DON JEFFRIES & GREG PARKER VS. DVP
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9e5d621b1ca57725
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12509&view=findpost&p=141096
A "NOTHING IS EVER WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE IN THE JFK CASE" CONSPIRACY
THEORIST SAID:
>>> "I am skeptical about all of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions." <<<
Of course you are. That's because you're geared toward believing the
"extraordinary", while disregarding the "ordinary" (and disregarding
tons of hard evidence that indicates you are dead-wrong; examples
follow below).
>>> "Dale Myers was posting regularly for a brief period of time a few years back on another forum. I found him to be completely full of himself, arrogant and unwilling to address other posters with anything other than "buy my book"." <<<
I suppose a person like Mr. Myers (i.e., a person who possesses a lot
of verified facts about the JFK and Tippit cases) can seem "arrogant"
to conspiracy clowns who live in a world of cloudy speculation and
extraordinary theories that had no chance of actually occurring in
Dallas circa 1963.
And I would guess that Myers' fact-based conclusions that he has
reached about Oswald's guilt in 2 murders would, indeed, seem a tad
bit "arrogant" to a conspiracy-loving kook who is silly enough to
write the following words on a public forum: "I am skeptical about all
of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions".
>>> "I kept trying to pin him {Dale K. Myers} down on a very simple point: how did he determine what time Oswald left the TSBD?" <<<
You kooks can't even figure out the super-easy stuff, can you?
A checklist:
1.) All hard evidence indicates Lee Harvey Oswald positively shot and
killed President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the TSBD.
2.) Oswald is seen on the 2nd Floor approximately 90 seconds (or so)
after the assassination by TWO witnesses, Roy Truly and Officer
Marrion Baker (who BOTH must be rotten liars if we're to actually
believe that Oswald WASN'T stopped at gunpoint by Baker in the
lunchroom).
3.) Oswald is then seen by Mrs. Reid as LHO was walking toward the
stairs on the 2nd Floor, which are stairs that lead to the first-floor
exit of the building.
4.) Oswald is possibly (even probably) seen by one or more newsmen
(Pierce Allman and/or Robert MacNeil) right outside the Depository
front entrance, within minutes of the shooting.
5.) Oswald wasn't suicidal. He wanted to continue to live after
shooting the President. Hence, it stands to reason he probably didn't
sit down at a table in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom (with his Coca-Cola) to
have a bite to eat immediately after murdering a U.S. President. He,
instead, probably wanted to put some mileage between himself and the
crime scene as soon as he could.
Lee Harvey Oswald's approximate "12:33 PM" exit time from the Book
Depository, established by the Warren Commission, seems very
reasonable to me. (But to an "Anybody-But-Oswald-Shot-The-President"
kook, I don't imagine ANYTHING "reasonable" is very appealing....is
it?)
>>> "As I pointed out, the Warren Commission just picked 12:33 out of the air, with absolutely no evidence, not even the kind of laughable witnesses they used to buttress their other ridiculous conclusions." <<<
See #1 through #5 above.
The WC didn't merely pick "12:33" out of their collective ass, Mr.
Kook. It was a reasonable approximation of the time Oswald left the
building, based on the observations of a variety of witnesses.
Plus, it's a timeline based on ordinary common sense as well. I.E.,
it's a common-sense timeline approximation when attempting to evaluate
the probable actions and movements of a person (LHO) who, per the
evidence, had just shot the President of the United States and who
almost certainly wouldn't want to hang around the scene of the crime
any longer than absolutely necessary.
>>> "He {Dale Myers} refused to answer me, because he couldn't." <<<
<chuckle>
A more-likely explanation is that he got tired of arguing with a kook
about something so incredibly obvious (the approximate time that Lee
Oswald vacated the TSBD on 11/22/63).
>>> "I'd presume their timing worked backwards from the bus. Not that I believe the bus story." <<<
<more chuckles>
Which means you (an apparent mega-kook) must now add Mary Bledsoe and
(probably) Cecil McWatters to your growing list of "liars".
Bledsoe KNEW Oswald PRIOR to November 22nd. She immediately recognized
him when he boarded McWatters' bus.
Plus: There's the paper bus transfer (with McWatters' distinct
crescent-shaped punch mark on it), which was found in Oswald's shirt
pocket when he was arrested:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/transfer.gif
Is the bus transfer depicted above supposedly a "planted" item too
(like virtually all other evidence pointing to Saint LHO that is
inconvenient for you CT-Kooks)?
Plus, Oswald HIMSELF admitted to having been on a bus right after the
assassination. Was he trying to frame himself in some fashion here?
Oswald also readily admitted that he was stopped by a policeman inside
the TSBD just after the shooting. (The cops are all liars, right? Plus
Truly? Plus Bledsoe? The list of liars grows and grows whenever you
talk to a conspiracy kook.)
>>> "It seems to me, the youth {on the bus} who laughed about the assassination was assumed very soon after, to be the assassin. Wade even claimed this had been Oswald in a press conference." <<<
Yes, you are correct on this point. Wade did make that incorrect
statemant about Oswald "laughing" on the bus (at a press conference on
the night of November 24th, after Oswald had been killed). Here's a
video of that conference:
http://media.myfoxdfw.com/JFKvideo/video/jfk030.html
But we later learned that the "bus laugher" was not Oswald at all --
but was young Milton Jones instead. That information had not been
fully fleshed out and revealed as of Henry Wade's November 24 press
gathering.
>>> "McWatters certainly seemed to think he'd been brought to the line-up to view the youth (who's name always eludes me) {it was Milton Jones}. Possibly having made that erroneous assumption about who the passenger was, and discovering the mistake, they decided to put Oswald on the bus anyway." <<<
And then the evil cops planted a bus transfer dated "Nov. 22" on
Oswald which happened to have McWatters' punch mark on it? Right?
You kooks are amazing idiots.
