2 Oswalds ? Yes. Just check this out
No Sir I didn't shoot anybody in fact nobody has said that yet
dealer .. take out a car .. and
drive like a lunatic.
2. Why did man go to a rifle range .. used the name Oswald .. and
again caused all kinds
of trouble. There are other strange events as well .... So what was
going on there in Dallas? I dont know...but it is strange.
curtjester1
Well, that's two out of a thousand.
CJ
David Von Pein
engage in the hobby of micro-analyzing every tiny thing surrounding
the JFK murder case. Everything is looked at by these curious people
with a wary eye of potential "conspiracy"; when, in fact, all of these
things that CTers "over-manage" (IMO) do not necessarily lead down a
"CT" path at all.
For example -- Take these two very small incidents -- the "Dial Ryder"
incident (where an Oswald-like person had a scope mounted on a rifle
prior to November 22)...and the "Bogard" incident (which has "Oswald"
taking a high-speed test drive in a new car shortly before the
assassination).
Those things are certainly "fringe" things, at best. But to hear the
conspiracy-loving kooks tell it, these things (in some way) "prove" a
conspiracy existed, with these "imposter Oswalds" running all around
Dallas.
But CTers fail to see the built-in illogic being exhibited by any
string-pullers and "patsy"-creators when it comes to incidents like
this. The CTers who think things like this lead down a CT path must
also think that the plotters were performing these NEEDLESS acts of
silliness to frame Oswald, even though each of these incidents goes
AGAINST the grain of the overall patsy plot they are trying to pull
off.
Example: The "used car" incident has Oswald apparently telling the car
dealer he'd be coming into some money in "2 or 3 weeks". That'd be
silly for any plotters to do....i.e., to essentially tell people that
Oswald will be PAID for something he'll be doing right about the time
of the assassination! Just...dumb.
And in the Ryder example, evidently some Oswald imposter was getting a
scope mounted on a NON-Carcano rifle (which is a weapon the plotters
won't be using to frame their patsy with on 11/22 anyway).
So what were these plotters trying to do here? Were they trying to
blow their plot wide open by announcing to the world (in a fashion)
that Oswald had a SECOND rifle in his possession, when we know he
really had only one rifle, his Carcano?
Anyway, those are just two of the dozens of similar examples of things
that GO NOPLACE, but CTers love to dredge them up anyway...because
such CTers fail to see the inherent illogic of these things (not to
mention the totally-MEANINGLESS nature of peripheral silliness like
the incidents mentioned above).
And those same CTers, let's face it, WANT a conspiracy to exist in the
JFK case. They NEED it. And they'll do whatever it takes and skew as
much evidence as possible in order to work the word "conspiracy" into
this murder case. Simple as that.
curtjester1
> As everyone here knows very well, there are many CTers who love to
> engage in the hobby of micro-analyzing every tiny thing surrounding
> the JFK murder case. Everything is looked at by these curious people
> with a wary eye of potential "conspiracy"; when, in fact, all of these
> things that CTers "over-manage" (IMO) do not necessarily lead down a
> "CT" path at all.
>
come together. Better than shooting from the LNT hip, eh?
> For example -- Take these two very small incidents -- the "Dial Ryder"
> incident (where an Oswald-like person had a scope mounted on a rifle
> prior to November 22)...and the "Bogard" incident (which has "Oswald"
> taking a high-speed test drive in a new car shortly before the
> assassination).
>
And we have an Oswald who is not supposed to drive, and yet is taking
driving lessons? And what happened to his perfect attendance record
when he can't be at two places at one time?
> Those things are certainly "fringe" things, at best. But to hear the
> conspiracy-loving kooks tell it, these things (in some way) "prove" a
> conspiracy existed, with these "imposter Oswalds" running all around
> Dallas.
>
It's not fringe, if one is setting up another and they both have ties
to the intelligence community. Of course this doesn't stop in Dallas
or the Carousel, it goes to New Orleans and the cities between, with
Florida, Cuba, and extra Mexico trips....
> But CTers fail to see the built-in illogic being exhibited by any
> string-pullers and "patsy"-creators when it comes to incidents like
> this. The CTers who think things like this lead down a CT path must
> also think that the plotters were performing these NEEDLESS acts of
> silliness to frame Oswald, even though each of these incidents goes
> AGAINST the grain of the overall patsy plot they are trying to pull
> off.
>
They can use the incidents to paint a guilty picture. What is
needless about that?
> Example: The "used car" incident has Oswald apparently telling the car
> dealer he'd be coming into some money in "2 or 3 weeks". That'd be
> silly for any plotters to do....i.e., to essentially tell people that
> Oswald will be PAID for something he'll be doing right about the time
> of the assassination! Just...dumb.
>
Dumb? It makes him look like he might be doing something 'extra' for
cash.
