton story should consult the Clinton chapter
in Patricia Lambert's *False Witness.*
>So did other witnesses in
>Clinton.
Wrong.
>And your efforts to demean those people with your silly "witness
>conspiracy" is a joke, David. Do you really think that kind of argument
>convinces anyone?
\:^)
For, oh, about the twenty-first time or so, would someone help Mr. Harris out
by citing primary sources demonstrating that:
2. David Ferrie had reason to recall, in November 1963, a brief acquaintance
with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1955, when Oswald attended "two or three" ("four at
the most") Civil Air Patrol meetings, according to his friend Edward Voebel --
only one such meeting of which has been verified to have also included Ferrie.
>
>And your belief that Oswald just "coincidentally" used the address of the
>building where Ferrie and Banister worked, on his flyers, is almost as
>preposterous as your other coincidences.
Would anyone care to try their hand at yet another question Mr. Harris has
repeatedly declined to answer: If Oswald worked out of Guy Banister's office
and intended to use that address on his literature, why did he not, in fact,
use that address? Why did he instead use an unrelated address around the
corner?
>BTW, David - excuse me for changing the subject, but how many snipers do
>you think were in on the attack in Dealey Plaza?
>
>
>
>
>Robert Harris
See my post "CT ON THE EDGE."
DR
Robert Harris
(Dreitzes) wrote:
OIC, so it's not enough to cite researchers like Noyes and Summers. Now,
I have to look up the people that they actually interviewed, and give you
their "primary" statements, is that right?
Do I also have to catch a plane to the federal archives where the
documents that Summers described are, and make photocopies for you, David?
That is indeed strange, coming from a peron who recently based his entire
case on Steven Bochan's claim that Gaeton Fonzi heard something 20 years
ago (undocumented of course), related to what she vaguely recalled 15
years before that:-)
Where were *your* "primary" sources, David:-) In fact, I didn't even
demand that you run down the docs yourself. I only asked you to tell me
where *I* could find Mrs. Connell's actual words.
I'm still awaiting your response, BTW, along with *any* kind of support
(primary or otherwise) for your assertion that Garrison was a child
molestor.
But David, I assure you that Noyes and Summers research has been checked
and confirmed by many researchers, including many from the Posner camp. If
there was even the slightest flaw in their reports, we would have heard
about it in spades by now.
Of course, you haven't found any flaws in their research either, have you
David? You just don't like what they found:-)
BTW, David. Do you think Oswald was guilty of the crime? And if so, do you
think he acted alone?
Robert Harris
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <37477652...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
You still don't understand the point.
When you rummage thought literally thousands of possible "connections"
and "links" some of them are going to turn up "positive."
And when that happens, the buffs ignore the thousands that didn't pan
out, and shout "Wow! What a coincidence! Spooky, man!"
But in fact, it was highly likely that one or two of the several
thousand would be "positive" just by chance.
Let me give you an example: in 1963 my high school class went to New
Orleans, and we had lunch at the Court of Two Sisters. But later
somebody who worked there turned up in the Garrison investigation
linking Ferrie to Oswald, or some such (I forget the details).
See, *I'm* linked to the assassination. And all my high school
classmates too!
What's your link to the assassination, Bob?
You certainly have one or two. Just think real hard.
Dreitzes
>
cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
>wrote:
>
[snip]
>>Yes, I think good researchers should look closely at Ruby's connections to
>>Oswald and to other suspects. That's what the better HSCA people did, and
>>what any good cop would do.
>>
>>Are you saying this is not a good tactic?
>>
>
>You still don't understand the point.
>
>When you rummage thought literally thousands of possible "connections"
>and "links" some of them are going to turn up "positive."
>
>And when that happens, the buffs ignore the thousands that didn't pan
>out, and shout "Wow! What a coincidence! Spooky, man!"
>
>But in fact, it was highly likely that one or two of the several
>thousand would be "positive" just by chance.
>
>Let me give you an example: in 1963 my high school class went to New
>Orleans, and we had lunch at the Court of Two Sisters.
GASP!!
But later
>somebody who worked there turned up in the Garrison investigation
>linking Ferrie to Oswald, or some such (I forget the details).
Employee Leander D'Avy claimed that Oswald came into the restaurant in the
summer of 1962 -- that's right, 1962 -- and asked for a "Clay Bertrand."
According to D'Avy, manager Eugene Clair Davis offered to speak with him. D'Avy
later claimed to have seen Oswald with Ferrie, Gene Davis, a Cuban or two, and
two of the "three tramps."
According to John Armstrong, another employee, Michael Hadley, saw Oswald in
the restaurant talking to Gene Davis in early 1962 -- yes, 1962. He said he
overheard one of them say something about a "Clem Bertrand."
Gene Davis, of course, is the man who Dean Andrews revealed in June 1967 to
have been the person he'd been shielding with the cover name "Clay Bertrand."
For the record, Andrews and Davis both testified that Davis himself never used
that name, and there's no evidence that Davis himself knew Oswald (and Andrews
made it clear at the Shaw trial that Davis had called him in the hospital in
1963 about a matter completely unrelated to Oswald).
If any newcomers are confused about "Clay Bertrand," they might want to check
out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
>See, *I'm* linked to the assassination. And all my high school
>classmates too!
>
>What's your link to the assassination, Bob?
>
>You certainly have one or two. Just think real hard.
>
>.John
Wow, I'm sure glad I hadn't been born yet. (Of course, Bob Harris will
undoubtedly accuse me of lying about that too.)
Say, John, you don't have a copy of Peter Noyes' book, do you? I'd sure like to
find out where this Ferrie-Braden "mail drop" story comes from.
DR
Robert Harris
6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 1999 11:32:39 -0600, cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37477652...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> But we'll let that pass for the sake of
> >> argument.
> >>
> >> Consider your methodology for trying to "connect" Ruby and Ferrie.
> >
> >OK
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Suppose *before* the assassination you had gotten a list of all
> >> Ferrie's acquaintances and picked three of them.
> >
> >
> >OK
> >
> >
> >
> >> Then suppose you had
> >> picked *one* person who would be connected with the assassination
> >> (Ruby, in this case).
> >
> >
> >Ruby will do, ok.
> >
> >
> >> And suppose you had picked *one* time when they
> >> had to meet (in this case, the night before the assassination). The
> >> odds against that would be very high.
> >
> >
> >Yes, especially when we are talking about acquaintances flying in from
> >Chicago and California.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> But in this case, buff "researchers" are rummaging through all
> >> Ferrie's "acquaintances" and rummaging through all Ruby's
> >> "connections" to find a "link."
> >
> >
> >Yes, I think good researchers should look closely at Ruby's connections to
> >Oswald and to other suspects. That's what the better HSCA people did, and
> >what any good cop would do.
> >
> >Are you saying this is not a good tactic?
> >
>
> You still don't understand the point.
>
> When you rummage thought literally thousands of possible "connections"
> and "links" some of them are going to turn up "positive."
Did Ruby meet with "thousands" of people, the night before the
assassination, John?
I would doubt that there were more than a dozen or so.
>
> And when that happens, the buffs ignore the thousands that didn't pan
> out, and shout "Wow! What a coincidence! Spooky, man!"
I fail to understand your point here John. Should us "buffs" write about
people that Ferrie knew, who didn't meet with Ruby that night? I'm sure
there must be a few:-)
Is that what you're complaining about?
If so, I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby then, is a much
greater failing. So is your decision to ignore the fact that Braden just
"coincidentally" turned out to be the only professional criminal to be
arrested in DP that day, and that he just "coincidentally" wound up on the
3rd floor of the Daltex building.
>
> But in fact, it was highly likely that one or two of the several
> thousand would be "positive" just by chance.
Sure it is, John. I guess practically everyone had a few buds' meeting
with Ruby that night. I think my aunt Hazel was in charge of bringing the
chalkboard.
>
> Let me give you an example: in 1963 my high school class went to New
> Orleans, and we had lunch at the Court of Two Sisters. But later
> somebody who worked there turned up in the Garrison investigation
> linking Ferrie to Oswald, or some such (I forget the details).
What a wild coincidence! Kinda like running into Mafioso in Chicago, huh.
>
> See, *I'm* linked to the assassination. And all my high school
> classmates too!
>
> What's your link to the assassination, Bob?
>
> You certainly have one or two. Just think real hard.
John, your argument here is pathetic. You need to stop and think about how
this sounds to anyone with a high school diploma.
Robert Harris
Dreitzes
>
>6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 May 1999 11:32:39 -0600, cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
[snip]
>> When you rummage thought literally thousands of possible "connections"
>> and "links" some of them are going to turn up "positive."
>
>
>Did Ruby meet with "thousands" of people, the night before the
>assassination, John?
>
>I would doubt that there were more than a dozen or so.
>
>
>>
>> And when that happens, the buffs ignore the thousands that didn't pan
>> out, and shout "Wow! What a coincidence! Spooky, man!"
>
>
>I fail to understand your point here John. Should us "buffs" write about
>people that Ferrie knew, who didn't meet with Ruby that night? I'm sure
>there must be a few:-)
>
>Is that what you're complaining about?
>
>If so, I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
>three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby
Mr. Harris is simply making this up. No known associate of Ferrie's met
with Jack Ruby on the night before the assassination, if ever.
then, is a much
>greater failing. So is your decision to ignore the fact that Braden just
>"coincidentally" turned out to be the only professional criminal to be
>arrested in DP that day
Mr. Harris likes to pretend this is "evidence."
, and that he just "coincidentally" wound up on the
>3rd floor of the Daltex building.
How many witnesses reported shots from the Dal-Tex building, Bob? Any at
all?
>> But in fact, it was highly likely that one or two of the several
>> thousand would be "positive" just by chance.
>
>
>Sure it is, John. I guess practically everyone had a few buds' meeting
>with Ruby that night. I think my aunt Hazel was in charge of bringing the
>chalkboard.
>
>
>
>>
>> Let me give you an example: in 1963 my high school class went to New
>> Orleans, and we had lunch at the Court of Two Sisters. But later
>> somebody who worked there turned up in the Garrison investigation
>> linking Ferrie to Oswald, or some such (I forget the details).
>
>
>What a wild coincidence! Kinda like running into Mafioso in Chicago, huh.
>
>
>>
>> See, *I'm* linked to the assassination. And all my high school
>> classmates too!
>>
>> What's your link to the assassination, Bob?
>>
>> You certainly have one or two. Just think real hard.
>
>
>John, your argument here is pathetic.
I don't know which is more strange -- that the mods let people insult
other posters like this, or that Robert Harris is the first person to
accuse the mods of censorship when they occasionally reject one of his
lovely little missives.
You need to stop and think about how
>this sounds to anyone with a high school diploma.
>
>
>
>
>Robert Harris
\:^)
John McAdams
>
> In article <374b80af...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> > >>
> > >> Suppose *before* the assassination you had gotten a list of all
> > >> Ferrie's acquaintances and picked three of them.