>>> "The truth is, we have no idea what time Oswald really left the TSBD." <<<
Yes, we do. We can't say TO THE SECOND what time Oswald left the
building. But a reasonable approximated time can easily be achieved
based on the witnesses in the TSBD and the fact that we KNOW Oswald
walked several blocks east on Elm and then got on a bus at about
12:40.
As I said before, you kooks can't even figure out the easy ones. Why
bother trying to figure out something harder (like this toughie: did
Oswald have two feet or three?)?
>>> "His {LHO's} alleged post-assassination journey makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of what his role was." <<<
Bullshit. (As per the kook norm.)
Oswald's post-assassination movements make perfect sense.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
>>> "Lone nut or Patsy, no one walks away from the scene of a crime he's just committed, then takes a bus back towards it moments later..." <<<
And I suppose it would have made MORE sense for Oswald (who had no car
of his own) to merely stand at his regular bus stop on the corner of
Elm & Houston, waiting for a bus to get to HIM, with cops all around
him....versus LHO walking out of Dealey Plaza and catching a bus
further east of the TSBD?
If McWatters' bus hadn't been bogged down by the post-assassination
traffic, Oswald would have no doubt stayed on the bus and passed right
through Dealey Plaza on his way to the Oak Cliff area. (He might have
ducked down in his seat as the bus physically travelled through the
Plaza, to possibly avoid being seen by anyone in DP.)
But since the bus was unable to move for several minutes (or made very
little progress down Elm Street anyway during the time Oswald was a
passenger), LHO decided to get off the bus in order to find a faster
means of transportation.
And since Lee didn't have his Superman cape with him that day, the
next best thing was a taxicab (which is something that tightfisted
Oswald, by all accounts, never spent money on in the United States;
which is yet another indication that November 22nd wasn't just an
ordinary Friday for Lee Harvey).
>>> "...Then gets off the bus and hails a taxi back in the opposite direction again, only to have the driver drop him off past his rooming house, so he will have to unnecessarily walk back to it." <<<
Oswald probably didn't want cab driver William Whaley to know where he
lived; and he almost certainly was also checking to see if there were
any cops near his roominghouse too.
So the reasons were probably two-fold for LHO wanting to be dropped
off near the intersection of Neely & Beckley, rather than directly in
front of his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue.
>>> "Everything about the official story of Oswald's post-shooting movements is unbelievable." <<<
As usual, a kook has everything backwards. In actuality, Oswald's
post-
shooting movements make perfect sense....to a reasonable person.
>>> "Every witness he supposedly encountered was absurd and would have been torn to shreds on cross examination by a competent public defender." <<<
This list of "absurd" witnesses would include the following
individuals:
1.) Roy Truly.
2.) Marrion Baker.
3.) Mrs. Robert A. Reid.
4.) Pierce Allman (not confirmed, but a possible LHO witness).
5.) Robert MacNeil (not confirmed, but a possible LHO witness).
6.) Cecil McWatters.
7.) Mary Bledsoe.
8.) William Whaley.
9.) Earlene Roberts.
10.) Helen Markham.
11.) Domingo Benavides.
12.) William Scoggins.
13.) Jack Tatum (grain of salt should be applied here, since Tatum
didn't pop up until 1978).
14.) Ted Callaway.
15.) Pat Patterson.
16.) L.J. Lewis.
17.) Barbara Davis.
18.) Virginia Davis.
19.) Sam Guinyard.
20.) Warren Reynolds.
21.) Harold Russell.
22.) Mary Brock.
23.) Johnny Brewer.
24.) Howard Brennan.
Per the CT-Kook, "every witness" on the above list "was absurd".
Twenty-four "absurd" witnesses, who were ALL involved in some cockeyed
and wholly-UNIFIED "Let's Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" plot. (Or: they
were ALL just boobs/idiots. Right, CTers?)
And we could also add several DPD officers (like Nick McDonald, C.T.
Walker, and Gerald Hill, among others) to the above list of witnesses
who "encountered" Oswald prior to his actual arrest in the Texas
Theater as well. Those cops were all "absurd" (or crooked) too...right
Mr. CTer?
>>> "One of the most absurd, William Whaley, even acknowledged this during his side-splitting testimony before the Warren Commission." <<<
It's side-splitting only to a kook who wants to paint Oswald as an
innocent person. To a reasonable person, Whaley's testimony is rock-
solid in a "positive identification of Oswald" kind of fashion.
>>> "Whaley, Mary Bledsoe, Cecil McWatters and Helen Markham are hardly an impressive array of witnesses." <<<
But I'll bet Roger Craig, Jean Hill, Carolyn Arnold, Gordon Arnold,
James Files, and Ed Hoffman are considered the cream of the crop when
it comes to great witnesses....right, Mr. ABO Kook?
>>> "The fact is that authorities had identical reports, independent of each other, from Deputy Roger Craig, Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who all reported seeing a man resembling Oswald run down the grassy slope in front of the TSBD and enter a Rambler station wagon, just moments after shots were fired." <<<
A man almost certainly DID get in a Rambler around 12:40 on Elm
Street. But that man could not possibly have been Lee Oswald. It's
physically not possible for that man to have been Oswald, given his
known whereabouts several blocks EAST of the building (getting on a
bus) at that very same time.
>>> "This was a solid lead, but the authorities never followed it, because they weren't interested in investigating anything." <<<
It's pure mush and balderdash when put into the proper "COULD RAMBLER
MAN HAVE REALLY BEEN LEE HARVEY OSWALD?" context. And one of your
"Rambler" witnesses--Roger D. Craig--is a known liar when it comes to
at least one other major ("7.65 Mauser") issue connected with this
same murder case. A great guy for CTers to trust for sure. <eyeroll>
>>> "These reports represent the best evidence, and really the only evidence, that exists regarding Oswald's possible exit from the TSBD." <<<
You're nuts.
>>> "When we try to analyze what happened immediately after the assassination, and whether or not Oswald could have shot Tippit, we are asked to trust a group of uncredible witnesses, as well as Captain Fritz's "notes" from all those unrecorded interrogation sessions." <<<
And you'd rather trust Roger "KNOWN LIAR" Craig, eh? Lovely.
