Hey, Ralph. What's the end game.

[bigdog]

Just curious as to what you expect the OIC to accomplish. Are you hoping
to get a new investigation into the assassination of JFK? Are you hoping
that somehow a vast majority of Americans are going to be convinced that
Oswald did not participate in the assassination? Do you think that the
history books are going to be rewritten and state that Oswald was
innocent? Just what is it that you hope to accomplish?

Whatever it is, you better hurry. It's been almost 52 years since the
assassination. I don't think you are going to get another 52.

[mainframetech]

As the truth comes out slowly but surely, the tide will turn at some
point and evidence will rule the day instead of opinion.

Chris

[bigdog]

Oh goody. What century do you expect that to happen?

Conspiracy hobbyists have been telling me for over 20 years that a
breakthrough is right around the corner. They never say which corner or
how far away that corner is.

[Glenn V.]

Den måndag 19 oktober 2015 kl. 00:20:45 UTC+2 skrev mainframetech:

> As the truth comes out slowly but surely, the tide will turn at some
> point and evidence will rule the day instead of opinion.
>
> Chris

That's what's been said numerous times over these past few decades. In
particular before the ARRB were to to release "The truth". How do you
think that's worked out so far - and how do you think it will work out
with the next batch of documents? Still sure about the Conspiracy Rosetta
Stone?

Counting down, and not too much to grasp on nowadays, is there?

And just if - unlike what some CTs have claimed for decades about those
documents - told you just as much as all the documents already released,
then what, Chris?

Would this in anyway perhaps tell you something you didn't think of?

[Ralph Cinque]

Do you mean a new government investigation? Now, why on Earth would I want
that? They gave us the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB, and each
one was rotten to the core. They gave us the 9/11 Commission, and again,
it was rotten to the core.

No, no, no. That doesn't interest me in the slightest. Government can
NEVER investigate itself. Furthermore, the weight of the evidence is so
great that Oswald was innocent, that I expect them to just admit it. Not
investigate it, but just give up. Surrender. Admit that the whole official
story was and is a complete lie, a ruse.

And if they won't do it, I'm thinking more of a V type response. Nothing
violent. No guns. Just a mass rejection of officialdom by people
everywhere. Perhaps some rallies along the line of: "

What do we want?"
"The Truth!"
"When do we want it?"
"Now!"
"Stop the lies!" "Oswald outside!"

Look what happened in the Soviet Union. Boris Yeltsin stood on top of
tank, and yelled "Hell, No!" There were Soviet troops nearby. But. the
crowd of people cheered him, and it was all over for the Soviets.

And yes, I think I can convince the vast majority of Americans that Oswald
did not participate in the assassination because he was standing outside
at the time just clasping his hands. I got photos.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

It's a circle, that's why.

[mainframetech]

Too late. You missed it this time. Study your ARRB files and you
might catch the next one. It's been happening right along, but your still
51 years behind...:)

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

bigdog
- show quoted text -

Oh goody. What century do you expect that to happen?

Conspiracy hobbyists have been telling me for over 20 years that a
breakthrough is right around the corner. They never say which corner or
how far away that corner is.

The corner is Houston and Elm. And it was turned 52 years ago.

The CTs are always looking back over their shoulders, trying to see a new
past.

[Jason Burke]

What post are you responding to, Ralph?

[Ralph Cinque]

Hey, Pink. I found your circle.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/bigdog-oct-18-19-hours-ago-show-quoted.html

[bigdog]

That photo and the the theory that it is Oswald in the doorway have been
around almost from the beginning. It has bee looked at and most people
have rejected the idea that it is Oswald and accepted that it is Lovelady.
So what do you think is going to change their minds.

[Bud]

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> Do you mean a new government investigation? Now, why on Earth would I want
> that? They gave us the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB, and each
> one was rotten to the core. They gave us the 9/11 Commission, and again,
> it was rotten to the core.
>
> No, no, no. That doesn't interest me in the slightest. Government can
> NEVER investigate itself. Furthermore, the weight of the evidence is so
> great that Oswald was innocent, that I expect them to just admit it. Not
> investigate it, but just give up. Surrender. Admit that the whole official
> story was and is a complete lie, a ruse.
>
> And if they won't do it, I'm thinking more of a V type response. Nothing
> violent. No guns. Just a mass rejection of officialdom by people
> everywhere. Perhaps some rallies along the line of: "
>
> What do we want?"
> "The Truth!"
> "When do we want it?"
> "Now!"
> "Stop the lies!" "Oswald outside!"