> > >
> > >
> > >OK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Then suppose you had
> > >> picked *one* person who would be connected with the assassination
> > >> (Ruby, in this case).
> > >
> > >
> > >Ruby will do, ok.
> > >
> > >
> > >> And suppose you had picked *one* time when they
> > >> had to meet (in this case, the night before the assassination). The
> > >> odds against that would be very high.
> > >
> > >
> > >Yes, especially when we are talking about acquaintances flying in from
> > >Chicago and California.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> But in this case, buff "researchers" are rummaging through all
> > >> Ferrie's "acquaintances" and rummaging through all Ruby's
> > >> "connections" to find a "link."
> > >
> > >
> > >Yes, I think good researchers should look closely at Ruby's connections to
> > >Oswald and to other suspects. That's what the better HSCA people did, and
> > >what any good cop would do.
> > >
> > >Are you saying this is not a good tactic?
> > >
> >
> > You still don't understand the point.
> >
> > and "links" some of them are going to turn up "positive."
>
> Did Ruby meet with "thousands" of people, the night before the
> assassination, John?
>
Why are you limiting it to "the night before the assassination?" The
day of the assassination would do fine, given your logic, as would the
week before the assassination, or the day after the assassination. Any
could be painted as sinister.
> I would doubt that there were more than a dozen or so.
>
> >
> > And when that happens, the buffs ignore the thousands that didn't pan
> > out, and shout "Wow! What a coincidence! Spooky, man!"
>
> I fail to understand your point here John. Should us "buffs" write about
> people that Ferrie knew, who didn't meet with Ruby that night? I'm sure
> there must be a few:-)
>
If buffs honestly admitted that there are *thousands* of people who had
some vague and tangential "connection" to Ferrie, and that one of the
thousands ate with Ruby the night before the assassination, that would
indeed be a huge improvement.
> Is that what you're complaining about?
>
> If so, I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
> three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby then, is a much
> greater failing. So is your decision to ignore the fact that Braden just
> "coincidentally" turned out to be the only professional criminal to be
> arrested in DP that day, and that he just "coincidentally" wound up on the
> 3rd floor of the Daltex building.
>
You have no evidence that Braden even *knew* Ferrie, nor that he knew
Ruby.
The "Ruby-dinner" story is entirely separate from the "Braden" story.
> >
> > But in fact, it was highly likely that one or two of the several
> > thousand would be "positive" just by chance.
>
> Sure it is, John. I guess practically everyone had a few buds' meeting
> with Ruby that night. I think my aunt Hazel was in charge of bringing the
> chalkboard.
>
If you rummaged throught your Aunt Hazel's "connections" as thoroughly
as you have rummaged through Ferrie's "connections" you probably *could*
find somebody she was "connected to" having somehow talked to or seen
Ruby in the days surrounding the assassination.
>
> >
> > Let me give you an example: in 1963 my high school class went to New
> > Orleans, and we had lunch at the Court of Two Sisters. But later
> > somebody who worked there turned up in the Garrison investigation
> > linking Ferrie to Oswald, or some such (I forget the details).
>
> What a wild coincidence! Kinda like running into Mafioso in Chicago, huh.
>
> >
> > See, *I'm* linked to the assassination. And all my high school
> > classmates too!
> >
> > What's your link to the assassination, Bob?
> >
> > You certainly have one or two. Just think real hard.
>
> John, your argument here is pathetic. You need to stop and think about how
> this sounds to anyone with a high school diploma.
>
Of course it's pathetic, Bob. It's just like *your* argument! That's
the point.
As of "high school diplomas," my kids studied probability in junior high
school. So they would have no problem picking this up.
.John
--
Robert Harris
(Dreitzes) wrote:
> >From: cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> >
> >6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 24 May 1999 11:32:39 -0600, cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >> When you rummage thought literally thousands of possible "connections"
> >> and "links" some of them are going to turn up "positive."
> >
> >
> >Did Ruby meet with "thousands" of people, the night before the
> >assassination, John?
> >
> >I would doubt that there were more than a dozen or so.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> And when that happens, the buffs ignore the thousands that didn't pan
> >> out, and shout "Wow! What a coincidence! Spooky, man!"
> >
> >
> >I fail to understand your point here John. Should us "buffs" write about
> >people that Ferrie knew, who didn't meet with Ruby that night? I'm sure
> >there must be a few:-)
> >
> >Is that what you're complaining about?
> >
> >If so, I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
> >three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby
>
>
> Mr. Harris is simply making this up.
David, I think it's a bit unfair of you to accuse me of lying in a
newsgroup in which we all know that you are shielded by the moderators. I
couldn't accuse someone of "making this up", here, if my life depended on
it.
But I will also respond to this post in alt.conspiracy.jfk where I believe
it will become quickly apparent, who is the liar.
I will simply rest my case here, by pointing out that we all know you are
aware of the research by Noyes and Summers, since you responded to posts
by William Kelly, Martha, and myself which proved that Ferrie made use of
the same office that James Braden worked out of, in New Orleans.
You also know that Ferrie called Jean West's apartment building, as did
Lawrence Meyers. Of course, Meyers and West travelled together to Dallas
to meet with Ruby, and undoubtedly, Braden on the eve of the
assassination.
But getting back to your preposterous charge that I "made all this up".
Besides the obvious fact that you are wrong, we all know that you *knew*
that you were wrong. The following is just one of many posts which were in
direct response to your messages, David. This particular one was from
William Kelley:
(reposted)
Hi Dave and Marta, I just happen to have most of the sources at my
fingertips so I'll post them for you. I also would like to point out the
significance of such phone records because it is hard evidence that stands
up in court (ie. Ted Bundy was convicted on circumstantial gas credit card
records) as well as being of investigative significance by refering to
other sources of possible evidence.
As Robert Kennedy in his book "The Enemy Within" noted: "We find out who
is in touch with whom and on what dates. Say that A calls B; we get B's
calls; find that two minutes after he hung up from talkling to A, he
called C. Then we find from canceled checks, money going from A to C.
Gangsters in Chicago all call the same barber shop in Miami Beach that
gangsters in Detroit call - its being used as a syndicate message center.
Records are far more important than winesses."
In this case the records stem from the Warren Commission's investigation
of Jack Ruby's phone records as well as his associate Lawrence Meyers,
along with the records obtained by Dave's favorite prosecutor, the New
Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
As part of his investigation of David Ferrie, Garrison (Heritage of
Stone. NY Putnam, 1970) subpoened the phone records of New Orleans
attorney G. Ray, for whom Ferrie was working on the Carlos Marchello
deportaion case in Sept. - Nov. 1963. Gill's offices were at Room 1707 of
the Pere Marquette building in downtown New Orleans (It's still there),
next to the Pinkerton Detective Agency and down the hall from Vernon Main,
whose main interests is oil.
While Garrison accuses Ferrie of making the call from Gill's office in
New Orleans to Chicago Whitehall 4-4970, and Gill cliams he fired Ferrie
for making too many unauthorized long distance phone calls, actually
anyone in that office could have made the call. The phone number is listed
as 20 East Delaware Ave., Chicago, a hotel-apartment and bar operated by
Les Barker.
Garrison did a comparision of the phone records he obtained from Gill's
office with the phone records of the Warren Commission and discovered that
Lawrence Meyers, a friend of Jack Ruby, also called the same number.
According to his HSCA testimony Meyers was a friend and business parter
with Barker and frequented 20 East Delaware, Jean Aase (aka West), who
accompanied Meyers to Dallas on the weekend of the assassination. They
arrived on Wednesday night, stayed at a hotel near the airport and then
moved to the Cabana Hotel where Meyers had previously stayed during the
Hotel's grand opening.
Meyers was a friend of Ruby - they were both from Chicago, and visited
the Carousel Club that Thursday night before Ruby joined Meyers and Aase
and Meyers brother and his wife at the Cabana around midnight. It's
possible that Ruby, Meyers and Beverly Oliver ate a steak dinner that
night at Campisi's Egyptian Lounge, although the Warren Report
misidentifies Ruby's dinner companion that night as being Ralph Paul.
Another guest at the Cabana that night was Jim Braden and his friends,
who had just arrived by private plane from California on oil business.
They too ate at an Italian restaurant that night, although there is no
evidence that Braden and his associates knew or met Ruby or Meyers.
The next morning however, Ruby and Braden's associates both went to the
offices of H.L. Hunt at approximately the same time, and early that
afternoon Braden was arrested as a suspicious person in the Dal-Tex
building (See: Braden on Braden post).
What is suspicious however, is that Braden's pals all pack up and leave
town before he's released by the authorities even though they told the
hotel clerk they would be staying a few days longer. Braden then cataches
up with them in Houson and they fly on to New Orleans where Braden kept
office space with Vernon Main, Jr. in Room 1701 of the Pere Marquette
office building, just down the hall from Gill. (Peter Noyes, p. 158 Legacy
of Doubt, Pinnacle, 1973).
By the way, when Richard Sprage was appointed the first chief counsel of
the HSCA he made his staff read Noyes' book., while the guy who replaced
him G.R. Blakey, mentions this evidence in his book, but locked the files
away.
So this trail goes from the 17th floor of Pere Marquette in New Orleans
to 20 East Delaware, Chicago to the Cabana in Dallas and back to the 17th
floor in New Orleans. Yet, the exact nature of the communication and the
connection between Braden and Ruby/Myers is yet to be determined, though
I'm confident it is there.
In addition, the date of the call is not insignificant - September 24,
1963, the day Oswald left New Orleans for Mexico City.
While most researchers point to Jean Aase as the missing link, and she
has been located and has talked with Peter Whitmey and Gus Russo, I
believe that Les Barker is the one who should be looked at closer.
Another more accessable source for this info is Anthony Summers, Not In
Your Lifetime (Marlowe, 1998, p 347).
John McAdams
>In article <19990526195429...@ng36.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
>(Dreitzes) wrote:
>
>
>But getting back to your preposterous charge that I "made all this up".
>Besides the obvious fact that you are wrong, we all know that you *knew*
>that you were wrong. The following is just one of many posts which were in
>direct response to your messages, David. This particular one was from
>William Kelley:
>
>(reposted)
>
>
>Hi Dave and Marta, I just happen to have most of the sources at my
>fingertips so I'll post them for you. I also would like to point out the
>significance of such phone records because it is hard evidence that stands
>up in court (ie. Ted Bundy was convicted on circumstantial gas credit card
>records) as well as being of investigative significance by refering to
>other sources of possible evidence.
>
> As Robert Kennedy in his book "The Enemy Within" noted: "We find out who
>is in touch with whom and on what dates. Say that A calls B; we get B's
>calls; find that two minutes after he hung up from talkling to A, he
>called C. Then we find from canceled checks, money going from A to C.