> And in the Ryder example, evidently some Oswald imposter was getting a
> scope mounted on a NON-Carcano rifle (which is a weapon the plotters
> won't be using to frame their patsy with on 11/22 anyway).
>
Well at least that was proved with the hole-drilling alone.
> So what were these plotters trying to do here? Were they trying to
> blow their plot wide open by announcing to the world (in a fashion)
> that Oswald had a SECOND rifle in his possession, when we know he
> really had only one rifle, his Carcano?
>
That's like they were saying they were going to only use one rifle for
the whole assassination ambush. More than one rifle came into
question from the TSBD.
> Anyway, those are just two of the dozens of similar examples of things
> that GO NOPLACE, but CTers love to dredge them up anyway...because
> such CTers fail to see the inherent illogic of these things (not to
> mention the totally-MEANINGLESS nature of peripheral silliness like
> the incidents mentioned above).
>
They are evidence. If you think one can STOP and draw your
conclusion, they are KOOKY. Look at the hundred's of more.
> And those same CTers, let's face it, WANT a conspiracy to exist in the
> JFK case. They NEED it. And they'll do whatever it takes and skew as
> much evidence as possible in order to work the word "conspiracy" into
> this murder case. Simple as that.
We need nothing at all. We don't have to have Oswald innocent. We
just need to have more than one shooter. It's the LNT'ers that seem
need not only one shooter, they need OSWALD.
CJ
David Von Pein
>>> "And we have an Oswald who is not supposed to drive, and yet is taking driving lessons? .... They can use the incidents to paint a guilty picture." <<<
How? To confuse and muddle the record after the assassination about
Oswald being able to drive (vs. not being able to drive)?
How does Oswald's being able to drive or not (weeks BEFORE Nov. 22nd)
"paint a guilty picture" of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Were the plotters originally planning on killing JFK by running him
over with a '63 Buick (and then frame Oswald as the driver of the
murder vehicle)?
The whole "Oswald At The Car Lot" incident is completely useless for
any CTers' purposes (except as a parlor game).
>>> "Dumb? It makes him look like he might be doing something 'extra' for cash." <<<
LOL. And it exposes the "one-patsy plot" to be certainly MORE than
just a "1-patsy" plot, doesn't it? Or was Oswald supposedly paying
HIMSELF all this cash for killing the President?
Advertising a "payment" in full public view at a car dealership (or
anywhere else) is suicide for the "Let's Frame Oz As Our LONE Patsy"
frame-up scenario that so many of you CT-Kooks think took place.
>>> "We don't have to have Oswald innocent." <<<
And yet most of the CTers here have Oswald completely innocent of
firing any shots at either Kennedy or Tippit.
That should make you wonder about the CT company you're keeping.
Shouldn't it, Curt?
curtjester1
> >>> "And we have an Oswald who is not supposed to drive, and yet is taking driving lessons? .... They can use the incidents to paint a guilty picture." <<<
>
> How? To confuse and muddle the record after the assassination about
> Oswald being able to drive (vs. not being able to drive)?
>
a FBI director willing to put the guilt stamp on Oswald before any
investigation. They even got the real Oswald's drivers license and
sent it in to the State Vehicle Department. They just went in and
took all their records and didn't return them. Sound familiar?
> How does Oswald's being able to drive or not (weeks BEFORE Nov. 22nd)
> "paint a guilty picture" of Lee Harvey Oswald?
>
It doesn't.
> Were the plotters originally planning on killing JFK by running him
> over with a '63 Buick (and then frame Oswald as the driver of the
> murder vehicle)?
>
Cute.
> The whole "Oswald At The Car Lot" incident is completely useless for
> any CTers' purposes (except as a parlor game).
>
Except he was there and went through it, and their was another Oswald
in many other circumstances who did drive by others, and he was even
known to be in on the purhasing of vehicles while the TSBD Oswald was
in Russia. And every incident must not have to have a stamp of
patsyism like the parlor game you seem to employ.
> >>> "Dumb? It makes him look like he might be doing something 'extra' for cash." <<<
>
> LOL. And it exposes the "one-patsy plot" to be certainly MORE than
> just a "1-patsy" plot, doesn't it? Or was Oswald supposedly paying
> HIMSELF all this cash for killing the President?
>
I guess you imagine the killing of a President the perfect crime with
Oswald checking in on everytime he is going to be there for the TSBD
Oswald. Leaving a set of ID at the Tippit murder scene and having a
library card for Ferrie, would seem totally 'disasterous' for you, yet
all they did was step on a few toes to circumvent what was getting
inconvenient. Of course they didn't really go too far in
investigating all these incidents' did they?
> Advertising a "payment" in full public view at a car dealership (or
> anywhere else) is suicide for the "Let's Frame Oz As Our LONE Patsy"
> frame-up scenario that so many of you CT-Kooks think took place.