Oswald said he was inside.

[bigdog]

The list of groups suffering the longest run of futility are in order:

1. Chicago Cubs fans
2. Cleveland Indian fans
3. JFK conspiracy hobbyists

Until this weekend I thought the conspiracy hobbyists had a chance to move
up to #2 but now it looks like "wait until next year".

[bigdog]

They really do believe they can change history.

[Jason Burke]

On 10/20/2015 11:54 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Do you mean a new government investigation? Now, why on Earth would I want
>> that? They gave us the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB, and each
>> one was rotten to the core. They gave us the 9/11 Commission, and again,
>> it was rotten to the core.
>>
>> No, no, no. That doesn't interest me in the slightest. Government can
>> NEVER investigate itself. Furthermore, the weight of the evidence is so
>> great that Oswald was innocent, that I expect them to just admit it. Not
>> investigate it, but just give up. Surrender. Admit that the whole official
>> story was and is a complete lie, a ruse.
>>
>> And if they won't do it, I'm thinking more of a V type response. Nothing
>> violent. No guns. Just a mass rejection of officialdom by people
>> everywhere. Perhaps some rallies along the line of: "
>>
>> What do we want?"
>> "The Truth!"
>> "When do we want it?"
>> "Now!"
>> "Stop the lies!" "Oswald outside!"
>
> Oswald said he was inside.

Oh, please. Ozzie was a liar. Ralph says so.

[Anthony Marsh]

You ignore the fact that I did already.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/19/2015 2:56 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
> Do you mean a new government investigation? Now, why on Earth would I want
> that? They gave us the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB, and each
> one was rotten to the core. They gave us the 9/11 Commission, and again,
> it was rotten to the core.
>

Do you remember what CCI stood for?

> No, no, no. That doesn't interest me in the slightest. Government can
> NEVER investigate itself. Furthermore, the weight of the evidence is so
> great that Oswald was innocent, that I expect them to just admit it. Not
> investigate it, but just give up. Surrender. Admit that the whole official
> story was and is a complete lie, a ruse.
>

Well, I hate to be the one to say it, but how about an investigation of
the cover-up? Like an investigation of the Benghazi Committee?

> And if they won't do it, I'm thinking more of a V type response. Nothing
> violent. No guns. Just a mass rejection of officialdom by people
> everywhere. Perhaps some rallies along the line of: "
>

Do you mean the movie V for Vendetta? Maybe you didn't actually see it
so you don't realize that it was very violent.
Did we have to do that to get the HSCA?

I don't mind the violence, but innocent people always get killed.
How about blowing up the moon as a protest?

> What do we want?"
> "The Truth!"
> "When do we want it?"
> "Now!"
> "Stop the lies!" "Oswald outside!"
>
> Look what happened in the Soviet Union. Boris Yeltsin stood on top of
> tank, and yelled "Hell, No!" There were Soviet troops nearby. But. the
> crowd of people cheered him, and it was all over for the Soviets.
>
> And yes, I think I can convince the vast majority of Americans that Oswald
> did not participate in the assassination because he was standing outside
> at the time just clasping his hands. I got photos.
>

No, you don't have photos. I have the photos.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/19/2015 2:49 PM, Glenn V. wrote:
> Den måndag 19 oktober 2015 kl. 00:20:45 UTC+2 skrev mainframetech:
>
>> As the truth comes out slowly but surely, the tide will turn at some
>> point and evidence will rule the day instead of opinion.
>>
>> Chris
>
> That's what's been said numerous times over these past few decades. In
> particular before the ARRB were to to release "The truth". How do you
> think that's worked out so far - and how do you think it will work out
> with the next batch of documents? Still sure about the Conspiracy Rosetta
> Stone?
>

There is no Rosetta Stone. Just clues. Evidence.

> Counting down, and not too much to grasp on nowadays, is there?
>

Then why not just obey the law and release everything now?

> And just if - unlike what some CTs have claimed for decades about those
> documents - told you just as much as all the documents already released,
> then what, Chris?
>

Remember how the ARRB found the "destroyed" autopsy photographs?
Remember how James Cameron recovered JFK's casket from the bottom of the
Atlantic and found the missing bullet?
Remember how archeologists in 3535 found the missed shot in Dealey Plaza?
Remember how nuclear physicists used meson radiography to photograph the
bullet hole in the forehead?

> Would this in anyway perhaps tell you something you didn't think of?
>
>

Oh, we've already thought of it and the government has blocked us all
the time. National Security, you know. What do you want to do, start
WWIII with Iceland?