>Gangsters in Chicago all call the same barber shop in Miami Beach that
>gangsters in Detroit call - its being used as a syndicate message center.
>Records are far more important than winesses."
>
The problem, Bob, is that the records don't point to a Ferrie/West
connection at all.
Why is West so important anyway? Was she a mob moll or something?
She seems simply to have been Meyers bimbo.
> In this case the records stem from the Warren Commission's investigation
>of Jack Ruby's phone records as well as his associate Lawrence Meyers,
>along with the records obtained by Dave's favorite prosecutor, the New
>Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
>
It seems that to take this seriously, we have to take Garrison's
account at fact value, doesn't it?
Beverly Oliver!!??
This blows it out of the water. Any account that takes Oliver's
testimony at face value entirely lacks credibility.
> Another guest at the Cabana that night was Jim Braden and his friends,
>who had just arrived by private plane from California on oil business.
>They too ate at an Italian restaurant that night, although there is no
>evidence that Braden and his associates knew or met Ruby or Meyers.
>
But we don't need evidence, do we? Mere speculation will substitute
very nicely!!
.John
Dreitzes
>
[snip]
>Do you really think you are fooling anyone, David, when you accuse me of
>"making this up"??
>
>Why do you continue to make this same, ridiculous claim that there is no
>documentation or evidence, connecting Ferrie to Braden or that he called
>people in Chicago who met with Ruby on the night before the assassination?
>You do this all the while that William Kelly, Martha, I, and others post
>citations proving exactly that.
You have no evidence that David Ferrie called anyone who met with Jack Ruby on
the night before the assassination or at any other time. You are repeating a
groundless factoid. It has been called to your attention dozens of times.
You have no answer or rebuttal to this
>evidence - you just ignore it and continue to shriek, blithely pretending
>that it doesn't exist.
There is no evidence, there is only your assumption, and even your assumption
does not add up to the three individuals you claim. No one but you has ever
claimed, for example, that David Ferrie made two phone calls to Jean Aase's
apartment building, nor that Lawrence Meyers was there to receive a phone call.
When you call Lawrence Meyers a Ferrie acquaintance, you're simply making it
up.
>I don't suppose it bothers you that you are the first person in the
>history of this newsgroup, even among the other 'nutters, to try to even
>imply that Noyes and Summers lied about this evidence.
I have never implied any such thing, Bob. Why don't you deal with the facts,
instead of trying -- yet again -- to smear me?
>And you are the first to try to convince us that Ferrie's call to West's
>apartment building was just a "coincidence", and not intended for her or
>Meyers.
Sorry, Bob, but that little Garrison factoid never had any merit to begin with.
Anyone in Aase's building could have picked up that call, and anyone in G. Wray
Gill's office could have made it. Since you place Jim Braden in G. Wray Gill's
office to retrieve his mail, I'm surprised you don't assume that HE made the
phone call.
But that wouldn't help you incriminate Dave Ferrie, would it?
>David, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, even if you are the
>only person on the planet who holds them. But your claim that I lied and
>just made up these long accepted facts about Braden and Ferrie, do nothing
>more than make you look like a fool, David.>And believe me, your credibility
really can't stand any more hits right
>now:-)
If you say so, Bob. But if you care to support your theory, I wonder when
you're going to post the following:
1. Evidence that Dave Ferrie knew Jack Ruby.
2. Evidence that Dave Ferrie was involved in the assassination of John F.
Kennedy.
3. Evidence that Jack Ruby was involved in the assassination of John F.
Kennedy.
4. Evidence that Jean Aase was involved in the assassination of John F.
Kennedy (at the very least, as an intermediary).
5. Evidence that Lawrence Meyers was involved in the assassination of John
F. Kennedy (at the very least, as an intermediary).
6. Evidence that Jim Braden was involved in the assassination of John F.
Kennedy (at the very least, as an intermediary -- how many intermediaries did
Ferrie and Ruby need, anyway?).
And no, Bob, please keep keep in mind that I'm not asking for merely evidence
that Braden was arrested in Dealey Plaza; I don't believe anyone contests that.
Of course, I know that Garrisonites tend to assume that an arrest is "evidence"
in itself, but please try to restrain yourself.
If you can't produce this evidence, Bob, then your "Ferrie acquaintances" story
is not merely a work of fiction, but it is also an absolutely worthless work of
fiction -- even where your own esoteric theory of the assassination is
concerned.
Regards,
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
>
>Robert Harris wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> Did Ruby meet with "thousands" of people, the night before the
>> assassination, John?
>>
>
>Why are you limiting it to "the night before the assassination?" The
>day of the assassination would do fine, given your logic, as would the
>week before the assassination, or the day after the assassination. Any
>could be painted as sinister.
>
>
Should we be surprised that Bob "Mr. Billion-to-One Coincidence" Harris
just doesn't grasp this concept?
>> I would doubt that there were more than a dozen or so.
>>
>> >
>> > And when that happens, the buffs ignore the thousands that didn't pan
>> > out, and shout "Wow! What a coincidence! Spooky, man!"
>>
>> I fail to understand your point here John. Should us "buffs" write about
>> people that Ferrie knew, who didn't meet with Ruby that night? I'm sure
>> there must be a few:-)
>>
>
>If buffs honestly admitted that there are *thousands* of people who had
>some vague and tangential "connection" to Ferrie, and that one of the
>thousands ate with Ruby the night before the assassination, that would
>indeed be a huge improvement.
>
Yeah, I guess it would be unrealistic for people like Harris to just turn
around and admit they've just been grasping at straws all this time.
Of course, some of us are willing to reexamine our positions, but -- as
Mr. Harris would undoubtedly conclude -- it only shows how weakly held --
or fraudulent -- those positions were from the start. Right?
>> Is that what you're complaining about?
>>
>> If so, I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
>> three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby then, is a much
>> greater failing. So is your decision to ignore the fact that Braden just
>> "coincidentally" turned out to be the only professional criminal to be
>> arrested in DP that day, and that he just "coincidentally" wound up on the
>> 3rd floor of the Daltex building.
>>
>
>You have no evidence that Braden even *knew* Ferrie, nor that he knew
>Ruby.
>
Nope. Bob's just making it up. He just assumes that Big Jim was right
about Ferrie being a Really Evil Guy, just as he assumes that Jim Braden,
being a smalltime hood with Mob connections, was a Really Evil Guy, and
therefore these Really Evil Guys could not possibly have worked for people
with offices in the same building -- a building that Bob loves to --
irrelevantly, as usual -- point out was allegedly owned by another Really
Evil Guy, Carlos Marcello!
This is all just too much of a coincidence for Bob! Bob CLAIMS Ferrie is a
Really Evil Guy, Bob CLAIMS Braden is a Really Evil Guy, Peter Noyes
apparently claims they worked out of offices in the same building, a
building owned by a Really Evil Guy -- and Braden, a Harris-certified
Really Evil Guy was in Dealey Plaza during the assassination!
BINGO! That's "evidence" that these Really Evil Guys were all
assassination conspirators!
But WAIT! There's MORE!
Braden apparently met with JACK RUBY the night before the assassination!
And according to Bob Harris, it's "obvious" that Ruby was involved in the
assassination!
CASE CLOSED, right, Bob? Christ, even Bob's arch-nemesis Posner wouldn't
be caught dead passing off unsupported speculation like this as fact.
>The "Ruby-dinner" story is entirely separate from the "Braden" story.
>
>
Look, John, let's not clutter up Bob's brilliant theory with a bunch of
"facts," okay?
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
>From: reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
[snip]
I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
>> >three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby
>>
>>
>> Mr. Harris is simply making this up.
>
>
>
>David, I think it's a bit unfair of you to accuse me of lying in a
>newsgroup in which we all know that you are shielded by the moderators.
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
Yes, yes, "we all know" the moderators just simply adore me -- as both a
human being and a scholar, I might add \:^) -- just as "we all know" that
Jack Ruby was a conspirator, "we all know" that Dave Ferrie was a
conspirator, "we all know" that Jim Braden was a conspirator . . .
I wonder who Bob means by "we" when he says these things. Bob Harris and
Gerard McNally? McNally is the only other person I've ever seen accuse the
moderators of showing any favoritism towards my posts. Come to think of
it, Mr. Harris coincidentally has some intriguing theories about Mr.
McNally and me. Or . . . is it a coincidence after all? Bob has taught me
to be suspicious about "coincidences" like that. \:^)
But as Bob knows, following his lead, I cross-post all my responses to his
posts on both a.c.jfk and a.a.jfk. Does he believe that a.c.jfk is
"censored" as well? Granted, he would not be the first person to so claim,
but I think he should be explicit about such claims, lest he be
misunderstood. Surely he does not want that!
What I'm wondering, though, is -- assuming Harris doesn't believe a.c.jfk
to be a censored forum -- if he doesn't want people challenging his
fallacies in a forum in which he considers himself disadvantaged, why on
earth would he post his fallacious information to the hated mod group to
begin with? This would seem to be especially ironic, as I only learned a
week or so ago, since -- if I correctly understand the recent posts
between Harris and John McAdams -- Bob himself was the moderator in charge
of the Usenet group that preceded alt.assassination.jfk, and which folded
when Harris fired McAdams and others, because they disagreed with *his*
tendency to censor posts criticizing his beloved Ray and Mary La Fontaine!
Well, let me say, I find this information quite intriguing. Actually, I
was surprised to learn that Harris had ever worked with John McAdams, a
man he routinely accuses of 'infiltrating' a.c.jfk with subversive
"pseudo-buffs." (I learned this when Bob first accused me of being one of
these McAdams "pseudo-buffs" some six months ago, a charge he's repeated
several times since, although his theory about me has grown somewhat.)
To think -- the most vocal critic of mod group "censorship" was once their
most notorious censor himself!
I
>couldn't accuse someone of "making this up", here, if my life depended on
>it.
Gee, I dunno, Bob. I'm constantly amazed at the things you get away with
on this group, but then, I'm continually amazed that any reasonable human
being would so easily toss around terms like "liar" and "phony" to begin
with.
>
>But I will also respond to this post in alt.conspiracy.jfk where I believe
>it will become quickly apparent, who is the liar.
>
Oh, I guess I have that to look forward to. Or did I miss it?
>I will simply rest my case here, by pointing out that we all know you are
>aware of the research by Noyes
Well, no, I've seen Noyes cited in books by Anthony Summers and others,
but you seem reluctant to respond to my requests for a citation, despite
the fact that a Ferrie-Braden link is a crucial part of your personal
assassination theory. (In contrast, you yourself have a habit of demanding
citations from me from books that -- unlike Noyes' -- are currently in
print and readily available, and for claims I consider elementary and/or
trivial.)
> and Summers,
Who cites Noyes, does he not?
since you responded to posts
>by William Kelly, Martha, and myself which proved that Ferrie made use of
>the same office that James Braden worked out of, in New Orleans.