>>> "I don't think any of the witnesses are believable, and I don't think the official story of what Oswald is supposed to have done during that time is believable." <<<
That's because you're an idiot.
>>> "I also don't trust the veracity of Fritz's "notes"." <<<
That's because you're a kook who seems to WANT Oswald to be innocent
(for some stupid reason).
And you also seem to be of the opinion that a gob of Dallas cops would
NOT WANT TO FIND THE REAL KILLER OF THEIR FELLOW POLICE OFFICER. That
is probably the silliest part of all, when examining the "CT" mindset
with respect to the J.D. Tippit murder specifically.
To think that all of these various policemen, many of them who knew
Tippit personally and were no doubt friends of his, would have just
turned a blind eye toward finding the "real killer(s)" of Officer
Tippit (while at the same time trying to pin Tippit's murder on an
INNOCENT man named Oswald) is just too stupid a theory to contemplate
for more than one-half of a millisecond.
Incredibly, though, there are many conspiracy-thirsty idiots out there
who DO believe in that very scenario (or one very much like it).
>>> "For instance, why would Oswald (or anyone, for that matter) have answered the question about getting his gun from his rooming house with the ridiculous reply "you know how boys are, they get their gun." Huh? This is the response from the disgusted prisoner was was persisently maintaining his innocence every chance he got? Sorry, I cannot believe that Oswald said anything like that." <<<
You can't believe it because....you're an idiot.
But a reasonable person examining that quote from the lips of proven-
double-murderer Oswald might think differently. (And the quote
presented above I don't think is entirely accurate either; I think
Oswald's actual quote was: "You know how boys are; when they've got a
gun, they just carry it".)
Anyway, Oswald was CAUGHT RED-HANDED with the Tippit murder weapon ON
HIM in the theater (as he tried to shoot more officers with the damn
thing, for Pete sakes!).
And since he wasn't suicidal...and he also had no desire to tell the
cops what really happened (i.e., he had no desire to confess to either
of the two murders he had obviously just committed; instead, he denies
killing anyone)...he, naturally, had to think of SOME kind of excuse--
crappy though it was--for having that gun ON HIM in the movie theater.
It's kind of interesting to note the seemingly-contradictory mindset
of the above-quoted conspiracy-loving kook too -- i.e., he seems to
not want to believe anything Oswald said to the police (such as LHO's
remark about "boys carrying guns" or his remark about encountering
Baker in the TSBD or about having actually been on the bus and taking
a cab on the very day of JFK's murder).
But that same CTer (I'm guessing) has no problem at all believing such
Oswald verbal gems as "I'm just a patsy", and "I never owned a rifle",
and "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir", and "I never carried any long
package into work", etc.
Right, Mr. Kook?
(I bet I am right. Wanna wager?)
Then, too, since the CTer said that he doesn't trust the "veracity of
Fritz's notes" at all, that CTer probably shouldn't believe ANY of
Oswald's behind-closed-doors statements made to the police (no matter
what they were).
But I'd bet my next CIA Disinfo check that the kook believes Oswald
was telling Fritz (et al) the Gospel truth when Saint Oz said these
two things to the cops:
"I never owned a rifle" and (paraphrasing) "Wesley Frazier is wrong! I
never carried any bulky package into work with me on Friday morning,
and I never said anything to Wesley about having any curtain rods
either".
>>> "On balance, I don't believe Oswald carried a gun into the TT {Texas Theater}." <<<
Congrats! You've just earned "Super-Kook" status in just one single
post! Nice job.
>>> "We are also asked to believe that the president of the Dallas Bar Association, Louis Nichols, was satisfied that Oswald was not being denied representation, after visiting him in jail. Huh? That's just about all Oswald was talking about, during his brief snippets before the cameras. It is simply incomprehensible to me that the same figure who was complaining constantly about "being denied legal representation" and requesting that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance" could possibly have told Nichols that everything was fine." <<<
Oh goodie! Another "liar" to add to the ever-expanding list -- Mr.
Nichols too. The number of liars connected with the JFK assassination
must be approaching five digits after 44+ years of kooks searching for
"the truth".
>>> "Nichols represented the Dallas status quo. His "impromptu" press conference straight after his brief talk with Oswald was reprehensible by normal lawyerly standards, and quite possibly done conspiratorially for the purpose of ensuring no one was going to come forward before Oswald could be taken care of." <<<
Goodie! More behind-the-scenes, make-believe "conspiratorial"
activity. So, Nichols was involved in the massive "Patsy/Rub Out Plot"
too, eh?
Pretty soon, somebody's GOTTA get Sinatra into the mix too. His hands
surely can't be squeaky clean with all of his "Kennedy" and "Mob"
connections.
Right?
>>> "Nichols, at best, was acting like the rest of the status quo in Dallas, and therefore can be at least partly forgiven. A snake after all, can only act like a snake." <<<
And a kook will always act like a kook. (Status quo, after all.)
>>> "The greater anger and suspicion should be cast upon the role of the Dallas Civil Rights Union that night." <<<
And how many more "conspirators" would this add up to then? Let's see
those numbers.
>>> "I am skeptical about everything Oswald is alleged to have done on November 22, 1963." <<<
That's because you are an idiot who shouldn't be looking into this
case at all.
"If anyone maintains that Oswald was just a patsy and did not
kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against
Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's
guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
>>> "That Baker/Truly/Oswald thing is pure, unadulterated bunk." <<<
So, Baker and Truly were rotten liars and were out to frame poor
innocent Oswald too, is that it?
Any particular reason as to WHY you want to smear Mr. Baker and Mr.
Truly in this manner?
Just WHY would Roy S. Truly have had any desire to frame LHO for
murdering the President? The same with Baker? Why?
Just make something up off the top of your head to explain these
"Why?" questions....like all conspiracy kooks seem to enjoy doing,
24/7.
David Von Pein
March 20, 2008
aeffects
>>> nonsense as usual <<<
ya dickless fraud....... carry on, shithead....