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:54:15 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> > Do you mean a new government investigation? Now, why on Earth would I want
> > that? They gave us the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB, and each
> > one was rotten to the core. They gave us the 9/11 Commission, and again,
> > it was rotten to the core.
> >
> > No, no, no. That doesn't interest me in the slightest. Government can
> > NEVER investigate itself. Furthermore, the weight of the evidence is so
> > great that Oswald was innocent, that I expect them to just admit it. Not
> > investigate it, but just give up. Surrender. Admit that the whole official
> > story was and is a complete lie, a ruse.
> >
> > And if they won't do it, I'm thinking more of a V type response. Nothing
> > violent. No guns. Just a mass rejection of officialdom by people
> > everywhere. Perhaps some rallies along the line of: "
> >
> > What do we want?"
> > "The Truth!"
> > "When do we want it?"
> > "Now!"
> > "Stop the lies!" "Oswald outside!"
>
> Oswald said he was inside.
>

LOL. Good one, Bud.

Ralph seems to contradict himself on this "Inside or Outside?" thing,
because one of his slogans is....

"Stop the lies! Oswald outside!"

And yet Ralph also said this two days ago....

"Oswald was very much within the confines of the building." -- Ralph
Cinque; 10/19/15

Maybe Ralph should change his slogan to "STOP THE LIES! OSWALD WAS
OUTSIDE, ALTHOUGH HE WAS ALSO *WITHIN* THE CONFINES OF THE BUILDING!"

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1052.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Sometimes, not always. As Doctor Who said, sometimes there are fixed
points in time which can not be changed. That was why the crew of Red
Dwarf had to go back and have JFK assassinate himself.

[Anthony Marsh]

You seem to have missed the fact that we won in 1978. You lost.

> Until this weekend I thought the conspiracy hobbyists had a chance to move
> up to #2 but now it looks like "wait until next year".
>

It's not in 2016. It's in 2017. All this early Presidential campaigning
has you confused.

>

[Ralph Cinque]

There is no contradiction involved, and you don't have to be a rocket
scientist to understand it.

Oswald was outside in the sense that he was out the front door, breathing
outside air. But, he was still within the confines of the building because
he was in a very enclosed space (enclosed in all but one plane) within the
building (deep to the street) and above ground level.

Not everything is black or white. And when you add the Fritz Notes in
which Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" that clinches
it.

Understand something, Von Pein: the discovery of the Fritz Notes in the
late 90s was the most important discovery in the case since November 22,
1963. And Lee Harvey Oswald should have been declared innocent the day
they were discovered.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/21/2015 11:08 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:54:15 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>> Do you mean a new government investigation? Now, why on Earth would I want
>>> that? They gave us the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB, and each
>>> one was rotten to the core. They gave us the 9/11 Commission, and again,
>>> it was rotten to the core.
>>>
>>> No, no, no. That doesn't interest me in the slightest. Government can
>>> NEVER investigate itself. Furthermore, the weight of the evidence is so
>>> great that Oswald was innocent, that I expect them to just admit it. Not
>>> investigate it, but just give up. Surrender. Admit that the whole official
>>> story was and is a complete lie, a ruse.
>>>
>>> And if they won't do it, I'm thinking more of a V type response. Nothing
>>> violent. No guns. Just a mass rejection of officialdom by people
>>> everywhere. Perhaps some rallies along the line of: "
>>>
>>> What do we want?"
>>> "The Truth!"
>>> "When do we want it?"
>>> "Now!"
>>> "Stop the lies!" "Oswald outside!"
>>
>> Oswald said he was inside.
>>
>
> LOL. Good one, Bud.
>

I particularly like the way he defends Oswald by calling him a liar.

> Ralph seems to contradict himself on this "Inside or Outside?" thing,
> because one of his slogans is....
>
> "Stop the lies! Oswald outside!"
>
> And yet Ralph also said this two days ago....
>
> "Oswald was very much within the confines of the building." -- Ralph
> Cinque; 10/19/15
>
> Maybe Ralph should change his slogan to "STOP THE LIES! OSWALD WAS
> OUTSIDE, ALTHOUGH HE WAS ALSO *WITHIN* THE CONFINES OF THE BUILDING!"
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1052.html
>

You still won't answer my question. If someone is in the doorway is he
inside the building or outside?
I just watched Mythbusters the other day and they show how to stand in
the doorway during an earthquake.

