Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Does Somebody Want To Tell Me That This Is Not Rip Robertson?
508 views
Skip to first unread message
Saintly Oswald
Nov 3, 2012, 3:49:05 PM11/3/12
to
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-x1jUFfO_OAw/UJVCVrV-LBI/AAAAAAAAAaw/S7CZhrtIr6s/s431/IsItRip.jpg
This photograph showing a man who looks like Rip Robertson signalling
Kellerman and Greer is the only evidence I know of concerning Rip's
whereabouts on November 22, 1963. The insert is a known picture of dear
old Rip. Does anybody have any evidence indicating that he was not in
Dallas on that day?
This photograph showing a man who looks like Rip Robertson signalling
Kellerman and Greer is the only evidence I know of concerning Rip's
whereabouts on November 22, 1963. The insert is a known picture of dear
old Rip. Does anybody have any evidence indicating that he was not in
Dallas on that day?
Saintly Oswald
Nov 3, 2012, 7:48:28 PM11/3/12
to
From Spartacus:
"William (Rip) Robertson was born in Texas. He joined the United States Marines and served in the Pacific during the Second World War.
After the war Robertson joined the Central Intelligence Agency. He was employed as a counter-intelligence agent and was involved in what became known as Executive Action (a plan to remove unfriendly foreign leaders from power)."
"William (Rip) Robertson was born in Texas. He joined the United States Marines and served in the Pacific during the Second World War.
After the war Robertson joined the Central Intelligence Agency. He was employed as a counter-intelligence agent and was involved in what became known as Executive Action (a plan to remove unfriendly foreign leaders from power)."
Saintly Oswald
Nov 4, 2012, 4:25:38 PM11/4/12
to
If that is not Rip Robertson in the picture, then somebody else is wearing
his nose.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-x1jUFfO_OAw/UJVCVrV-LBI/AAAAAAAAAaw/S7CZhrtIr6s/s431/IsItRip.jpg
It is a very distinctive nose, exactly the same in each picture. The chin,
also, has that low point to his right of center, in both pictures. And it
passes the flash recognition test: it just looks like him. It seems to me,
that anybody who is serious, and who thinks the CIA killed Kennedy, would
have to think that this photo is significant. And the camera original must
have a much wider plane, yet this is the widest version I can find. I
would like to see Connally and JFK in this photo, too, to see if they
notice old Rip holding his hat in a funny way. Are you listening, Santa?
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:49:06 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
his nose.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-x1jUFfO_OAw/UJVCVrV-LBI/AAAAAAAAAaw/S7CZhrtIr6s/s431/IsItRip.jpg
It is a very distinctive nose, exactly the same in each picture. The chin,
also, has that low point to his right of center, in both pictures. And it
passes the flash recognition test: it just looks like him. It seems to me,
that anybody who is serious, and who thinks the CIA killed Kennedy, would
have to think that this photo is significant. And the camera original must
have a much wider plane, yet this is the widest version I can find. I
would like to see Connally and JFK in this photo, too, to see if they
notice old Rip holding his hat in a funny way. Are you listening, Santa?
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:49:06 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
elpdr...@gmail.com
Nov 4, 2012, 4:26:21 PM11/4/12
to
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:49:06 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
a different photograph, this doesn't prove that they are one and the same
person. Look how many people thought( and still think) that Oswald is
standing in the entrance of the TSBD when we know it's not Oswald, it's
Billy Nolan Lovelady. And by the way, what photograph is the blow up of
the man with his hand on his hat taken from?
Saintly Oswald
Nov 4, 2012, 6:57:20 PM11/4/12
to
this photo really is the spitting image of Rip Robertson. I don't know who
the photographer is. Do you think it might be fake? I thought that it was
one taken by Altgens before he crossed over to Elm, but I can't find any
confirmation of that. I would like to know. I think that if it were fake,
the Spartacus site would know and not have it up, as they do on their
Robertson entry.
black...@aol.com
Nov 4, 2012, 6:58:38 PM11/4/12
to
Identifying CIA people in old Dealey Plaza photos is the stupidest form of
research on the planet, a practice looked down upon by the entire research
community.
research on the planet, a practice looked down upon by the entire research
community.