And you're all citing Noyes, correct? Or else you're citing people like
Summers who cite Noyes, correct?
Except . . .
Dave Ferrie *didn't* make "use of the same office that James Braden worked
out of, in New Orleans," did he? He only happened to work of an office in
the same building, didn't he? At least, that's all I get from the
citations I see from Noyes' book, and from the other secondary sources you
cite.
Summers, for example, says:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In his work for Marcello [sic -- I believe Mr. Summers means G. Wray Gill,
who in turn was employed by Marcello], Ferrie worked out of an office in
New Orleans' Pere Marquette Building. This was designated Room 1706, which
was incorrect [How was it incorrect? Summers doesn't say.], but he did
have his mail sent to Room 1701. A check of federal records shows that
Eugene Brading [aka Jim Braden] gave that same building, and the same
floor, as his New Orleans address. He told parole authorities he used Room
1701. Both rooms were just along the corridor from the office used by
David Ferrie [which was what again?] (Summers, Conspiracy, 1989 ed., 454).
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There's a lengthy list of primary and secondary sources (including Noyes'
book) for Summers' information on Braden, but none that seem to refer to
Ferrie.
That's why I say that -- unless Summers is misreporting more definitive
information from Noyes -- there is no factual basis whatsoever for your
claims that "Ferrie made use of the same office that James Braden worked
out of, in New Orleans." Quite simply, as far as I can tell, you're making
it up.
And you know what else? You've repeatedly refused to cite sources for this
claim -- whether from Noyes' book or the requested primary sources --
despite the fact that this Ferrie-Braden "link" is important indeed to
your personal theory of the assassination.
That also seems to be evidence that you're making this story up,
manufacturing a "link" where none exists, and no credible evidence even
suggests.
>
>You also know that Ferrie called Jean West's apartment building,
Give it a rest, Bob. You know perfectly well that a phone call was made by
an unknown person in G. Wray Gill's office on September 24, 1963, to the
switchboard at an apartment building at 20 East Delaware in Chicago. You
have no evidence that the phone call went to Apt. 1405 at that address,
where Jean Aase lived. You don't have any evidence that would make such a
destination a probability or even a likelihood. You don't even have any
evidence that IF the phone call went to Apt. 1405, it was Jean Aase who
took it. Ms. Aase, of course, says she knows of no such phone call. Where
is your evidence to the contrary, Bob?
Where is your evidence that:
1. Dave Ferrie made the call?
2. The call went to Apt. 1405 at 20 E. Delaware?
3. Jean Aase received the call?
4. Jean Aase is, as you claim, an "acquaintance" of Dave Ferrie's?
(You do understand what a circular argument is, right, Bob? So I do have
to worry about you responding that the phone call proves this, right?)
You have accused me of devoting most of my time here on-line to composing
"vicious, personal attacks against those who have honestly tried to bust
this case." Is this how one "honestly" tries to "bust this case," Bob? By
smearing innocent people and parroting factoids proven long ago to have no
foundation in reality? By simply making things up and passing them along
as fact?
Interesting methodology, Bob. Let's continue.
as did
>Lawrence Meyers
Now, how do we make something sinister out of Mr. Meyers' relationship to
Jean Aase, a woman he knew simply as an "accommodating' young woman, who
lived in an apartment building hopping with other "party girls"?
>Of course, Meyers and West travelled together to Dallas
>to meet with Ruby
No, no, see you're doing it again. You're making something up. Or, to be
charitable (and you've earned it!), you're drawing an inference where the
facts do not warrant it in the slightest. Neither Jean Aase/West nor
Lawrence Meyers ever said they "travelled together to Dallas to meet with
Ruby."
However, no one denies that Meyers did ask Aase if she'd mind visiting his
friends' strip club, where she was introduced to Jack Ruby, who also paid
Meyers and Aase a visit later that evening at the Cabana, where they were
staying.
What's so sinister about this, Bob? What happened at the Cabana "meeting"
that's related to the assassination? Are you disputing the post of Bill
Kelly's, which you yourself just cited? Mr. Kelly concluded that nothing
sinister seems to have happened at the Cabana between Ruby and the others.
Do you take issue with that, Bob? And if so, where's your evidence, to
show us you're not simply MAKING IT UP?
, and undoubtedly, Braden on the eve of the
>assassination.
>
"Undoubtedly"???
"Undoubtedly"???
Are you saying that your factoid is even weaker than I know?
You mean that if I investigate your claim that Ruby met with Braden, I
might find that it's just an assumption on your part? That you just MADE
IT UP?
Well, well, well! Isn't that interesting!
Let me go over to the ol' bookshelf, and . . .
GOODNESS!!!
Anthony Summers doesn't say ANYTHING about Braden meeting with Ruby!
Well, let's go digging and find Bill Kelly's article. Didn't Kelly put
Ruby and Braden together?
GOODNESS!!!
William Kelly also doesn't say anything about Braden meeting with Ruby!
You know what, folks? I'm beginning to think Bob Harris is just MAKING
THAT UP!!!
>But getting back to your preposterous charge that I "made all this up".
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
>Besides the obvious fact that you are wrong,
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
>we all know that you *knew*
>that you were wrong.
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
Is this the correct room number, Bob? Do you even know?
of
>the Pere Marquette building in downtown New Orleans (It's still there),
>next to the Pinkerton Detective Agency and down the hall from Vernon Main,
>whose main interests is oil.
>
> While Garrison accuses Ferrie of making the call from Gill's office in
>New Orleans to Chicago Whitehall 4-4970, and Gill cliams he fired Ferrie
>for making too many unauthorized long distance phone calls, actually
>anyone in that office could have made the call.
Helloooooooo, Bob Harris! Do you even bother reading the material you
cite? Let's look at that again:
> While Garrison accuses Ferrie of making the call from Gill's office in
>New Orleans to Chicago Whitehall 4-4970, and Gill cliams he fired Ferrie
>for making too many unauthorized long distance phone calls, actually
>anyone in that office could have made the call.
The phone number is listed
>as 20 East Delaware Ave., Chicago, a hotel-apartment and bar operated by
>Les Barker.
>
> Garrison did a comparision of the phone records he obtained from Gill's
>office with the phone records of the Warren Commission and discovered that
>Lawrence Meyers, a friend of Jack Ruby, also called the same number.
>
There's one difference, though -- Meyers' records SHOW he called Apt.
1405, Jean Aase's apartment! Do Gill's?
NO! Jim Garrison made it up! And Bob Harris cites it TO THIS DAY, and
indignantly lets forth with a righteous shriek of outrage when honest
researchers like David Blackburst try to tell him he's repeating a
groundless factoid! (Mr. Blackburst is more polite about it, though; he's
a much more patient person than I am, despite the fact that Mr. Harris has
attacked each of us with vigor and vitriol.)
Uh-huh. Where's the part about Braden being, as Bob Harris claims, an
acquaintance of David Ferrie's? Or, as Harris claims, working out of an
office with Ferrie? Or Ferrie making "use of the same office that James
Braden worked out of, in New Orleans"?
Could Bob Harris have MADE IT UP???
> By the way, when Richard Sprage was appointed the first chief counsel of
>the HSCA he made his staff read Noyes' book., while the guy who replaced
>him G.R. Blakey, mentions this evidence in his book, but locked the files
>away.
>
> So this trail goes from the 17th floor of Pere Marquette in New Orleans
>to 20 East Delaware, Chicago to the Cabana in Dallas and back to the 17th
>floor in New Orleans. Yet, the exact nature of the communication and the
>connection between Braden and Ruby/Myers is yet to be determined, though
>I'm confident it is there.
>
> In addition, the date of the call is not insignificant - September 24,
>1963, the day Oswald left New Orleans for Mexico City.
>
> While most researchers point to Jean Aase as the missing link, and she
>has been located and has talked with Peter Whitmey and Gus Russo
And denied taking the alleged phone call to Apt. 1405 or knowing Ferrie . . .
, I
>believe that Les Barker is the one who should be looked at closer.
>
Well, I don't think that helps Bob much, now does it?
> Another more accessable source for this info is Anthony Summers, Not In
>Your Lifetime (Marlowe, 1998, p 347).
>
>bill...@bellatlantic.net
You know, folks, I'm sincerely starting to believe that Bob Harris is just
repeating a worthless old Garrison factoid about Aase and Ferrie, and the
rest he's just MAKING UP!
Dave Reitzes
Robert Harris
drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Harris mangles statistical concepts (and facts)
> >From: reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> >
> >(Dreitzes) wrote:
> >
> >> >From: cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
>
> [snip]
>
> I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
> >> >three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby
> >>
> >>
> >> Mr. Harris is simply making this up.
> >
> >
> >
> >David, I think it's a bit unfair of you to accuse me of lying in a
> >newsgroup in which we all know that you are shielded by the moderators.
>
>
> \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
>
>
> Yes, yes, "we all know" the moderators just simply adore me
Of course they do, David.
What you don't realize is that alt.assassination.jfk is probably the only
moderated newsgroup in existence which permits selected members to call
other members, liars.
I'm sure from your side of the fence, this is a terrific place. After all,
the only thing better than hitting below the belt is having someone hold
your victim down while you hit him below the belt:-)
Right, David?
Robert Harris
jpsh...@my-deja.com
the same floor" instead of saying "the exact same room?" Consider
the following from Peter Noyes:
-
Room 1701 was the office of an oil geologist, Vernon Main, Jr.
Braden received mail at that address, and at one time informed
parole authorities that he would be working out of Main's office while
he was in New Orleans. For some reason, Braden informed the parole
authorities that he could be found in Room 1706 of the Pere Marquette
building, which would have placed him right next door to David Ferrie.
However, a chek determined that Room 1706 had been occupied by the
Pinkerton Detective Agency for many years, and 1701 was actually
the room user by Braden. [...] Legacy of Doubt, p. 158
-
Noyes says that it was BRADEN who received mail at 1701, and
BRADEN who incorrectly listed 1706. Could Summer's text have been
mangled during editing? Here's another quote from Noyes:
-
Garrison was wrong about Clay Shaw and Edgar Eugene Bradley.
The case against them was a monumental fraud. Legacy of Doubt, pp108-9
-
Gosh, Peter Noyes was one of them Garrison-bashers!
>
> So yes David - much as you may hate the fact, Ferrie did indeed, pick up
> his mail in exactly, the same office that Braden worked in.
>
[...]
>
> Robert Harris
>
Jerry Shinley
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
John McAdams
>
> In article <19990527203230...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
> drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes) wrote:
>
> > >From: reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> > >
> > >(Dreitzes) wrote:
> > >
> > >> >From: cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> >
> > [snip]
OK, the following is what Bob Harris "just made up:"
> >
> > I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
> > >> >three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby
> > >>
Bob has no evidence that Braden was there with Ruby, so that leaves only
two people.