[David Von Pein]

LOL. Yeah, right, Ralph! Let's just accept YOUR inaccurate
*interpretation* of the Fritz notes. Too funny.

And an even bigger laugh is needed here because, via Cinque's skewed
interpretation of the Fritz notes, Ralph actually thinks that the *accused
assassin* (to whom all the evidence leads) was telling the unvarnished
*truth* when he said "out front with Shelley". Which, per Cinque, means
that LHO was "out front with Shelley" *when the shooting was occurring*
(which is not what Fritz meant in those sketchy notes at all).

What Oswald meant, of course, was that AFTER the shooting, and AFTER his
lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker, he went "out front" and saw
"Shelley" there near the entrance.

We know that Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was "having his lunch about
that time [of the assassination] on the first floor" (quote from Fritz'
police report; WCR; page 600).

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm

Fritz didn't say there on page 600 of the Warren Report that Oswald told
him that he was "out front with Shelley" as the assassination was taking
place. Oswald specifically said something completely different---that he
was *inside the building* on the first floor having his lunch (which was a
big fat lie, of course).

If Oswald was innocent, Ralph, why did he tell that lie to Fritz about
having lunch on the 1st floor at the time of the assassination?

Let me guess --- Cinque really thinks it was *Captain Fritz* who was the
liar in that "first floor" statement allegedly made by Oswald. Right,
Ralph?

Request ---- The minute Ralph Cinque gets *anything* right regarding the
events of November 22nd, 1963, somebody call MSNBC or CBS right away.
Because that'll be big news.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Er, but Cinque, the "out front with Bill Shelley" red herring appears to
document a time AFTER the shooting:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

You know, when the TSBD was being searched by the DPD?

Looks like it is GAME OVER for your "out front with Bill Shelley"
nonsense, Cinque.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where SENIOR OIC MEMBER Mark Lane lied!

Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, but do you realize that the Fritz notes weren't written on 11/22/63?

http://www.jfk-info.com/arrb1120.htm

Is it technically possible to commit perjury when testifying before the
WC when you realize that it wasn't a judicial body?

[bpete1969]

Another incorrect claim by Raff*...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/10/office-of-incorrect-claims.html

[Ralph Cinque]

Listen, Von Pein: You desperate people can misconstrue this as many times
as you want, but the result is going to be a slap-down by me every time.

How many times do I have to tell you: SHELLEY WASN'T OUT THERE AFTER THE
ASSASSINATION. HE LEFT THE IMMEDIATELY, BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT, AND DID NOT
COME BACK.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that Fritz would have asked Oswald
for his alibi, and Oswald would have wanted to tell it? And if you read
the Fritz Notes, you'd know that Oswald spoke of eating his lunch in the
1st floor lunch room WHEN JUNIOR JARMAN AND THE SHORT NEGRO (HAROLD
NORMAN) WERE HANGING AROUND. THAT WAS WELL BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION.

AND HOW DENSE AND SCLEROTIC HAS ALL THAT KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN MADE YOU?
By the time of his Warren Commission testimony, Will Fritz knew very well
what was expected of him. He knew very well what it was, a Stalinist show
trial with the explicit purpose of convicting Oswald, and they didn't want
to hear anything to the contrary, least of all from him. By that point in
time, Will Fritz was part of the conspiracy.

Shelley WAS in the doorway during the assassination. Shelley was WAS NOT
in the doorway after the assassination. Oswald correctly cited Shelley
being in the doorway, which means that he must have been with him WHEN
SHELLEY WAS ACTUALLY THERE which was during the motorcade.

Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.

Shelley was a supervisor who was asked to give police a tour of the 6th
floor. He was not milling around out front chewing the fat when Oswald
left for home.

You're tap dancing on a lie, Von Pein. Oswald never said he was in the
lunch room eating at 12:30. Even your pal Vincent Bugliosi, in Reclaiming
History, said that Oswald ate his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room and he
was finished by 12:15.

Why don't you think, Von Pein? What is the very first and most important
thing that any investigator wants to ask a suspect who denies guilt? WHERE
WERE YOU AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME? It's called an alibi, and it comes up
right away in the first interview. So, what's Oswald's alibi in his first
interview? That he was out with Bill Shelley in front. The alibi has got
to be in there, and that's it; it can't be anything else.

And remember, we also have this: see image

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/david-von-pei-lol.html


And that combined with "out with Bill Shelley in front" is a sweeping
exoneration of Oswald. The notes support the imagery, and the imagery
supports the notes. Oswald was innocent. But, I can't say the same for
you.

