Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
alt.conspiracy.jfk
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion What Are The Odds?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
David VP  
View profile  
 More options Feb 18 2006, 1:57 am
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: "David VP" <davevonp...@aol.com>
Date: 17 Feb 2006 22:57:34 -0800
Local: Sat, Feb 18 2006 1:57 am
Subject: Re: What Are The Odds?
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

>> "It's easy enough for a kook to cavalierly say, for instance, that the BY photos were faked (after all Oz said so, it must be so). But what does such a thing entail to make a reality? Technicians, surveillance crews, break-in men, ect, a small army needed to account for just this one piece of evidence."

Absolutely. ... And what did it actually accomplish? Answer: Nothing.
... Because even WITHOUT the BY photos, police can (and did) easily tie
Oswald to the rifle, his revolver, and his "Russian ties". Therefore,
the sneakiness of the BY photos (if faked, which they are not, of
course, since Marina admits to taking them) proves NOTHING and is
another hunk of recklessness that no "Pro" plotters would have risked.

Not to mention the superfluity of WANTING TO FAKE THREE OR FOUR PHOTOS
DEPICTING THE *EXACT* SAME THING (using the SAME HEAD of LHO!). How
dumb is that?! Why on Earth wouldn't just one photo suffice to "frame"
poor lil' Lee? Obviously, just one would have sufficed.

Marina's admission that she took EVEN ONE of the photos makes every
photo legit and authentic. Because if ONE photo actually existed of
Oswald in the Neely back yard, why would the "plotters" feel the need
to fake ADDITIONAL photos showing the same basic thing (Oswald with
weapons)? That's just....silly.

>> "...after all Oz said so, it must be so."

Indeed. After all, who wouldn't believe everything that comes from the
lips of the accused killer in handcuffs? SURELY he has no reason to
tell any falsehoods...right CTers?

It's oh so obvious that Oswald started lying to the police almost
immediately after his arrest, and he never stopped lying when it came
to anything that had to do with the JFK and Tippit murders. Offhand, I
cannot think of a single hunk of "truth" he uttered during his 46-hour
detention at DPD (to the police or to the live TV cameras and press in
the hallways) when it came to pertinent info re. the murders themselves
. Every single thing Oswald said was a lie....everything.....

"I didn't shoot anybody; no sir!" -- Provable Lie.
"Those pictures are fakes; my head; somebody else's body." -- Provable
Lie.*
"I never owned a rifle." -- Provable Lie.*
"I didn't bring any bulky package to work on 11/22." -- Provable Lie.*

* = Paraphrased, not verbatim, quotes...due to the idiotic fact that
the DPD/FBI/USSS decided to not record a word Oswald said. Was that
stupid? Sure it was. Was it conspiratorial? In a CTers' eyes...of
course it was. In reality? There's not a shred of proof to show the DPD
had conspiratorial motives by not recording Oswald's comments.

And a biggie (re. Oswald's lies), that was mentioned earlier when Bud
said this in a prior post......

>> "In any case, the whole "patsy" thing is a myth, Oz claimed the Dallas police picked him up because he had lived in the Soviet Union, and no one has shown that claim to have a shred of merit."

I've spoken at various other times about this exact "lie" of Oswald's.
(Perhaps Bud and I are twins from a different life or something.) :)

Here's a larger list of "Oswald's Lies" that I've assembled. (Does a
truly "innocent Patsy" need to lie this much?).......

www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B0006BT7X4

And it really places the "Patsy" remark in a whole new and differing
light....because his "Patsy" whitewash comes right on the heels of a
PROVABLE LIE re. the "Soviet Union". One lie is feeding the next.

Also: Oswald doesn't say anything about some outside entity (i.e., Clay
Shaw, Garrison, Ferrie, the Boogie Man, et al) making him the "Patsy"
during his famous "I'm Just A Patsy" statement. He, in essence, since
the remark tailgates the lie re. the "Soviet Union", is pointing the
finger of "Patsy blame" at the DPD, and not at anyone else who might
have "set him up" beforehand. And, IMO, that's an important distinction
to remember when assessing the infamous "Patsy" remark made by Oswald.

Why on Earth so many CTers want to take the word of the accused
double-murderer as Gospel is a mystery indeed. It's similar to blindly
accepting the protestations of Charlie Manson or O.J. Simpson, when
they insisted "I killed no one".


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google