Saintly Oswald
Nov 4, 2012, 11:16:24 PM11/4/12
to
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-isCSBtPBfeA/UJVALvG_9yI/AAAAAAAAAaM/5i-z_5lww4k/s609/RipRobertsonSignals.jpg
This composite I made which includes other photos, shows that there is no
question that a man is standing there with his hand on his hat as the limo
approaches, so that aspect of the photo must be genuine. But, the photo in
question is the only one clear enough to show an identifiable face.
This composite I made which includes other photos, shows that there is no
question that a man is standing there with his hand on his hat as the limo
approaches, so that aspect of the photo must be genuine. But, the photo in
question is the only one clear enough to show an identifiable face.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 4, 2012, 11:21:16 PM11/4/12
to
On 11/4/2012 4:25 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> If that is not Rip Robertson in the picture, then somebody else is wearing
> his nose.
>
So what? He bought it fair and square the plastic surgery only took two
> If that is not Rip Robertson in the picture, then somebody else is wearing
> his nose.
>
months.
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-x1jUFfO_OAw/UJVCVrV-LBI/AAAAAAAAAaw/S7CZhrtIr6s/s431/IsItRip.jpg
>
> It is a very distinctive nose, exactly the same in each picture. The chin,
> also, has that low point to his right of center, in both pictures. And it
> passes the flash recognition test: it just looks like him. It seems to me,
world.
> that anybody who is serious, and who thinks the CIA killed Kennedy, would
> have to think that this photo is significant. And the camera original must
> have a much wider plane, yet this is the widest version I can find. I
> would like to see Connally and JFK in this photo, too, to see if they
> notice old Rip holding his hat in a funny way. Are you listening, Santa?
>
Saintly Oswald
Nov 5, 2012, 10:19:02 AM11/5/12
to
David Von Pein
Nov 5, 2012, 10:19:28 AM11/5/12
to
I think it's Karl Malden.
Saintly Oswald
Nov 5, 2012, 7:01:40 PM11/5/12
to
I don't know if they'd know Rip. But, I'm sure they would know more than
you know, so I would be interested to see. Unfortunately, though, the ones
who know nothing at all are the ones I cannot avoid.
you know, so I would be interested to see. Unfortunately, though, the ones
who know nothing at all are the ones I cannot avoid.
Saintly Oswald
Nov 5, 2012, 7:06:02 PM11/5/12
to
I am reminded of a Pat Paulsen routine, if I may.
We of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour have had our share of censorship
problems. But we are not against censorship, because we realize there is
always the danger of something being said. Many people feel that
censorship is a violation of freedom of speech. Bullfeathers. Censorship
is not unconstitutional. Censors have a right to censor what you hear. The
Bill of Rights says nothing about the freedom of hearing. This, of course,
takes a lot of fun out of the freedom of speech. Without censorship of
television, how else can you, the American public, have the protection you
want from vulgar scenes, overexposed bodies, and all the other sights you
like to see? There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about freedom of
seeing. You can look for it, but if you see it, you'd better not show it
to anybody. And let's face it; there have to be some realistic taboos
about political comment. After all, the leaders of our country were not
elected to be tittered at. Censors have to draw the line somewhere. For
instance, we are allowed to say that Ronald Reagan is a lousy actor. But
we're not allowed to say he's a lousy governor. Which is ridiculous. We
know he's a good actor. And you can't say anything bad about President
Johnston, because you shouldn't insult the president. But, if you
compliment him, who will believe it? So, you can see that there is a place
for censors, and we only wish we could tell you where it is.
And that's the last thing I have to say to "President Johnston."
On Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:21:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
We of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour have had our share of censorship
problems. But we are not against censorship, because we realize there is
always the danger of something being said. Many people feel that
censorship is a violation of freedom of speech. Bullfeathers. Censorship
is not unconstitutional. Censors have a right to censor what you hear. The
Bill of Rights says nothing about the freedom of hearing. This, of course,
takes a lot of fun out of the freedom of speech. Without censorship of
television, how else can you, the American public, have the protection you
want from vulgar scenes, overexposed bodies, and all the other sights you
like to see? There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about freedom of
seeing. You can look for it, but if you see it, you'd better not show it
to anybody. And let's face it; there have to be some realistic taboos
about political comment. After all, the leaders of our country were not
elected to be tittered at. Censors have to draw the line somewhere. For
instance, we are allowed to say that Ronald Reagan is a lousy actor. But
we're not allowed to say he's a lousy governor. Which is ridiculous. We
know he's a good actor. And you can't say anything bad about President
Johnston, because you shouldn't insult the president. But, if you
compliment him, who will believe it? So, you can see that there is a place
for censors, and we only wish we could tell you where it is.
And that's the last thing I have to say to "President Johnston."
On Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:21:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
Anthony Marsh
Nov 5, 2012, 7:23:25 PM11/5/12
to
On 11/4/2012 11:16 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-isCSBtPBfeA/UJVALvG_9yI/AAAAAAAAAaM/5i-z_5lww4k/s609/RipRobertsonSignals.jpg
>
> This composite I made which includes other photos, shows that there is no
> question that a man is standing there with his hand on his hat as the limo
> approaches, so that aspect of the photo must be genuine. But, the photo in
> question is the only one clear enough to show an identifiable face.
>
You are obviously not trying hard enough. That man was not Rip Robertson.
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-isCSBtPBfeA/UJVALvG_9yI/AAAAAAAAAaM/5i-z_5lww4k/s609/RipRobertsonSignals.jpg
>
> This composite I made which includes other photos, shows that there is no
> question that a man is standing there with his hand on his hat as the limo
> approaches, so that aspect of the photo must be genuine. But, the photo in
> question is the only one clear enough to show an identifiable face.
>
He was a decoy placed there specifically to fool YOU. So that YOU would
not notice the woman farther down to his left. Why would she have her
right hand over her forehead like that? Obviously it must be a signal. The
shooters were so stupid that they couldn't figure out when the limo with
the President would be coming around the corner so the woman was
signalling them on Houston Street to get ready to shoot on Elm Street.
Do try to keep up.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 5, 2012, 7:24:04 PM11/5/12
to
fun when they have never see a real live CIA person.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 6, 2012, 1:00:31 AM11/6/12
to
TSBD was on Elm Street. Those CIA guys had teleportation back then so he
was in both places at the same time.
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 6, 2012, 1:01:54 AM11/6/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Nov 6, 2012, 1:06:04 AM11/6/12
to
On 11/5/2012 7:06 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> I am reminded of a Pat Paulsen routine, if I may.
>
> We of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour have had our share of censorship
> problems. But we are not against censorship, because we realize there is
> always the danger of something being said. Many people feel that
> censorship is a violation of freedom of speech. Bullfeathers. Censorship
> is not unconstitutional. Censors have a right to censor what you hear. The
> Bill of Rights says nothing about the freedom of hearing. This, of course,
> takes a lot of fun out of the freedom of speech. Without censorship of
> television, how else can you, the American public, have the protection you
> want from vulgar scenes, overexposed bodies, and all the other sights you
> like to see? There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about freedom of
> seeing. You can look for it, but if you see it, you'd better not show it
> to anybody. And let's face it; there have to be some realistic taboos
> about political comment. After all, the leaders of our country were not
> elected to be tittered at. Censors have to draw the line somewhere. For
> instance, we are allowed to say that Ronald Reagan is a lousy actor. But
> we're not allowed to say he's a lousy governor. Which is ridiculous. We
> know he's a good actor. And you can't say anything bad about President
> Johnston, because you shouldn't insult the president. But, if you
> compliment him, who will believe it? So, you can see that there is a place
> for censors, and we only wish we could tell you where it is.