David Von Pein
>>> "ya dickless fraud." <<<
My dick's missing, eh?? Oh my goodness!
Did you steal my dick and sell it for drugs again, Healy?
Damn you!
greg
> A checklist:
>
> 1.) All hard evidence indicates Lee Harvey Oswald positively shot and
> killed President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the TSBD.
So you believe JFK being shot was a positive?
> 2.) Oswald is seen on the 2nd Floor approximately 90 seconds (or so)
Less than 90 seconds, David.
> after the assassination by TWO witnesses, Roy Truly and Officer
> Marrion Baker (who BOTH must be rotten liars if we're to actually
> believe that Oswald WASN'T stopped at gunpoint by Baker in the
> lunchroom).
Not at all. Baker told the truth in his first statement and Truly told
the truth to a reporter.
> 3.) Oswald is then seen by Mrs. Reid as LHO was walking toward the
> stairs on the 2nd Floor, which are stairs that lead to the first-floor
> exit of the building.
Refer to posts by Sean Murphy.
> 4.) Oswald is possibly (even probably) seen by one or more newsmen
> (Pierce Allman and/or Robert MacNeil) right outside the Depository
> front entrance, within minutes of the shooting.
Try within a minute.
> 5.) Oswald wasn't suicidal. He wanted to continue to live after
> shooting the President.
Aha. Yet you would have him in suicide mode inside the TT.
Hence, it stands to reason he probably didn't
> sit down at a table in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom (with his Coca-Cola) to
> have a bite to eat immediately after murdering a U.S. President.
You're right. He didn't. A bunch of others did, though... on the first
floor. I guess some people deal with grief by stuffing their mouths,
eh?
He,
> instead, probably wanted to put some mileage between himself and the
> crime scene as soon as he could.
Then he should have headed straight out of the state, no?
> Lee Harvey Oswald's approximate "12:33 PM" exit time from the Book
> Depository, established by the Warren Commission, seems very
> reasonable to me. (But to an "Anybody-But-Oswald-Shot-The-President"
> kook, I don't imagine ANYTHING "reasonable" is very appealing....is
> it?)
Is there anything in the WCR which is unreasonable, in your opinion?
> >>> "As I pointed out, the Warren Commission just picked 12:33 out of the air, with absolutely no evidence, not even the kind of laughable witnesses they used to buttress their other ridiculous conclusions." <<<
>
> See #1 through #5 above.
Timings established by ludicrous recreations... jogging for
chrissakes.... were Baker and Truly in training for a Fun Run or
chasing down an assassin?
> The WC didn't merely pick "12:33" out of their collective ass, Mr.
> Kook. It was a reasonable approximation of the time Oswald left the
> building, based on the observations of a variety of witnesses.
And yet, you will argue WHEN IT SUITS YOU, as does Bugliosi, that
"time estimates given by, for instance, a single witness would often
change every time the witness was interviewed and nearly always be in
conflict with those given by other witnesses . All of this, of course,
is normal and to be expected."
Your hero shoots you down.
> Plus, it's a timeline based on ordinary common sense as well. I.E.,
> it's a common-sense timeline approximation when attempting to evaluate
> the probable actions and movements of a person (LHO) who, per the
> evidence, had just shot the President of the United States and who
> almost certainly wouldn't want to hang around the scene of the crime
> any longer than absolutely necessary.
Circular logic.
> >>> "I'd presume their timing worked backwards from the bus. Not that I believe the bus story." <<<
>
> <more chuckles>
>
> Which means you (an apparent mega-kook) must now add Mary Bledsoe and
> (probably) Cecil McWatters to your growing list of "liars".
Mary Bledsloe was old and Oswald had only been a boarder for a very
short time. Her memory was obviously not good as she needed notes to
give her testimony -- and that on the suggestion of Secret Service.
Let's be kind and say she was manipulated into her role, or was simply
genuinely mistaken, but encouraged.
McWatters was absolutely not a liar. He told the truth, He was under
the impression he was brought in to ID the laughing boy.
> Plus: There's the paper bus transfer (with McWatters' distinct
> crescent-shaped punch mark on it), which was found in Oswald's shirt
> pocket when he was arrested:
Conveniently found after they got reports of laughing boy and wanted
to make Oswald fit that role. In fact, the transfer was probably given
to, and taken from young Master Jones.
There is also this from a commission letter to the FBI re McWatters...
"...changed his story to the effect that he was mistaken when he
identified Oswald as the individual who rode on his bus on 11/22/63.
McWatters stated that the person who was the subject of his testimony
was a young teenager named Milton Jones..."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=745369
> Plus, Oswald HIMSELF admitted to having been on a bus right after the
> assassination. Was he trying to frame himself in some fashion here?
He denied it initially, and we only have the word of his interrogators
that he recanted.
> Oswald also readily admitted that he was stopped by a policeman inside
> the TSBD just after the shooting. (The cops are all liars, right? Plus
> Truly? Plus Bledsoe? The list of liars grows and grows whenever you
> talk to a conspiracy kook.)
No. He was stopped. Just not by Baker and not on the 2nd floor. Oswald
was corroborated by Truly and police officers via initial media
reports. Did Oswald have access to newspapers so he would know what to
say? A crystal ball maybe?
How about something more mundane but logical... such corroboration for
a first floor encounter points to Oswald being truthful.
> >>> "It seems to me, the youth {on the bus} who laughed about the assassination was assumed very soon after, to be the assassin. Wade even claimed this had been Oswald in a press conference." <<<
>
> Yes, you are correct on this point. Wade did make that incorrect
> statemant about Oswald "laughing" on the bus (at a press conference on
> the night of November 24th, after Oswald had been killed). Here's a
> video of that conference:
>
> http://media.myfoxdfw.com/JFKvideo/video/jfk030.html
>
> But we later learned that the "bus laugher" was not Oswald at all --
> but was young Milton Jones instead. That information had not been
> fully fleshed out and revealed as of Henry Wade's November 24 press
> gathering.