And he has no evidence that Meyers and West were "acquainted" with
Ferrie. Just a phone call that may or may not have been from Ferrie to
the *building* where West lived. There is no evidence that West
actually talked to the caller -- who may or may not have been Ferrie.
> > >>
> > >> Mr. Harris is simply making this up.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >David, I think it's a bit unfair of you to accuse me of lying in a
> > >newsgroup in which we all know that you are shielded by the moderators.
> >
> >
> > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> >
> >
> > Yes, yes, "we all know" the moderators just simply adore me
>
> Of course they do, David.
>
> What you don't realize is that alt.assassination.jfk is probably the only
> moderated newsgroup in existence which permits selected members to call
> other members, liars.
>
Bob, please get this straight: Dave is not calling you a liar. He
knows as well as the rest of us that you really sincerely believe this
nonsense that you are posting.
But it's not based on evidence. It's a huge web of supposition on your
part.
You have taken a thin gruel of facts and created a veritable banquet of
sinister circumstance.
That's just making things up.
.John
Tony Pitman
wrote:
>In article <37477652...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 1999 14:26:01 GMT, reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <19990517083243...@ng14.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
>> >(Dreitzes) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
>> >acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
>> >Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination. The notion that he would
>> >just *coincidentally* go off his rocker and implicate Ferrie, who really
>> >did know Oswald, is just ridiculous.
>> >
>>
>> Bob, in the first place, the claim that Ferrie "really did" know
>> Oswald is a buff factoid.
>
>
>Whew!
>
>Glad you cleared that up, John. I really like how you never clutter up
>your posts with a lot of evidence and analysis to support your
>assertions:-)
>
>
>
>> And those three folks were not
>> "acquaintances" of Ferrie's.
>
>
>Sure, John. When Ferrie came to pick up his mail in exactly the same
>office that Braden worked, in one of Carlos Marcellos' office buildings,
>they always made it a point to ignore each other.
>
>And the call by Ferrie, to Jean West's apt. building in Chicago was just a
>wrong number, huh?
>
>
>> But we'll let that pass for the sake of
>> argument.
>>
>> Consider your methodology for trying to "connect" Ruby and Ferrie.
>
>OK
>
>
>>
>> Suppose *before* the assassination you had gotten a list of all
>> Ferrie's acquaintances and picked three of them.
>
>
>OK
>
>
>
>> Then suppose you had
>> picked *one* person who would be connected with the assassination
>> (Ruby, in this case).
>
>
>Ruby will do, ok.
>
>
>> And suppose you had picked *one* time when they
>> had to meet (in this case, the night before the assassination). The
>> odds against that would be very high.
>
>
>Yes, especially when we are talking about acquaintances flying in from
>Chicago and California.
>
>
>>
>> But in this case, buff "researchers" are rummaging through all
>> Ferrie's "acquaintances" and rummaging through all Ruby's
>> "connections" to find a "link."
>
>
>Yes, I think good researchers should look closely at Ruby's connections to
>Oswald and to other suspects. That's what the better HSCA people did, and
>what any good cop would do.
>
>Are you saying this is not a good tactic?
>
>
>
>> Finding *somebody* among *all* of the
>> people who had some distant connection with Ferrie who would have
>> *some* connection with Ruby is very likely indeed.
>
>
>John, that is about the silliest argument I have heard this year.
>
>The fact that three Ferrie acquaintances were meeting with Ruby on the eve
>of the assassination in a small motel a short distance from DP, was not a
>coincidence.
>
>Neither was it a coincidence that Braden turned out to be the only
>professional criminal stopped in DP that day, and that Braden turned up in
>the Daltex building.
>
>
>
>>
>> Using this same logic, I'm "connected" with Leonid Brezhnev, Mother
>> Teresa, and Hillery Clinton. I don't know any of those folks, but I
>> know somebody who does [did] know them.
>
>
>So, exactly how many of your friends were meeting with Ruby on 11/21/63, John?
>
>And how many of that same group turned up in DP that day, in a probable
>sniper's location?
>
>You are deliberately mis-stating my argument when you claim that I am only
>describing someone Ferrie knew, being vaguely connected to someone Ruby
>knew. We aren't talking about a 2nd cousin of Ferrie's running into Ruby's
>barber at the 7-11, John.
>
>Ferrie lied when he denied knowing Ruby, just like he lied when he said he
>didn't know Oswald.
>
>I tell you what, John. Talk to any detective on MPD and give him all the
>details of this meeting at the Cabana and then ask him if he would presume
>that this was an innocent coincidence as you claim it was.
>
>And while you're at it, please ask him about the "coincidence" that Oswald
>chose to use the address out of thousands of others, of the building that
>Ferrie and Banister worked out of, for his leaflets.
>
>
>It gets pretty silly after while, doesn't it John?
>
>
>
>
>Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>>
>> .John
>>
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Yeah,
And what were Leonid, Mother Teresa and Hillary doing meeting up in a
motel room like that anyway John? The mind boggles.
Tony:-)
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > In article <19990527203230...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
> > drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes) wrote:
> >
> > > >From: reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> > > >
> > > >(Dreitzes) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> >From: cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> > >
> > > [snip]
>
>
> > >
> > > >> >three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby
> > > >>
>
> two people.
>
> And he has no evidence that Meyers and West were "acquainted" with
> Ferrie. Just a phone call that may or may not have been from Ferrie to
> the *building* where West lived. There is no evidence that West
> actually talked to the caller -- who may or may not have been Ferrie.
>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >David, I think it's a bit unfair of you to accuse me of lying in a
> > > >newsgroup in which we all know that you are shielded by the moderators.
> > >
> > >
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, yes, "we all know" the moderators just simply adore me
> >
> >
> > What you don't realize is that alt.assassination.jfk is probably the only
> > moderated newsgroup in existence which permits selected members to call
> > other members, liars.
> >
>
> Bob, please get this straight: Dave is not calling you a liar. He
> knows as well as the rest of us that you really sincerely believe this
> nonsense that you are posting.
>
> But it's not based on evidence. It's a huge web of supposition on your
> part.
>
> You have taken a thin gruel of facts and created a veritable banquet of
> sinister circumstance.
>
> That's just making things up.
>
> .John
That is one of the problems with censorship. It is inherently unfair and
biased. It is ok for you or one of your cronies to accuse people of lying,
of simply making up something, but when one of your opponents simply asks
one of the lone-nutters to back up something with evidence, you can delete
that post as claiming that the original poster is a liar. Just say NO to
censorship.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
jpsh...@my-deja.com
jpsh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <reharris-240...@dialip250.spinn.net>,
> reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
> the same floor" instead of saying "the exact same room?"
>
Conspiracy. Here's how that passage reads in the edition:
-
In his work for Marcello, Ferrie worked out of an office in New
Orleans' Pere Marquette Building. This was designated Room 1707.
A check of federal records shows that Eugene Brading gave that same
parole authorities he used Room 1706, which was incorrect, but he
did have his mail sent to Room 1701. Both rooms were just along the
corridor from the office used by Ferrie. (p. 477)
-
In the 1980 edition it's clear that Ferrie was working out of 1707
and that it was Braden who incorrectly listed 1706 and Braden who
received mail at 1701.
>
> Consider
> the following from Peter Noyes:
>
> -
> Room 1701 was the office of an oil geologist, Vernon Main, Jr.
> Braden received mail at that address, and at one time informed
> parole authorities that he would be working out of Main's office while
> he was in New Orleans. For some reason, Braden informed the parole
> authorities that he could be found in Room 1706 of the Pere Marquette
> building, which would have placed him right next door to David Ferrie.
> However, a chek determined that Room 1706 had been occupied by the
> Pinkerton Detective Agency for many years, and 1701 was actually
> the room user by Braden. [...] Legacy of Doubt, p. 158
> -
> Noyes says that it was BRADEN who received mail at 1701, and
> BRADEN who incorrectly listed 1706. Could Summer's text have been
> mangled during editing?
>
>
> Here's another quote from Noyes:
> -
> Garrison was wrong about Clay Shaw and Edgar Eugene Bradley.
> The case against them was a monumental fraud. Legacy of Doubt, pp108-9
> -
> Gosh, Peter Noyes was one of them Garrison-bashers!
> >
> > his mail in exactly, the same office that Braden worked in.
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
> Jerry Shinley
>
-
"After sustained analysis, it was clear that Braden's contribution to
the assassination was a huge zero."
- Jim "Propinquity" Garrison, OTTOTA, p. 206
Robert Harris
<6489mc...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > In article <19990527203230...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
> > drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes) wrote:
> >
> > > >Subject: Re: Harris mangles statistical concepts (and facts)
> > > >From: reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> > > >
> > > >(Dreitzes) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> >From: cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> > >
> > > [snip]
>
>
> OK, the following is what Bob Harris "just made up:"
>
>
> > >
> > > I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
> > > >> >three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby
> > > >>
>
> Bob has no evidence that Braden was there with Ruby, so that leaves only
> two people.
On the contrary, John, we absolutely, "know" he was there at the Cabana
motel at the same time Ruby was.
You are trying to argue that out of the literally millions of motels in
the U.S, Braden just, "coincidentally" happened to be in the same one in
which other Ferrie associates were meeting with Jack Ruby that night.
And I guess you think it was just another coincidence that Braden wound up
on the third floor of the Daltex during the assassination, right John? I
guess your buddy, Paul Burke's declaration that the trajectory from the
3rd floor Daltex was "perfect" for the SBT shot was just another
"coincidence", huh?
So tell me, John, why do you suppose Braden lied, claiming that he was in
the area to see his parole officer? And why did he change his story about
being in the Daltex during the shooting?
And was it just a "coincicence" that Ferrie used the same office in
Marcellos's building, that Braden worked in, to pick up his mail?
I guess you are also claiming that Ferrie just "coincidentally", called
the apartment building where Meyers' girlfriend lived, several weeks
before the meeting. Tell me John, who was Ferrie calling that just
happened to live in the same Chicago apartment building where West did???
Do you think he was looking for a date with one of the other girls?
Technically speaking, you are correct that all this could be just pure,
random coincidence. Perhaps Ferrie really did want to talk to someone
else, and Meyers and West move at the last minute, from the Ramada to the
Cabana motel where Braden was staying. After all, these incredible
"coincidences" seem to be everywhere in the LN theory, don't they John?
And perhaps, Braden really did just wander into the Daltex to use the
phone, and then suffered terrible memory lapses about his reasons for
being there.
But I think you will find that professional law enforcement people, and
particularly those who investigate organized crime figures, would look at
this set of facts somewhat differently than you and David do, John:-)
Robert Harris
>
> And he has no evidence that Meyers and West were "acquainted" with
> Ferrie. Just a phone call that may or may not have been from Ferrie to
> the *building* where West lived. There is no evidence that West
> actually talked to the caller -- who may or may not have been Ferrie.