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Oswald correctly cited Shelley being in the doorway, which means that he
must have been with him WHEN SHELLEY WAS ACTUALLY THERE which was during
the motorcade.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Or --- Oswald was simply telling a big fat lie to Captain Fritz for the
purpose of trying to deflect suspicion away from the one and only person
(LHO) who fired any rifle shots at JFK.

I'll go with that "deflecting suspicion" option instead of Ralph's
version.

Sorry, Dr. Cinque. Your theory sucks. I don't buy it. And no other
reasonable person who knows the facts of the JFK case will buy it either.

Comedy Break (featuring R. Cinque):
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ralph+Cinque

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/23/2015 8:50 PM, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 23 October 2015 15:28:38 UTC+11, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> There is no contradiction involved, and you don't have to be a rocket
>> scientist to understand it.
>>
>> Oswald was outside in the sense that he was out the front door, breathing
>> outside air. But, he was still within the confines of the building because
>> he was in a very enclosed space (enclosed in all but one plane) within the
>> building (deep to the street) and above ground level.
>>
>> Not everything is black or white. And when you add the Fritz Notes in
>> which Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" that clinches
>> it.
>>
>> Understand something, Von Pein: the discovery of the Fritz Notes in the
>> late 90s was the most important discovery in the case since November 22,
>> 1963. And Lee Harvey Oswald should have been declared innocent the day
>> they were discovered.
>
> Er, but Cinque, the "out front with Bill Shelley" red herring appears to
> document a time AFTER the shooting:
>

You wanted it to come out BEFORE the shooting?

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
>
> You know, when the TSBD was being searched by the DPD?
>
> Looks like it is GAME OVER for your "out front with Bill Shelley"
> nonsense, Cinque.
>

Oswald never said that.

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 25 October 2015 23:53:03 UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 8:50 PM, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 23 October 2015 15:28:38 UTC+11, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >> There is no contradiction involved, and you don't have to be a rocket
> >> scientist to understand it.
> >>
> >> Oswald was outside in the sense that he was out the front door, breathing
> >> outside air. But, he was still within the confines of the building because
> >> he was in a very enclosed space (enclosed in all but one plane) within the
> >> building (deep to the street) and above ground level.
> >>
> >> Not everything is black or white. And when you add the Fritz Notes in
> >> which Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" that clinches
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Understand something, Von Pein: the discovery of the Fritz Notes in the
> >> late 90s was the most important discovery in the case since November 22,
> >> 1963. And Lee Harvey Oswald should have been declared innocent the day
> >> they were discovered.
> >
> > Er, but Cinque, the "out front with Bill Shelley" red herring appears to
> > document a time AFTER the shooting:
> >
>
> You wanted it to come out BEFORE the shooting?
>

No, Cinque and the OIC wanted it to be BEFORE or AT the time of the shooting.

> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
> >
> > You know, when the TSBD was being searched by the DPD?
> >
> > Looks like it is GAME OVER for your "out front with Bill Shelley"
> > nonsense, Cinque.
> >
>
> Oswald never said that.
>

Well Cinque is happy to use the "out front with Bill Shelley" quote from
Fritz's notes. Why is it invalid if it is in an FBI report?

Curious Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/24/2015 9:54 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> Oswald correctly cited Shelley being in the doorway, which means that he
> must have been with him WHEN SHELLEY WAS ACTUALLY THERE which was during
> the motorcade.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Or --- Oswald was simply telling a big fat lie to Captain Fritz for the
> purpose of trying to deflect suspicion away from the one and only person
> (LHO) who fired any rifle shots at JFK.
>

No. Fritz told a big fat lie. Oswald never said that.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/24/2015 5:12 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Listen, Von Pein: You desperate people can misconstrue this as many times
> as you want, but the result is going to be a slap-down by me every time.
>
> How many times do I have to tell you: SHELLEY WASN'T OUT THERE AFTER THE
> ASSASSINATION. HE LEFT THE IMMEDIATELY, BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT, AND DID NOT
> COME BACK.
>
> Why is it so hard for you to understand that Fritz would have asked Oswald
> for his alibi, and Oswald would have wanted to tell it? And if you read
> the Fritz Notes, you'd know that Oswald spoke of eating his lunch in the
> 1st floor lunch room WHEN JUNIOR JARMAN AND THE SHORT NEGRO (HAROLD
> NORMAN) WERE HANGING AROUND. THAT WAS WELL BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION.
>
> AND HOW DENSE AND SCLEROTIC HAS ALL THAT KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN MADE YOU?