>
> And that's the last thing I have to say to "President Johnston."
>
>
I have never been in favor of censorship. Babble on all you want.
> I am reminded of a Pat Paulsen routine, if I may.
>
> We of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour have had our share of censorship
> problems. But we are not against censorship, because we realize there is
> always the danger of something being said. Many people feel that
> censorship is a violation of freedom of speech. Bullfeathers. Censorship
> is not unconstitutional. Censors have a right to censor what you hear. The
> Bill of Rights says nothing about the freedom of hearing. This, of course,
> takes a lot of fun out of the freedom of speech. Without censorship of
> television, how else can you, the American public, have the protection you
> want from vulgar scenes, overexposed bodies, and all the other sights you
> like to see? There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about freedom of
> seeing. You can look for it, but if you see it, you'd better not show it
> to anybody. And let's face it; there have to be some realistic taboos
> about political comment. After all, the leaders of our country were not
> elected to be tittered at. Censors have to draw the line somewhere. For
> instance, we are allowed to say that Ronald Reagan is a lousy actor. But
> we're not allowed to say he's a lousy governor. Which is ridiculous. We
> know he's a good actor. And you can't say anything bad about President
> Johnston, because you shouldn't insult the president. But, if you
> compliment him, who will believe it? So, you can see that there is a place
> for censors, and we only wish we could tell you where it is.
>
> And that's the last thing I have to say to "President Johnston."
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 6, 2012, 1:06:16 AM11/6/12
to
On 11/5/2012 7:01 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> I don't know if they'd know Rip. But, I'm sure they would know more than
> you know, so I would be interested to see. Unfortunately, though, the ones
> who know nothing at all are the ones I cannot avoid.
>
No, they wouldn't.
> I don't know if they'd know Rip. But, I'm sure they would know more than
> you know, so I would be interested to see. Unfortunately, though, the ones
> who know nothing at all are the ones I cannot avoid.
>
Most of them would never come into contact with intelligence officers
that far down the chain of command.
hmalt...@gmail.com
Nov 6, 2012, 1:07:07 AM11/6/12
to
On Monday, November 5, 2012 7:19:29 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> I think it's Karl Malden.
LOL. I was thinking the same thing. Remember: "American Express Travelers
> I think it's Karl Malden.
Cheques, don't leave home without them."
Ace Kefford
Nov 7, 2012, 12:29:10 PM11/7/12
to
This is a brilliant point. These "lookalike" claims prove nothing. Anybody with any sense knows that you can find plenty of photos where people "look alike". I have a vague memory of the HSCA putting some of these claims to the test and for the most part laughing them out of existence. Hunt as one of the tramps?!
Message has been deleted
Steve
Feb 15, 2013, 6:56:49 PM2/15/13
to
Rip Robertson briefed President Eisenhower and RFK on covert activities.
He was that good & that well-respected.
Rip bragged to fellow contractors that he was in Dealey Plaza on November
22, 1963.
Attempting to confirm if he was actually there is difficult, as much of
his history is erased, although not a complete waste of research time.
Rip, also known as Tex, Turk, & Hector, associated with David Morales,
Tony Izquierdo, & William Bishop.
He was that good & that well-respected.
Rip bragged to fellow contractors that he was in Dealey Plaza on November
22, 1963.
Attempting to confirm if he was actually there is difficult, as much of
his history is erased, although not a complete waste of research time.
Rip, also known as Tex, Turk, & Hector, associated with David Morales,
Tony Izquierdo, & William Bishop.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2013, 9:04:13 AM2/17/13
to
never find any references. I don't think he meant Slim Pickens since he
didn't have the last name. Supposedly a CIA officer at the time of the
assassination.
Walt
Feb 17, 2013, 7:44:59 PM2/17/13
to
for yoddeling and he wanted you to see how an expert did it. He
shouldn't have worried.......cuz you're obviously an accomplished
yoddeler.
0 new messages