>
>
> > > >>
> > > >> Mr. Harris is simply making this up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >David, I think it's a bit unfair of you to accuse me of lying in a
> > > >newsgroup in which we all know that you are shielded by the moderators.
> > >
> > >
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^)
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^)
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^)
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
\:^) \:^)
> > > \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^) \:^)
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, yes, "we all know" the moderators just simply adore me
> >
Dreitzes
John McAdams
><6489mc...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> OK, the following is what Bob Harris "just made up:"
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
>> > > >> >three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby
>> > > >>
>>
>> Bob has no evidence that Braden was there with Ruby, so that leaves only
>> two people.
>
>
>On the contrary, John, we absolutely, "know" he was there at the Cabana
>motel at the same time Ruby was.
>
>You are trying to argue that out of the literally millions of motels in
>the U.S, Braden just, "coincidentally" happened to be in the same one in
>which other Ferrie associates
That's a joke, right, See-No-Evil?
DR
Dreitzes
>
>jpsh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
Well, he was wrong about everything else, so I don't see what that proves.
DR
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <37477652...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 1999 14:26:01 GMT, reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <19990517083243...@ng14.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
>> >(Dreitzes) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
>> >acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
>> >Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination. The notion that he would
>> >just *coincidentally* go off his rocker and implicate Ferrie, who really
>> >did know Oswald, is just ridiculous.
>> >
>>
>> Bob, in the first place, the claim that Ferrie "really did" know
>> Oswald is a buff factoid.
>
>
>Whew!
>
>Glad you cleared that up, John. I really like how you never clutter up
>your posts with a lot of evidence and analysis to support your
>assertions:-)
>
If you want to debate that, just start another thread and we'll go at
it.
>
>
>> And those three folks were not
>> "acquaintances" of Ferrie's.
>
>
>Sure, John. When Ferrie came to pick up his mail in exactly the same
>office that Braden worked, in one of Carlos Marcellos' office buildings,
>they always made it a point to ignore each other.
>
It seems the "exactly the same office" is a factoid. Braden picked up
mail in the office of an oil geologist, and Ferrie in Gill's office.
>And the call by Ferrie, to Jean West's apt. building in Chicago was just a
>wrong number, huh?
>
Again, Bob, nobody knows the call was made by Ferrie, and nobody knows
that it was to Jean West.
So you are zero for two.
>
>> But we'll let that pass for the sake of
>> argument.
>>
>> Consider your methodology for trying to "connect" Ruby and Ferrie.
>
>OK
>
>
>>
>> Suppose *before* the assassination you had gotten a list of all
>> Ferrie's acquaintances and picked three of them.
>
>
>OK
>
>
>
>> Then suppose you had
>> picked *one* person who would be connected with the assassination
>> (Ruby, in this case).
>
>
>Ruby will do, ok.
>
>
>> And suppose you had picked *one* time when they
>> had to meet (in this case, the night before the assassination). The
>> odds against that would be very high.
>
>
>Yes, especially when we are talking about acquaintances flying in from
>Chicago and California.
>
>
>>
>> But in this case, buff "researchers" are rummaging through all
>> Ferrie's "acquaintances" and rummaging through all Ruby's
>> "connections" to find a "link."
>
>
>Yes, I think good researchers should look closely at Ruby's connections to
>Oswald and to other suspects. That's what the better HSCA people did, and
>what any good cop would do.
>
>Are you saying this is not a good tactic?
>
When you rummage throught literally thousands of "associations" it's
not sinister, nor a an implausible "coincidence" that you run onto one
or two that seem "suspicious."
Remember, give the buff research methodology, there were literally
thousands of opportunities to come up with something as "suspicious"
as this.
>
>
>> Finding *somebody* among *all* of the
>> people who had some distant connection with Ferrie who would have
>> *some* connection with Ruby is very likely indeed.
>
>
>John, that is about the silliest argument I have heard this year.
>
>The fact that three Ferrie acquaintances were meeting with Ruby on the eve
>of the assassination in a small motel a short distance from DP, was not a
>coincidence.
>
Bob, they were not "acquaintances."
You still don't get the argument.
In the absence of any conspiracy, the odds that *somebody* among the
hundreds of people with a connection to Ruby would have some sort of
tenuous, questionable, just barely-possible connection with Ferrie OR
SOMEBODY WHO LIKE FERRIE COULD BE PORTRAYED AS SINISTER are very good
indeed. It's almost guaranteed.
>Neither was it a coincidence that Braden turned out to be the only
>professional criminal stopped in DP that day, and that Braden turned up in
>the Daltex building.
>
But you have no evidence of all that Braden was connected to Ruby, or
Meyers, or West.
>
>
>>
>> Using this same logic, I'm "connected" with Leonid Brezhnev, Mother
>> Teresa, and Hillery Clinton. I don't know any of those folks, but I
>> know somebody who does [did] know them.
>
>
>So, exactly how many of your friends were meeting with Ruby on 11/21/63,
>John?
Bob, Meyers and West were not Ferrie's "friends."
>
>And how many of that same group turned up in DP that day, in a probable
>sniper's location?
>
>You are deliberately mis-stating my argument when you claim that I am only
>describing someone Ferrie knew, being vaguely connected to someone Ruby
>knew. We aren't talking about a 2nd cousin of Ferrie's running into Ruby's
>barber at the 7-11, John.
>
Actually, we are talking about something very like that!
>Ferrie lied when he denied knowing Ruby, just like he lied when he said he
>didn't know Oswald.
>
What is your evidence that Ferrie knew Ruby? You're not citing
Beverly Oliver, are you?
>
>It gets pretty silly after while, doesn't it John?
>
Absolutely!
Dreitzes
>>>
>>> >
>>> >But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
>>> >acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
>>> >Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination.
Mangle, mangle, mangle.
The notion that he
>would
>>> >just *coincidentally* go off his rocker
Mangle, mangle, mangle.
and implicate Ferrie, who really
>>> >did know Oswald,
Mangle, mangle, mangle.
is just ridiculous.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Bob, in the first place, the claim that Ferrie "really did" know
>>> Oswald is a buff factoid.
>>
>>
>>Whew!
>>
>>Glad you cleared that up, John. I really like how you never clutter up
>>your posts with a lot of evidence and analysis to support your
>>assertions:-)
I like how Bob gets REEAAAL quiet when Jerry Shinley, David Blackburst and
I each post evidence discrediting his "10-million-to-one" factoid.
>If you want to debate that, just start another thread and we'll go at
>it.
Don't hold your breath; Bob wouldn't dare.
>>> And those three folks were not
>>> "acquaintances" of Ferrie's.
>>
>>
>>Sure, John. When Ferrie came to pick up his mail in exactly the same
>>office that Braden worked
Mangle, mangle, mangle.
>, in one of Carlos Marcellos' office buildings,
Garrison's Propinquity Theory strikes again!
>>they always made it a point to ignore each other.
>>
>
>It seems the "exactly the same office" is a factoid.
Yup. Anthony Summers misquotes Peter Noyes, and Bob combines BOTH
accounts, then makes fun of others for asking him for a primary source.
That's our Bob.
>Braden picked up
>mail in the office of an oil geologist, and Ferrie in Gill's office.
And Summers mangles Noyes' account, while Harris mangles it further by
combining the two, then insisting that Braden *must* have met with Ruby on
November 21, 1963 -- because of their close PROPINQUITY to one another.
Mangle, mangle, mangle.
>>And the call by Ferrie,
Mangle, mangle, mangle.
>to Jean West's apt. building in Chicago
Oooh, lookee there. Bob's actually learned he can't get away with calling
it Jean Aase's (alias West's) personal phone. That's more than a couple
*other* posters have learned.
was just a
>>wrong number, huh?
A fifteen-minute wrong, number? Nah. It went to somewhere other than Apt.
1405, I'd say.
>Again, Bob, nobody knows the call was made by Ferrie, and nobody knows
>that it was to Jean West.
>
>So you are zero for two.
Yup. Quite a difference from Bob's "10-million-to-one" odds.
>>> But we'll let that pass for the sake of
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> Consider your methodology for trying to "connect" Ruby and Ferrie.
>>
>>OK
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Suppose *before* the assassination you had gotten a list of all
>>> Ferrie's acquaintances and picked three of them.
>>
>>
>>OK
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then suppose you had
>>> picked *one* person who would be connected with the assassination
>>> (Ruby, in this case).
>>
>>
>>Ruby will do, ok.
>>
>>
>>> And suppose you had picked *one* time when they
>>> had to meet (in this case, the night before the assassination). The
>>> odds against that would be very high.
>>
>>
>>Yes, especially when we are talking about acquaintances flying in from
>>Chicago and California.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> But in this case, buff "researchers" are rummaging through all
>>> Ferrie's "acquaintances" and rummaging through all Ruby's
>>> "connections" to find a "link."
>>
>>
>>Yes, I think good researchers should look closely at Ruby's connections to
>>Oswald and to other suspects. That's what the better HSCA people did, and
>>what any good cop would do.
>>
>>Are you saying this is not a good tactic?
Now Bob's just plain mangling our patience.
>>
>
>When you rummage throught literally thousands of "associations" it's
>not sinister, nor a an implausible "coincidence" that you run onto one
>or two that seem "suspicious."
>
>Remember, give the buff research methodology, there were literally
>thousands of opportunities to come up with something as "suspicious"
>as this.
>
>>
>>
>>> Finding *somebody* among *all* of the
>>> people who had some distant connection with Ferrie who would have
>>> *some* connection with Ruby is very likely indeed.
>>
>>
>>John, that is about the silliest argument I have heard this year.
You should hear the one about how three people who don't know Ferrie link
him to a conspiracy with Jack Ruby, a guy against whom there is no
evidence of conspiracy.
You'll be ROTFLYAO.
>>The fact that three Ferrie acquaintances
Mangle, mangle, mangle.
were meeting with Ruby on the eve
Mangle, mangle, mangle.
>>of the assassination in a small motel a short distance from DP, was not a
>>coincidence.
Speculation, speculation, speculation.
>Bob, they were not "acquaintances."
>
>You still don't get the argument.
>
>In the absence of any conspiracy, the odds that *somebody* among the
>hundreds of people with a connection to Ruby would have some sort of
>tenuous, questionable, just barely-possible connection with Ferrie OR
>SOMEBODY WHO LIKE FERRIE COULD BE PORTRAYED AS SINISTER are very good
>indeed. It's almost guaranteed.
>
>
>>Neither was it a coincidence that Braden turned out to be the only
>>professional criminal stopped in DP that day,
That's really exciting, isn't it? A guy with a bunch of bookmaking
offenses got stopped in Dealey Plaza. What did he do, Bob, GAMBLE the
President to death?
and that Braden turned up in
>>the Daltex building.
Woooooooo . . . s~p~o~o~k~y.