"The information had not been fully fleshed out." LOL. After two
days, this simple action of a bus ride had not been fully fleshed
out???!!! Yet these were the genuises who got their man in record
time? Come on. The only valid conclusion is that it took time for
these moroons to realise Oswald was not Laughing Boy Milton. But by
then, they were not about to admit such an egregious error. Oswald had
to be place on that bus now just to save face...
> And then the evil cops planted a bus transfer dated "Nov. 22" on
> Oswald which happened to have McWatters' punch mark on it? Right?
Jones' transfer. No mystery.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7697af520465b5f2
GREG PARKER SAID:
>>> "So you believe JFK being shot was a positive?" <<<
DVP SAYS:
Huh? WTF?
You're off to a really great start with your rebuttal, Greg. ~smirk~
>>> "Less than 90 seconds, David [Greg's detailed timing of when Oswald was seen by Baker & Truly in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom]." <<<
Oh, that's right! Greg Parker was in Dealey Plaza with his stopwatch
on November 22nd and was timing every move made by Oswald, Baker, and
Truly. I forgot about that.
>>> "Try within a minute [Oswald being seen by either Allman or MacNeil]." <<<
That's based on your timing of these things with your own stopwatch
again, eh Greg?
And I don't imagine that Greg finds it the slightest bit odd that Lee
Oswald wanted to leave the scene of the crime only one minute (per
Greg's clocked account of when LHO left) after the U.S. President had
just been shot outside LHO's workplace.
It was just another ho-hum, ordinary Friday around the Book Depository
on November 22. Nothing big happening at all.
Right, Greg?
>>> "Yet you would have him in suicide mode inside the TT [Texas Theater]." <<<
Why would you say that?
You think Oswald's pulling a gun on police officers in the theater was
a sign of him being SUICIDAL?
LOL.
It's a sign of just the opposite, of course -- i.e., he wanted to kill
the cops before they could kill him.
>>> "Then he [LHO] should have headed straight out of the state, no? [after I had earlier said that Oswald "probably wanted to put some mileage between himself and the crime scene as soon as he could"]" <<<
He probably was headed "out of the state". But he never got that far.
Seeing as how he had to walk and use busses and cabs for his
transportation, it's not surprising he didn't get very far after
murdering the President. (Duh.)
Oswald's post-assassination movements are, of course, a very good
reason to know that Oswald was performing a solo act on 11/22/63. But,
for some reason, conspiracy theorists always refuse to use their
common sense when talking about this case.
So, naturally, in the upside-down world of conspiracy-hungry kooks,
Oswald's post-assassination actions (which undeniably are saying "I'm
All Alone!") are interpreted as meaning something else entirely by the
CTers.
Go figure the topsy-turvy thinking of conspiracists.
>>> "Is there anything in the WCR which is unreasonable, in your opinion?" <<<
Not very much, no. They investigated the murder of the President in
great detail....and they arrived at the truth regarding that murder
(and J.D. Tippit's murder and Lee Harvey Oswald's murder too).
I have a small quibble with the Commission, though (re: the
reconstructions of LHO's post-12:30 movements; see later comments).
But that quibble, in the long run, only makes Lee Oswald MORE likely
to be the killer of JFK, not less likely.
>>> "Timings established by ludicrous recreations... jogging for chrissakes.... were Baker and Truly in training for a Fun Run or chasing down an assassin?" <<<
During one of the re-creations, the Warren Commission should have had
Secret Service Agent John J. Howlett SPRINT across the sixth floor and
down the stairs, instead of merely doing two reconstructions at a
"normal walking pace" [WR, p.152] and a "fast walk" [WR, p.152].
I kind of doubt that Oswald was strolling along at a "normal walking
pace" after having just shot the President of the United States in the
head. A "fast walk"? Perhaps. But, IMO, the WC should have performed
at least one re-creation test at a pace that was FASTER THAN JUST
"WALKING". But they did not do such a test.
"A test was...conducted to determine the time required to walk
from the southeast corner of the [TSBD] sixth floor to the second-
floor lunchroom by [the] stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the
Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth
floor along the east aisle to the northeast. corner. He placed the
rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald’s rifle was actually
found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the
second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at
normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; the second test,
at a “fast walk” took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second test followed
immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary
to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk
back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end
of either test run." -- WCR; Page 152
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
>>> "And yet, [after I said this: "The WC didn't merely pick "12:33" out of their collective ass, Mr. Kook. It was a reasonable approximation of the time Oswald left the building, based on the observations of a variety of witnesses"] you will argue WHEN IT SUITS YOU, as does Bugliosi, that "time estimates given by, for instance, a single witness would often change every time the witness was interviewed and nearly always be in conflict with those given by other witnesses. All of this, of course, is normal and to be expected." [End Bugliosi quote] .... Your hero [Greg means VB, of course] shoots you down." <<<
Vince, of course, is correct. Time estimates should be weighed and
balanced, and many times they should be discarded entirely, such as
Helen Markham's time estimates for the Tippit murder. We know via
other evidence that Markham was most certainly incorrect about her
"1:06" to "1:07" timing for the Tippit slaying (and at one point she
said she thought the murder occurred at around 1:30).
But many CTers think we should let Tippit's murderer (that was Lee
Oswald, of course) off the hook because of Markham's timeline (and
Bowley's), even though Oswald was positively identified by Mrs.
Markham (and others) as Tippit's killer.
With respect to the Baker/Truly/Oswald timeline, conspiracy theorists
always will totally ignore the fact that re-creations were done by the
Secret Service, FBI, and Warren Commission....all of which favor the
likelihood of Oswald being able to get from the sixth floor to the
second floor in well under 90 seconds.
And, as mentioned earlier, it's likely that Oswald was moving much
faster than Agent Howlett of the Secret Service was moving during
Howlett's reconstruction of the event, making it much more likely that
Oswald got to the lunchroom on the 2nd Floor in less than Howlett's
best time of 74 seconds.
But it's best if CTers continue to ignore these realities. Otherwise,
it might make the prized "patsy" look a lot guiltier.