>
Suicide? They had Oswald seeking a job in a high rise and give
statements about how easy it would be to gun one down while the other
was at work, and the dropping off of Oswald in front of the TSBD in
mid-morning with 'curtain rods' that were in a 4ft long package two
days before the assassination while speaking of where the motocade
would go and how the safe the President might be for gunfire. They
were dancing in all different directions just like Oswald was in two
political camps...
> >>> "We don't have to have Oswald innocent." <<<
>
> And yet most of the CTers here have Oswald completely innocent of
> firing any shots at either Kennedy or Tippit.
>
Oswald could have been complicit in both crimes and never fired a
shot. Do you believe that possibility?
> That should make you wonder about the CT company you're keeping.
> Shouldn't it, Curt?
Not at all, because the evidence points to a long term gov't
relationship with two Oswalds long before any assassination plans were
hatched, and a trail of unsettling behavior for Oswald any which way
they decided to use it.
CJ
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald could have been complicit in both crimes and never fired a shot. Do you believe that possibility?" <<<
In THIS case? Are you joking? Of course not. Oswald's guilt in both
11/22 murders is sealed in concrete for all time. You, of course, know
that....but won't admit it. You apparently enjoy your idiotic "2
Oswalds" theory so much. John Armstrong has brainwashed you evidently.
>>> "The evidence points to a long term gov't relationship with two Oswalds long before any assassination plans were hatched..." <<<
Curt's gone batty. (Or maybe he's been batty for years; beats me.)
BTW, did a fake "Oswald" fool Marguerite, Marina, Robert O., and other
acquaintances of the "real" LHO over the years?
Or did a "real" Oswald ever even exist at all? Maybe he was made of
only papier-mache.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "And we have an Oswald who is not supposed to drive, and yet is taking driving lessons? .... They can use the incidents to paint a guilty picture." <<<
>
> How? To confuse and muddle the record after the assassination about
> Oswald being able to drive (vs. not being able to drive)?
>
> How does Oswald's being able to drive or not (weeks BEFORE Nov. 22nd)
> "paint a guilty picture" of Lee Harvey Oswald?
You are simplifying the event. The detail you are leaving out is the
fact the man said "he would be coming into money in a few weeks" so he
could buy the car then. Since this event did occur a few weeks before
the assassination the goal of the man was to alert someone - Bogard -
to this fact so he would remember him when JFK was killed. The
impersonator also assumed he would tell others and he did do this.
The simple fact of LHO NOT being able to drive makes it clear it was
NOT him, so explain why someone would want to do this.
> Were the plotters originally planning on killing JFK by running him
> over with a '63 Buick (and then frame Oswald as the driver of the
> murder vehicle)?
Sure, use poor taste when you can't answer the real question of why
someone would want to impersonate a "lone nut." Explain why Bogard
was dead not by 2/66 if this event was NO big deal. I don't buy he
committed "suicide" either.
> The whole "Oswald At The Car Lot" incident is completely useless for
> any CTers' purposes (except as a parlor game).
Really? Then why did Jack Lawrence, who worked there, come back with
mud on his shoes and pants (similar to the type behind the picket
fence and stockade areas) and promptly throw up? He said he was
delayed to the heavy traffic. He has been named as a shooter by
Richard E. Sprague in his book "Taking of America 1-2-3" based on the
HSCA investigations (the real one that Blakey didn't want us to know
about) and fired at JFK from inside the westernmost cupola after
parking his car in the parking lot behind the knoll. What is the
lilklihood of a "fake" LHO taking a test drive at the same dealership
possibly one of the shooters was working at for cover?
> >>> "Dumb? It makes him look like he might be doing something 'extra' for cash." <<<
>
> LOL. And it exposes the "one-patsy plot" to be certainly MORE than
> just a "1-patsy" plot, doesn't it? Or was Oswald supposedly paying
> HIMSELF all this cash for killing the President?
Explain why a "lone nut" would have people impersonating him since
1961 Dave. We are waiting with baited breath.
> Advertising a "payment" in full public view at a car dealership (or
> anywhere else) is suicide for the "Let's Frame Oz As Our LONE Patsy"
> frame-up scenario that so many of you CT-Kooks think took place.
Wrong - it was "suicide" for Bogard.
> >>> "We don't have to have Oswald innocent." <<<
>
> And yet most of the CTers here have Oswald completely innocent of
> firing any shots at either Kennedy or Tippit.
Because you (and the your beloved WC) have produced NO evidence, proof
or motive for LHO to do the shootings.
> That should make you wonder about the CT company you're keeping.
> Shouldn't it, Curt?
Spoken like a true nutjob.
curtjester1
> >>> "Oswald could have been complicit in both crimes and never fired a shot. Do you believe that possibility?" <<<
>
> In THIS case? Are you joking? Of course not. Oswald's guilt in both
> 11/22 murders is sealed in concrete for all time. You, of course, know
> that....but won't admit it. You apparently enjoy your idiotic "2
> Oswalds" theory so much. John Armstrong has brainwashed you evidently.