Except that Bob has no evidence that Ruby ever met Braden. Bob's cited
source, Anthony Summers, says so outright. But Bob won't let the facts get
in his way.
>But you have no evidence of all that Braden was connected to Ruby,
None. Nix. Nada.
or
>Meyers,
Zero. Zilch. Zip.
>or West.
Jack. Squat. Goose egg.
>>> Using this same logic, I'm "connected" with Leonid Brezhnev, Mother
>>> Teresa, and Hillery Clinton. I don't know any of those folks, but I
>>> know somebody who does [did] know them.
>>
>>
>>So, exactly how many of your friends were meeting with Ruby on 11/21/63,
>>John?
>
>Bob, Meyers and West were not Ferrie's "friends."
Nope. Nor were they even acquainted.
>>And how many of that same group turned up in DP that day, in a probable
>>sniper's location?
"Probable," according to . . . Bob. See how this works, folks?
>>You are deliberately mis-stating my argument when you claim that I am only
>>describing someone Ferrie knew, being vaguely connected to someone Ruby
>>knew. We aren't talking about a 2nd cousin of Ferrie's running into Ruby's
>>barber at the 7-11, John.
Damn right. That sounds far more credible than your scenario.
>Actually, we are talking about something very like that!
>>Ferrie lied when he denied knowing Ruby,
Maaangle, maaaaaaangle, maaaaaaaaaaangle.
>just like he lied when he said he
>>didn't know Oswald.
Maaangle, maaaaaaangle, maaaaaaaaaaangle.
>What is your evidence that Ferrie knew Ruby? You're not citing
>Beverly Oliver, are you?
Does she say that?
>>It gets pretty silly after while, doesn't it John?
>Absolutely!
>
>.John
I see . . .
I see no . . . EVIL!
DR
John McAdams
>In article <374ECA...@vms.csd.mu.edu>, John McAdams
><6489mc...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> > >
>> > > I can only say that I think your desire to "ignore" the fact that
>> > > >> >three Ferrie acquaintances did indeed, meet with Ruby
>> > > >>
>>
>> Bob has no evidence that Braden was there with Ruby, so that leaves only
>> two people.
>
>
>On the contrary, John, we absolutely, "know" he was there at the Cabana
>motel at the same time Ruby was.
>
OIC. "Being at the hotel" equals "meeting with."
>You are trying to argue that out of the literally millions of motels in
>the U.S, Braden just, "coincidentally" happened to be in the same one in
>which other Ferrie associates were meeting with Jack Ruby that night.
>
I'm arguing that, out of hundreds of guests at the Cabana, buffs make
one out to be a sinister character.
>And I guess you think it was just another coincidence that Braden wound up
>on the third floor of the Daltex during the assassination, right John?
No, among the hundreds of guests at the Cabana one was in the Dealey
Plaza area at the time of the assassination.
>I
>guess your buddy, Paul Burke's declaration that the trajectory from the
>3rd floor Daltex was "perfect" for the SBT shot was just another
>"coincidence", huh?
>
Bob, there was no Dal-Tex gunman.
>So tell me, John, why do you suppose Braden lied, claiming that he was in
>the area to see his parole officer? And why did he change his story about
>being in the Daltex during the shooting?
>
>And was it just a "coincicence" that Ferrie used the same office in
>Marcellos's building, that Braden worked in, to pick up his mail?
>
This has been debunked, Bob. It's not true.
It's a factoid.
>I guess you are also claiming that Ferrie just "coincidentally", called
>the apartment building where Meyers' girlfriend lived, several weeks
>before the meeting.
No, I'm claiming that *somebody* in Gill's office called that
building.
Do you think Ferrie called West to give some evil, secret sinister
instructions to her?
Why not just call Meyers? Why call the bimbo?
>Tell me John, who was Ferrie calling that just
>happened to live in the same Chicago apartment building where West did???
>Do you think he was looking for a date with one of the other girls?
>
I have no reason to believe it was Ferrie.
>Technically speaking, you are correct that all this could be just pure,
>random coincidence. Perhaps Ferrie really did want to talk to someone
>else, and Meyers and West move at the last minute, from the Ramada to the
>Cabana motel where Braden was staying. After all, these incredible
>"coincidences" seem to be everywhere in the LN theory, don't they John?
>
If Meyers and West were supposed to meet with Braden, why not just
walk over? Or take a cab? Why change hotels for a conspiratorial
meeting?
And what was West doing there? Was she one of the Evil Minions of The
Conspiracy? Gun Moll of the operation? In on planning the hit in
Dealey Plaza?
>And perhaps, Braden really did just wander into the Daltex to use the
>phone, and then suffered terrible memory lapses about his reasons for
>being there.
>
I'm not aware that Braden suffered "terrible memory lapses." Why
don't you post the documents showing these supposed contradictions?
>But I think you will find that professional law enforcement people, and
>particularly those who investigate organized crime figures, would look at
>this set of facts somewhat differently than you and David do, John:-)
>
No, they think more like David and I do. They know you can't make a
case on speculation. They look for hard evidence.
Robert Harris
6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 1999 11:32:39 -0600, cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37477652...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 May 1999 14:26:01 GMT, reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <19990517083243...@ng14.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
> >> >(Dreitzes) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
> >> >acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
> >> >Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination. The notion that he would
> >> >just *coincidentally* go off his rocker and implicate Ferrie, who really
> >> >did know Oswald, is just ridiculous.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bob, in the first place, the claim that Ferrie "really did" know
> >> Oswald is a buff factoid.
> >
> >
> >Whew!
> >
> >Glad you cleared that up, John. I really like how you never clutter up
> >your posts with a lot of evidence and analysis to support your
> >assertions:-)
> >
>
> If you want to debate that, just start another thread and we'll go at
> it.
I would be glad to, John, if you can assure me that we will get beyond you
claiming the following:
1. Just because they were photographed together doesn't mean they *knew*
each other.
2. Just because Oswald used the address of the building where Ferrie and
Banister worked, in his literature, doesn't mean they *knew* each other.
3. Just because witnesses in Clinton, La. said they saw them together,
doesn't mean they *knew* each other.
4. Just because Ferrie panicked and rushed out to interrogate Oswald's
ex-landlady and neighbors, asking them if they saw Oswald with his library
card, doesn't mean they *knew* each other.
5. Just because people in Banister's office said they did, doesn't mean
they *knew* each other.
The problem is John, that if you don't care too much about how credible
your statement is, you can deny practically anything.
>
>
> >
> >
> >> And those three folks were not
> >> "acquaintances" of Ferrie's.
> >
> >
> >Sure, John. When Ferrie came to pick up his mail in exactly the same
> >office that Braden worked, in one of Carlos Marcellos' office buildings,
> >they always made it a point to ignore each other.
> >
>
> It seems the "exactly the same office" is a factoid. Braden picked up
> mail in the office of an oil geologist, and Ferrie in Gill's office.
Please stop twisting what I said. I said that Ferrie picked up his mail in
the office that Braden worked in. It is irrelevant where Braden got his
mail.
Summers states on p. 454 of *Conspiracy* that Ferrie, "..did have his mail
sent to room 1701.", the office that Braden worked out of.
Summers also claims on p. 452, that Braden was an associate of James
Dolan, a close friend not only of Jack Ruby, but according to HSCA
reports, of Carlos Marcellos and Santos Trafficante as well.
>
>
> >And the call by Ferrie, to Jean West's apt. building in Chicago was just a
> >wrong number, huh?
> >
>
> Again, Bob, nobody knows the call was made by Ferrie, and nobody knows
> that it was to Jean West.
That's correct John. It is indeed, likely that Ferrie was trying to get
ahold of Meyers then, rather than West.
It is also possible that your belief that Ferrie was calling someone else
might be correct, though you have yet to even speculate about any
alternatives.
John, 90% of what we discuss here is based on *probability*. You are
correct, that I cannot absolutely *prove* that this call was to contact
Meyers or West, just as you cannot *prove* beyond all doubt, that Oswald
was involved in the shooting. Yet, you settle for what you believe is high
probability, to the extent that you will not even consider other theories.
If you are correct, that Ferrie or one of his associates just
"coincidentally" happened to call someone else in that same apartment
building two thousand miles away, then you are suggesting a spectacularly
unlikely coincidence, every bit as preposterous as the notion that Braden
just coincidentally happened to wind up with Ruby at the Cabana and then
in the Daltex building.
>
> So you are zero for two.
No, John - you are just demanding absolute proof, a standard which you
wouldn't apply to your own theories, for a date with Monica Lewinsky.
Robert Harris
Dreitzes
>
reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
>
>>> Bob has no evidence that Braden was there with Ruby, so that leaves only
>>> two people.
>>
>>
>>On the contrary, John, we absolutely, "know" he was there at the Cabana
>>motel at the same time Ruby was.
>>
>
>OIC. "Being at the hotel" equals "meeting with."
John, you're talking to the guy who believes way down deep in his heart
that Oswald walking "east" [sic] on Tenth Street is evidence that Oswald
knew Ruby.
>>You are trying to argue that out of the literally millions of motels in
>>the U.S, Braden just, "coincidentally" happened to be in the same one in
Yup.
>>which other Ferrie associates were meeting with Jack Ruby that night.
Mangle, mangle, mangle, Harris mangles the facts again.
>I'm arguing that, out of hundreds of guests at the Cabana, buffs make
>one out to be a sinister character.
And there's no evidence outside of Bob's imagination that Braden was a
sinister character.
>>And I guess you think it was just another coincidence that Braden wound up
>>on the third floor of the Daltex during the assassination, right John?
>
>
>No, among the hundreds of guests at the Cabana one was in the Dealey
>Plaza area at the time of the assassination.
>
>
>>I
>>guess your buddy, Paul Burke's declaration that the trajectory from the
>>3rd floor Daltex was "perfect" for the SBT shot was just another
>>"coincidence", huh?
>>
>
>
>Bob, there was no Dal-Tex gunman.
>
>
>>So tell me, John, why do you suppose Braden lied, claiming that he was in
>>the area to see his parole officer? And why did he change his story about
>>being in the Daltex during the shooting?
>>
>>And was it just a "coincicence" that Ferrie used the same office in
>>Marcellos's building, that Braden worked in, to pick up his mail?
>>
>
>
>This has been debunked, Bob. It's not true.
>
>It's a factoid.
And Bob will never admit it. He refuses to even read the posts debunking
it.
Sample my own "Anatomy of a Factoid," Bob -- available at fine servers
everywhere; exclusive private screening at the newly revamped Deja.com.
>
>>I guess you are also claiming that Ferrie just "coincidentally", called
>>the apartment building where Meyers' girlfriend lived, several weeks
>>before the meeting.
Mangle, mangle, mangle.
>No, I'm claiming that *somebody* in Gill's office called that
>building.
Yup. One of at least eleven individuals.