>>> "Mary Bledsloe [sic; Bledsoe] was old and Oswald had only been a boarder for a very short time. Her memory was obviously not good as she needed notes to give her testimony -- and that on the suggestion of Secret Service. Let's be kind and say she was manipulated into her role, or was simply genuinely mistaken, but encouraged." <<<
LOL. Oh, good! More people being "manipulated" by the evil "Let's
Frame Oswald" forces that were present in massive quantities in late
1963 in Dallas (and Washington...and New Orleans...and Mexico
City...etc.).
That's the CT motto playing out again -- i.e., "IF IT POINTS TO
OSWALD, LET'S PRETEND THAT EVERYONE WAS LYING THEIR ASSES OFF IN ORDER
TO FRAME HIM".
>>> "McWatters was absolutely not a liar. He told the truth. He was under the impression he was brought in to ID the laughing boy." <<<
Could be. But, so what?
>>> "[The paper bus transfer was] conveniently found [in Oswald's shirt pocket] after they got reports of laughing boy and wanted to make Oswald fit that role. In fact, the transfer was probably given to, and taken from young Master [Milton] Jones." <<<
LOL. You kooks are a riot.
You think that the cops even went to the trouble of lying about
something totally meaningless -- like the bus transfer in Oswald's
pocket.
Naturally, you have absolutely no good-enough reason to suspect the
authorities of foul play with respect to the bus transfer (or anything
else). But that won't stop you from planting a seed of suspicion
against the Dallas cops. Right, Greg?
In a word -- Pathetic.
>>> "There is also this from a commission letter to the FBI re McWatters... "...changed his story to the effect that he was mistaken when he identified Oswald as the individual who rode on his bus on 11/22/63. McWatters stated that the person who was the subject of his testimony was a young teenager named Milton Jones." <<<
Big ol' LOL here!
The conspiracy theorist named Greg Parker actually seems to think that
the above statement by the Warren Commission regarding bus driver
Cecil McWatters is something that can be utilized by kooks such as Mr.
Parker to somehow paint the Commission and/or the DPD (et al) as
lying, rotten crooks in some fashion. (You DO think that the WC was
full of nothing but lying, rotten crooks who were bent on finding
Oswald guilty, don't you Greg?)
In reality, that particular transmission from the WC to the FBI shows
the HONESTY of the Commission in general. It's also called: GETTING
THE FACTS STRAIGHT (which is something that CTers never seem capable
of doing).
>>> "He [LHO] denied it [being on the bus] initially, and we only have the word of his interrogators that he recanted." <<<
And, naturally, those "interrogators" never would tell the truth.
Would they, Greg?
>>> [After I said this: "Oswald also readily admitted that he was stopped by a policeman inside the TSBD just after the shooting. (The cops are all liars, right? Plus Truly? Plus Bledsoe? The list of liars grows and grows whenever you talk to a conspiracy kook.)" .... Greg Parker then uttered this batch of retarded idiocy:] "No. He was stopped. Just not by Baker and not on the 2nd floor." <<<
Good! More liars to add to a kook's list -- Marrion L. Baker and Roy
S. Truly.
>>> "LOL. After two days, this simple action of a bus ride had not been fully fleshed out???!!! Yet these were the genuises [sic] who got their man in record time? Come on." <<<
The "not fully fleshed out" conclusion is, of course, the only
reasonable one to come to.
But to a CT-Kook, it's MORE reasonable to think that a bunch of people
were trying their darndest to frame an innocent man for TWO murders.
Sorry, Greg, but my scenario is just a tad more "reasonable".
>>> "The only valid conclusion is that it took time for these moroons to realise [sic] Oswald was not Laughing Boy Milton. But by then, they were not about to admit such an egregious error. Oswald had to be place[d] on that bus now just to save face." <<<
District Attorney Henry Wade (et al) merely were incorrect about
Oswald being the "laughing boy". Simple as that.
All reasonable people know that Oswald was on Cecil McWatters' bus on
11/22/63. It's only the retarded conspiracy-happy kooks who want to
try and deny that LHO was ever on the bus.
Per the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists, it evidently was "THE
WORLD VS. THE PATSY" in November 1963, and everybody in officialdom
decided to join in the frame-up of an innocent man.
Right, Greg?
>>> "[It was Milton] Jones' [bus] transfer. No mystery." <<<
So you think somebody planted Milton Jones' bus transfer in Lee
Oswald's shirt pocket in order to frame Sweet Lee, eh?
LOL. The lengths you kooks will go to try and exonerate a double-
murderer have no boundaries. Do they, Greg?
Didn't think so.
greg
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7697af520465b5f2
>
> GREG PARKERSAID:
>
> >>> "So you believe JFK being shot was a positive?" <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Huh? WTF?
I was wondering how you negatively shoot someone....
> You're off to a really great start with your rebuttal, Greg. ~smirk~
Watch it. The last person who smirked like that got a bullet from a
deranged night club owner.
> >>> "Less than 90 seconds, David [Greg's detailed timing of when Oswald was seen by Baker & Truly in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom]." <<<
It was as detailed as your timing. You saw no need to quote what the
WC said on this. I saw no need to quote the work of others. You can
googlit.
> Oh, that's right!Greg Parkerwas in Dealey Plaza with his stopwatch
> on November 22nd and was timing every move made by Oswald, Baker, and
> Truly. I forgot about that.
Yeah. You're a riot.
> >>> "Try within a minute [Oswald being seen by either Allman or MacNeil]." <<<
>
> That's based on your timing of these things with your own stopwatch
> again, eh Greg?
No. Based on the work of others. Gogooglit.
> And I don't imagine that Greg finds it the slightest bit odd that Lee
> Oswald wanted to leave the scene of the crime only one minute (per
> Greg's clocked account of when LHO left) after the U.S. President had
> just been shot outside LHO's workplace.
Odd? yes. It indicates his having some knowledge. But also exculpatory
in regard to being a shooter, Sherlock.
> It was just another ho-hum, ordinary Friday around the Book Depository
> on November 22. Nothing big happening at all.