>
could have fired possibly one shot. You have to face the
insurmountable facts you always dance away from.
> >>> "The evidence points to a long term gov't relationship with two Oswalds long before any assassination plans were hatched..." <<<
>
> Curt's gone batty. (Or maybe he's been batty for years; beats me.)
>
> BTW, did a fake "Oswald" fool Marguerite, Marina, Robert O., and other
> acquaintances of the "real" LHO over the years?
>
No, they were all privy to the both, and they all have fooled you.
> Or did a "real" Oswald ever even exist at all? Maybe he was made of
> only papier-mache.
No, there was one born to Marguerite who was over a half a foot taller
than the one your used to seeing. One can even prove the two
Oswald's by simply looking at all the picture of Oswald, especially
the ones after he was shot. I wouldn't recommend going there as it
would break your carefully weaved fantasy profiles you have made for
your Ozzie.
CJ
David Von Pein
Geez, the kook flowers (and tall tales) are in full bloom today.
I love the fantasy about Marguerite, Robert, and Marina knowing about
the "2 Oswalds"....with all of these people lying their asses off
after the assassination, although Marguerite, a kook herself, always
thought her son was a secret agent of our Govt.; or was it the
Imposter LHO she was talking about? Or was it Francis X. Bushman?
Maybe Francis was playing the part of Oz. Make-up can do wonders.
I guess even poor Ozzie's own family wanted to frame him for the 2
murders. One can only wonder why? No doubt Kook Curt can tell us.
David Von Pein
>>> "And every incident must not have to have a stamp of patsyism...." <<<
Then what's the point of playing the Musical Oswalds game you think
the plotters were playing in 1963?
curtjester1
> Geez, the kook flowers (and tall tales) are in full bloom today.
>
> I love the fantasy about Marguerite, Robert, and Marina knowing about
> the "2 Oswalds"....with all of these people lying their asses off
> after the assassination, although Marguerite, a kook herself, always
> thought her son was a secret agent of our Govt.; or was it the
> Imposter LHO she was talking about? Or was it Francis X. Bushman?
> Maybe Francis was playing the part of Oz. Make-up can do wonders.
>
And you know it's a fantasy because? Basically no one has done
extensive research on Oswald and his background until Armstrong spent
over 10 years tracking down all the folks that could have possibly
existed in one's life. One can see if one researches an obvious
pattern, so I suggest that you pick up a copy of the book instead of
relying on your Bug's book if you are going to make an intelligent
discussion on the matters.
> I guess even poor Ozzie's own family wanted to frame him for the 2
> murders. One can only wonder why? No doubt Kook Curt can tell us.
I am sure I could, but that would be rather lengthy, so I would just
suggest you go to 'Harvey and Lee' online and get the background to
even begin to wonder for proper questions. Mr. Armstrong has Robert
Oswald down for 50 pages in the Index of his almost 1,000 page book.
The Marguerites and Marina is extensive, also.
CJ
curtjester1
For one thing, to have two Oswald's as a CIA asset team, you have to
look at the spy business in general, and look what two can do. Their
biggest asset would be to infiltrate different groups, and have the
potential to have an alibi for one or the other if need be. As far
as 1963, it could be wide open. Being's that the two Oswalds would
know of each other and their general M.O.'s, a pitting of one against
the other could have been employed without suspicion, or even been
used as a ploy in convincing say the TSBD Oswald that setting up would
be good in case one were caught so that in trial they could set him
free because of inconsistent evidence, or not being at the right place
at the right time, etc. So, patsyism can take all sorts of forms.
Initially, the assassination could have just let the conspirators
drift off into safety, while all the attention would be on TSBD
Oswald. The conspirators could then have let the thing go to trial
if they thought Oswald was an asset, or they simply could have
convinced him that in order for him to say stay out of the way during
the assassination, and knew that they would have to kill him or have
him killed after. One thing for sure is, that Oswald was talking in
jail, and was implicating Ruby in the gun's racket when he was jailed
with people he knew that were freshly arrested. That and saying
stuff about the Rambler station wagon with Mrs. Paine would surely get
the conspirators a huge need to get rid of Oswald, fast.
CJ
curtjester1
wrote:
in a Dallas car dealership. Why does Ford-Mercury come into my
head? Anyway, if it happened to be the same dealership, I could see
why the flapping of the gums could have been the demise of someone
going off about Oswald. I guess too that type of flapping could have
got winded by a lot of folks and gotten back to anywhere. I am sure
with Marcello over his underbosses Civillo and Campisi, and their
subsequent dealings with DPD, that a lot of leaks could be
plentiful.
CJ