>Do you think Ferrie called West to give some evil, secret sinister
>instructions to her?
>
>Why not just call Meyers? Why call the bimbo?
He wanted to make sure he wasn't traced to Meyers -- OOPS!!!
>>Tell me John, who was Ferrie calling that just
>>happened to live in the same Chicago apartment building where West did???
Wouldn't that be an investigator's job to find out? Why do you suppose
Garrison didn't look into it? Same reason he didn't look into the
Permidnex nonsense?
>>Do you think he was looking for a date with one of the other girls?
>>
>
>I have no reason to believe it was Ferrie.
>
>
>>Technically speaking, you are correct that all this could be just pure,
>>random coincidence. Perhaps Ferrie really did want to talk to someone
>>else,
Good ol' Bob -- he's a rock in this ever-changing world.
Dave
Dreitzes
>
>6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
>> wrote:
>> >> >But far more important than that, is the fact that three of Ferrie's
>> >> >acquaintances just "coincidentally" turned up at the Cabana motel with
>> >> >Jack Ruby, on the night before the assassination. The notion that he
>would
>> >> >just *coincidentally* go off his rocker and implicate Ferrie, who
>really
>> >> >did know Oswald, is just ridiculous.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Bob, in the first place, the claim that Ferrie "really did" know
>> >> Oswald is a buff factoid.
>> >
>> >
>> >Whew!
>> >
>> >Glad you cleared that up, John. I really like how you never clutter up
>> >your posts with a lot of evidence and analysis to support your
>> >assertions:-)
>> >
>>
>> If you want to debate that, just start another thread and we'll go at
>> it.
>
>
>
>I would be glad to, John, if you can assure me that we will get beyond you
>claiming the following:
>
>1. Just because they were photographed together doesn't mean they *knew*
>each other.
Technically, they weren't photographed together. They were captured in the
same 1955 photograph, standing a bit apart from each other. However, I see
no reason to deny at least an acquaintanceship based on this photo. Ferrie
himself never said that he and Oswald had never met, merely that had
Oswald been in the CAP with him (as one of over a thousand such cadets),
Ferrie did not remember him.
>2. Just because Oswald used the address of the building where Ferrie and
>Banister worked, in his literature, doesn't mean they *knew* each other.
That's like saying that someone in Gill's office phoned the building where
Jean Aase lived. The address Oswald used was around the corner from
Banister's office. Banister's office was not accessible from this address.
The door led to a stairway which ascended to the second floor. One would
have to jump out a window and reenter the building at 531 Lafayette to
reach Banister's first-floor office.
>3. Just because witnesses in Clinton, La. said they saw them together,
>doesn't mean they *knew* each other.
Damn straight. The Clinton witnesses said all kinds of things that weren't
true. That was one of them.
>4. Just because Ferrie panicked and rushed out to interrogate Oswald's
>ex-landlady and neighbors, asking them if they saw Oswald with his library
>card, doesn't mean they *knew* each other.
Damn straight. In fact, I doubt it happened, since no one reported it
until 1978.
>5. Just because people in Banister's office said they did, doesn't mean
>they *knew* each other.
Damn straight. Jack Martin's earliest statements did not claim first-hand
knowledge. Why not? How come he waited until 1966 to claim that he'd SEEN
Oswald and Ferrie together? Why did Delphine Roberts wait until 1978?
DR
Robert Harris
drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes) wrote:
> >From: reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
> >
> siw...@erols.com wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Harris wrote:
> >> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >> > David, I am truly amazed that you continue to ignore all the evidence I
> >> > have posted
>
> [sic]
>
> and then blithely declare that I haven't posted even a
> >"speck"
> >> > of evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Is it possible that you really aren't concerned that HSCA polygraph
> >> > experts determined that Ruby was being deceptive when he denied knowing
> >> > Oswald or having foreknowledge of the assassination?
>
>
> More meaningless Bob Harris speculation. No evidence as yet. Harris will
> never even consult any polygraph experts, as I have suggested several
> times, to rid himself of the fallacy that polygraphs accurately detect
> falsehoods.
I have no idea what you are talking about David.
Many years ago, I did research into the reliabilty of polygraphs, and
learned that they are *extremely* accurate, and are used by thousands of
police departments all over the country.
If you think otherwise, perhaps you will tell us how you came to believe
such a thing. I assure you that law enforcement professionals would be
vehemently opposed to your claim.
>
>
>
> >> > Do you really think it is unimportant that Oswald was walking directly
> >> > toward Ruby's apartment
>
>
> Only Bob Harris could assert -- regardless of whether Oswald was walking
> east of west -- that Oswald was "walking directly toward Ruby's
> apartment." I'd like to see the surveyor's report on that one.
Then prove it, David.
The WC was convinced otherwise, and Markham was very specific in
describing Oswald walking to the East as he crossed Patton, and the patrol
car coming up from *behind* him.
So far, NOT ONE witness citation has been presented, that suggests that
Oswald was walking west, when Tippit approached him.
Myers skipped town when he was challenged on that. Can you do any better,
David?
And perhaps you can explain why Oswald would have walked a considerably
further distance, first going west, and then circling back to the east in
order to wind up at the murder scene.
>
>
> >when he was stopped by Tippit?
>
>
> Meaningless Bob Harris speculation. Harris cannot post evidence that
> Oswald and Ruby knew each other, despite the "truckloads" he claims to
> exist, but he'll post and repost this amusing exercise in circular logic.
Sorry David.
I have already posted long-winded responses to this, which you are aware
of and responded to. You just arbitrarily declare it all worthless and
then return to your nonsensical claim that I "have no evidence".
You also are aware of numerous other claims of witnesses who saw Ruby and
Oswald together, or knew them to be acquainted. But you likewise, declare
them all worthless and once again, retreat to your "see no evil" stance,
blithely claiming that "there is no evidence".
David, you have every right to question or try to refute this evidence,
but you do nothing for your credibility when you continue to claim that it
doesn't exist.
>
>
> >> > And don't you care that even people like McAdams
>
>
> "People like McAdams"? \:^)
Is this a question, David?
>
> Bob, of course, has stated several times that I am one of an unspecified
> number of McAdams "recruits" involved in some kind of volunteer
> disinformation assignment.
David, why are you trying to change the subject here?
The point is, that even people who fanatically deny any connection between
Oswald and Ruby, have had to concede that Oswald did indeed, turn to look
at Ruby, just before he was shot.
>
> Of course, *Probe* once called Bob a "protege" of John McAdams. You'd
> think that would give Bob pause before making identical accusations,
> wouldn't you?
IC, so I must be wrong in declaring that this pancake is flat, because
someone else declared that the world is flat.
David, you need to work on your logic and analytical skills. Fallacious
thinking has tripped you up on many other occasions, too.
>
>
>
> have confirmed that
> >> > Oswald turned to look toward Ruby, just before he was shot?
>
>
> More meaningless Bob Harris speculation. Again, Bob cannot post a speck of
> evidence that Oswald knew Ruby, but he'll repeatedly waste our time trying
> to convince us that Oswald once LOOKED AT Ruby!
David, virtually every serious researcher in the history of this case has
agreed that Oswald does indeed, turn to look at Ruby then. Why do you
suppose that out of roughly a hundred other people down there, he singled
out this one man?
And you still cannot refute the absolute fact that Oswald was on a direct
path toward Ruby's apartment when he was stopped. Even the HSCA and WC
investigators were aware of that.
And to date, you have failed to produce a single dissenting witness to the
fact that Oswald was walking East when he was stopped, as the WC correctly
concluded.
When do you intend to do that?
>
> Remember, in Bob's world, being photographed with a group of people in
> 1955 means that Oswald KNEW one of them in 1963. Oswald using an address
> on a pamphlet means that Oswald KNEW a particular person who did some
> freelance work from an office AROUND THE CORNER from that address. A
> popular conspiracy author demonstrably mangling a paragraph of text and
> mistakenly stating that Jim Braden picked up mail from an office where
> Dave Ferrie worked is PROOF that Braden and Ferrie knew each other. One of
> at least eleven individuals making a phone call to a building and speaking
> to an unknown individual in any one of that building's 146 apartments is
> PROOF that Dave Ferrie -- one of the eleven or more individuals -- knew
> Jack Ruby -- a casual friend of a future acquaintance of one of that
> building's residents.
ROFLMAO!!!!
Coincidence, coincidence, coincidence, eh David?
That, and a "witness conspiracy" that has grown to include the KKK, CORE,
various Louisiana politicians, members of a hospital staff, LHO's
ex-landlady, Oswald's neighbors, the States Attorney's office, and the
State Coroner's office!!
Am I leaving anyone out David?? As I recall, you've fingered a dozen or so
other "liars", in your campaign to exhonerate these murderous thugs, but I
can't remember all of them.
>
>
>
> >> >
> >>
> >> that's funny. Just before he was shot Oswald was looking to his right,
> >> Ruby was to his left.
> >
> >
> >Actually, he has just turned back toward the front, after glancing at
> >Ruby.
> >
> >That's important, because I think it negates John McAdams claim that
> >Oswald turned to look at Ruby because he saw him holding the gun.
> >
> >I think what we are seeing in the film, is Oswald being surprised when he
> >spots Ruby, but then quickly turning back to the front in order to avoid
> >drawing attention to him. Of course, if he had detected a threat to his
> >life, we would expect Oswald to have tried to bolt, duck, or at least
> >appear frightened. Instead, he seems to try to nonchalantly look away.
>
>
> What if Oswald had turned to look at the one person in the room rushing
> towards him, then looked away when he *didn't* see the gun?
>
> Anything's possible, isn't it, Bob?
Sure David, compared to your other "coincidences", this speculation looks
absolutely wonderful!
But I do have to wonder why Oswald wouldn't have wanted to keep an eye on
anyone who was "rushing towards him" at the time. I mean, some things are
easier to ighore than others, David:-)
Robert Harris
jpsh...@my-deja.com
reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
> Please stop twisting what I said. I said that Ferrie picked up his mail in
> the office that Braden worked in. It is irrelevant where Braden got his
> mail.
>
> Summers states on p. 454 of *Conspiracy* that Ferrie, "..did have his mail
> sent to room 1701.", the office that Braden worked out of.
>
In his work for Marcello, Ferrie worked out of an office in New
Orleans' Pere Marquette Building. This was designated Room 1707. A check
of federal records shows that Eugene Brading gave that same building, and
the same floor, as his New Orleans address. He told parole authorities he
used Room 1706, which was incorrect, but he did have his mail sent to Room
1701. Both rooms were just along the corridor from the office used by
Ferrie. (p. 477) Conspiracy, Antony Summers, 1980 McGraw-Hill
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
-
Jerry Shinley
-
After sustained analysis, it was clear that Braden's contribution to
the assassination was a huge zero. - Jim "Propinquity" Garrison,
OTTOTA, p. 206