A fairly common phenomenon inside that building was the appearance of
just another day. Truly even claimed he forgot about the motorcade
until reminded around lunchtime. Others disappeared from the area (as
Truly was about to)...preferring to pick through the detritus of their
lives than stay and catch the murdercade.
> Right, Greg?
>
> >>> "Yet you would have him in suicide mode inside the TT [Texas Theater]." <<<
>
> Why would you say that?
Sorry if that is not your take on it.
> You think Oswald's pulling a gun on police officers in the theater was
> a sign of him being SUICIDAL?
>
> LOL.
No. It is actually a common LN view - and one I mistook you as holding
based on the fact this: "Oswald wasn't suicidal. He wanted to continue
to live after shooting the President." Thus you have him fleeing to
get as far away from the TSBD as possible to avoid being killed - yet
acting suicidally by pulling a gun on a cop with a number of others
about to dive on him.
> It's a sign of just the opposite, of course -- i.e., he wanted to kill
> the cops before they could kill him.
Okay. Great. You acknowledge the cops intended to kill him. We're
making progress.
> >>> "Then he [LHO] should have headed straight out of the state, no? [after I had earlier said that Oswald "probably wanted to put some mileage between himself and the crime scene as soon as he could"]" <<<
> He probably was headed "out of the state". But he never got that far.
No. He thought he'd catch a movie first - as you do - when trying to
get as far from your home as possible. LOL
> Seeing as how he had to walk and use busses [sic] and cabs for his
> transportation, it's not surprising he didn't get very far after
> murdering the President. (Duh.)
>
> Oswald's post-assassination movements are, of course, a very good
> reason to know that Oswald was performing a solo act on 11/22/63. But,
> for some reason, conspiracy theorists always refuse to use their
> common sense when talking about this case.
Common sense tells us his movements were pure trade craft.
>>>> "Is there anything in the WCR which is unreasonable, in your opinion?" <<<
>
> Not very much, no. They investigated the murder of the President in
> great detail....and they arrived at the truth regarding that murder
> (and J.D. Tippit's murder and Lee Harvey Oswald's murder too).
>
> I have a small quibble with the Commission, though (re: the
> reconstructions of LHO's post-12:30 movements; see later comments).
> But that quibble, in the long run, only makes Lee Oswald MORE likely
> to be the killer of JFK, not less likely.
Okay. Thanks.
> >>> "Timings established by ludicrous recreations... jogging for chrissakes.... were Baker and Truly in training for a Fun Run or chasing down an assassin?" <<<
>
> During one of the re-creations, the Warren Commission should have had
> Secret Service Agent John J. Howlett SPRINT across the sixth floor and
> down the stairs, instead of merely doing two reconstructions at a
> "normal walking pace" [WR, p.152] and a "fast walk" [WR, p.152].
Ha. They couldn't without admitting LHO would have been breathing in
rather heavily during the mythical encounter.
It was Baker and Truly who should have been timed sprinting. Theirs
was the alleged urgency.
> I kind of doubt that Oswald was strolling along at a "normal walking
> pace" after having just shot the President of the United States in the
> head. A "fast walk"? Perhaps. But, IMO, the WC should have performed
> at least one re-creation test at a pace that was FASTER THAN JUST
> "WALKING". But they did not do such a test.
Because they couldn't without having him gasping. There may have also
been other considerations such as having him come down quicker perhaps
meant others SHOULD have seen him...
> "A test was...conducted to determine the time required to walk
> from the southeast corner of the [TSBD] sixth floor to the second-
> floor lunchroom by [the] stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the
> Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth
> floor along the east aisle to the northeast. corner. He placed the
> rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald’s rifle was actually
> found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the
> second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at
> normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; the second test,
> at a “fast walk” took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second test followed
> immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary
> to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk
> back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end
> of either test run." -- WCR; Page 152
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
>
> >>> "And yet, [after I said this: "The WC didn't merely pick "12:33" out of their collective ass, Mr. Kook. It was a reasonable approximation of the time Oswald left the building, based on the observations of a variety of witnesses"] you will argue WHEN IT SUITS YOU, as does Bugliosi, that "time estimates given by, for instance, a single witness would often change every time the witness was interviewed and nearly always be in conflict with those given by other witnesses. All of this, of course, is normal and to be expected." [End Bugliosi quote] .... Your hero [Greg means VB, of course] shoots you down." <<<
>
> Vince, of course, is correct. Time estimates should be weighed and
> balanced, and many times they should be discarded entirely, such as
> Helen Markham's time estimates for the Tippit murder. We know via
> other evidence that Markham was most certainly incorrect about her
> "1:06" to "1:07" timing for the Tippit slaying (and at one point she
> said she thought the murder occurred at around 1:30).
Nice duck and dodge. I invoked Bugliosi specificall because YOU said
you based your timeline on the observations of a variety of witnesses.
Your hero eschewed such methodology.
> >>> "Mary Bledsloe [sic; Bledsoe] was old and Oswald had only been a boarder for a very short time. Her memory was obviously not good as she needed notes to give her testimony -- and that on the suggestion of Secret Service. Let's be kind and say she was manipulated into her role, or was simply genuinely mistaken, but encouraged." <<<
>
> LOL. Oh, good! More people being "manipulated" by the evil "Let's
> Frame Oswald" forces that were present in massive quantities in late
> 1963 in Dallas (and Washington...and New Orleans...and Mexico
> City...etc.).
Bledsoe is the only witness to Oswald being on that bus. You have an
old lady with a poor memory, who knew Oswald only for the briefest of
times and no corroborating witnesses.
> That's the CT motto playing out again -- i.e., "IF IT POINTS TO
> OSWALD, LET'S PRETEND THAT EVERYONE WAS LYING THEIR ASSES OFF IN ORDER
> TO FRAME HIM".
What a surprise that you'd categorise the flaws in your case as
strengths, and then attack the messenger.
> >>> "McWatters was absolutely not a liar. He told the truth. He was under the impression he was brought in to ID the laughing boy." <<<
>
Leaves you with Bledsoe as your sole witness and a ticket which was
somehow missed on Oswald's person until it was needed to put him on
the bus.
> >>> "[The paper bus transfer was] conveniently found [in Oswald's shirt pocket] after they got reports of laughing boy and wanted to make Oswald fit that role. In fact, the transfer was probably given to, and taken from young Master [Milton] Jones." <<<
>
> LOL. You kooks are a riot.
Be that as it may... it's hardly a rebuttal to anything.
> You think that the cops even went to the trouble of lying about
> something totally meaningless -- like the bus transfer in Oswald's
> pocket.
Not meaningless in their eyes. They made the assumption Laughing Boy
was Oswald, so face saving was needed. They'd already been vilified
around the world... confsuing the kid with Oswald would have also made
them a laughing stock.
> Naturally, you have absolutely no good-enough reason to suspect the
> authorities of foul play with respect to the bus transfer (or anything
> else). But that won't stop you from planting a seed of suspicion
> against the Dallas cops. Right, Greg?
>
> In a word -- Pathetic.
Well... that word certainly describes your rebuttal.
> >>> "There is also this from a commission letter to the FBI re McWatters... "...changed his story to the effect that he was mistaken when he identified Oswald as the individual who rode on his bus on 11/22/63. McWatters stated that the person who was the subject of his testimony was a young teenager named Milton Jones." <<<
>
> Big ol' LOL here!
>
> The conspiracy theorist namedGreg Parkeractually seems to think that
> the above statement by the Warren Commission regarding bus driver
> Cecil McWatters is something that can be utilized by kooks such as Mr.
> Parker to somehow paint the Commission and/or the DPD (et al) as
> lying, rotten crooks in some fashion. (You DO think that the WC was
> full of nothing but lying, rotten crooks who were bent on finding
> Oswald guilty, don't you Greg?)
I made no comment at all about how it "painted" anyone. It is what is
- a letter which states rather plainly that McWatters was not a
witness to Oswald being on his bus.
> In reality, that particular transmission from the WC to the FBI shows
> the HONESTY of the Commission in general. It's also called: GETTING
> THE FACTS STRAIGHT (which is something that CTers never seem capable
> of doing).
And you would accuse CTs of jumping to conclusions. Here is yet
another of yours based on your own fevered imagination.
> >>> "He [LHO] denied it [being on the bus] initially, and we only have the word of his interrogators that he recanted." <<<
>
> And, naturally, those "interrogators" never would tell the truth.
> Would they, Greg?
Some of them did.
> >>> [After I said this: "Oswald also readily admitted that he was stopped by a policeman inside the TSBD just after the shooting. (The cops are all liars, right? Plus Truly? Plus Bledsoe? The list of liars grows and grows whenever you talk to a conspiracy kook.)" ....Greg Parkerthen uttered this batch of retarded idiocy:] "No. He was stopped. Just not by Baker and not on the 2nd floor." <<<
>
> Good! More liars to add to a kook's list -- Marrion L. Baker and Roy
> S. Truly.
For the second time, Baker told the truth in his affidavit. Encounter
on third or fourth floor with a person who could not have been Oswald
- and was not named as Oswald in that statement.
> >>> "LOL. After two days, this simple action of a bus ride had not been fully fleshed out???!!! Yet these were the genuises [sic] who got their man in record time? Come on." <<<
>
> The "not fully fleshed out" conclusion is, of course, the only
> reasonable one to come to.
>
> But to a CT-Kook, it's MORE reasonable to think that a bunch of people
> were trying their darndest to frame an innocent man for TWO murders.
Frames never happen in your universe, apparently.
> Sorry, Greg, but my scenario is just a tad more "reasonable".
With you as the sole arbiter of what constitutes reasonableness.
> >>> "The only valid conclusion is that it took time for these moroons to realise [sic] Oswald was not Laughing Boy Milton. But by then, they were not about to admit such an egregious error. Oswald had to be place[d] on that bus now just to save face." <<<
>
> District Attorney Henry Wade (et al) merely were incorrect about
> Oswald being the "laughing boy". Simple as that.
Not just Wade. As is the practice everywhere, Wade was briefed before-
hand. What he said was what he was told by those in charge of the
investigations. He was not a part of those investigations.
IOW, the cops themselves still thought Oswald was Laughing Boy.
> All reasonable people know that Oswald was on Cecil McWatters' bus on
> 11/22/63. It's only the retarded conspiracy-happy kooks who want to
> try and deny that LHO was ever on the bus.
The case as it stands is Bledsoe and a late and oh so conveniently
found bus ticket. I wouldn't be counting on celebrating a victory in
court based on that.
> Per the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists, it evidently was "THE
> WORLD VS. THE PATSY" in November 1963, and everybody in officialdom
> decided to join in the frame-up of an innocent man.
>
> Right, Greg?
You have some real issues going there, David. Or is the constant
attack a smoke-screen to hide your nakedness?
aeffects
well what should we expect from a 46 year old guy who shares a room
with his brother, at HOME, yet? David Von pein aka Dave Reitzes needs
this diversion, since he's been in touch with St. Secretary Rosemary,
of Vin Bugliosi fame, old Dave hasn't had his feet on the ground for
quite sometime. You've just smacked his sorry ass back to earth, funny
thing the shithead won't even notice, he can't.... You'd think he'd
change the cadre of writers (students) he has in his stable, he's
getting a bit long-in-tooth these days....
The copy & paste arteeeeeest needs new material...... LMFAO
Good job, btw.....
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1ed0b9cd31b10143
Pitifully poor re-rebuttal by Greg Parker.
But, then again, what can we expect from a person who has nothing to
go on except speculation, non-existent physical evidence, blatant
accusations regarding "planted" evidence (e.g., the bus transfer), and
an obvious desire to exonerate a double-killer?
And yet *I* am the one who has "issues" (per Mr. Parker).
As I said before (but it's worth repeating innumerable times) ---
Pathetic.