Yes, KFC can increase your density, but I never heard of it being
sclerotic. Do you mean arteriosclerosis or political sclerosis?

> By the time of his Warren Commission testimony, Will Fritz knew very well
> what was expected of him. He knew very well what it was, a Stalinist show
> trial with the explicit purpose of convicting Oswald, and they didn't want
> to hear anything to the contrary, least of all from him. By that point in
> time, Will Fritz was part of the conspiracy.
>
> Shelley WAS in the doorway during the assassination. Shelley was WAS NOT
> in the doorway after the assassination. Oswald correctly cited Shelley
> being in the doorway, which means that he must have been with him WHEN
> SHELLEY WAS ACTUALLY THERE which was during the motorcade.
>
> Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
> Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
> Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
> Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
> Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
>

That was not the allegation. The allegation was that Shelly was out
front during the shooting.

[Ralph Cinque]

Brennan, as far as I know, it's a historical fact that stupidity never won
a single war. So, what makes you think it can win the war for JFK truth?

The FBI agent James Bookhout claimed in his report that Oswald said he
interacted with Bill Shelley out front after the assassination when he
left for home. That was impossible because Bill Shelley was not out front
at the time that Oswald left for home. So, Bookhout was lying. And I'm
sure that when he said it, he didn't know where Shelley was. He had no
idea where Shelley was. It was just something that sounded good to him. It
seemed plausible to him. It was a twist he added that he thought he could
get away with.

And that's why what the lying FBI agent said is invalid.


Oh, once again, I'm making the workings of your mind famous.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/25/2015 10:38 PM, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 October 2015 23:53:03 UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/23/2015 8:50 PM, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, 23 October 2015 15:28:38 UTC+11, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>> There is no contradiction involved, and you don't have to be a rocket
>>>> scientist to understand it.
>>>>
>>>> Oswald was outside in the sense that he was out the front door, breathing
>>>> outside air. But, he was still within the confines of the building because
>>>> he was in a very enclosed space (enclosed in all but one plane) within the
>>>> building (deep to the street) and above ground level.
>>>>
>>>> Not everything is black or white. And when you add the Fritz Notes in
>>>> which Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" that clinches
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Understand something, Von Pein: the discovery of the Fritz Notes in the
>>>> late 90s was the most important discovery in the case since November 22,
>>>> 1963. And Lee Harvey Oswald should have been declared innocent the day
>>>> they were discovered.
>>>
>>> Er, but Cinque, the "out front with Bill Shelley" red herring appears to
>>> document a time AFTER the shooting:
>>>
>>
>> You wanted it to come out BEFORE the shooting?
>>
>
> No, Cinque and the OIC wanted it to be BEFORE or AT the time of the shooting.
>

IT is the idea that Oswald said he was standing out front with Shelley.
Some people complain that Fritz didn't admit that for so many years.

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 10:50:59 UTC+11, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Brennan, as far as I know, it's a historical fact that stupidity never won
> a single war. So, what makes you think it can win the war for JFK truth?
>
> The FBI agent James Bookhout claimed in his report that Oswald said he
> interacted with Bill Shelley out front after the assassination when he
> left for home. That was impossible because Bill Shelley was not out front
> at the time that Oswald left for home. So, Bookhout was lying. And I'm
> sure that when he said it, he didn't know where Shelley was. He had no
> idea where Shelley was. It was just something that sounded good to him. It
> seemed plausible to him. It was a twist he added that he thought he could
> get away with.
>

Ralph, substitute "Oswald was lying" for "Bookhout was lying" in what you
wrote above and you pretty much got it. It was a twist Oswald added that

he thought he could get away with.

> And that's why what the lying FBI agent said is invalid.
>

Well the "lying" FBI agent's report seems to absolutely MIRROR the notes
of Fritz that you put so much stock into, Ralph. Compare 'em:

Bookhout:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

Fritz:

http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm

Follow them through SEQUENTIALLY from column two of Fritz and you'll see
that your "out front with Bill Shelley" alibi for Oswald just bit the
dust, Ralph.

It's almost as if Bookhout's report is an understandable TRANSLATION of
Fritz's notes!

>
> Oh, once again, I'm making the workings of your mind famous.

Can't wait to read the NEXT excuse laden blog piece, Ralph. Should be a
RIOT!

Cheerful Regards,

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 10:51:23 UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/25/2015 10:38 PM, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 25 October 2015 23:53:03 UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 10/23/2015 8:50 PM, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 23 October 2015 15:28:38 UTC+11, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >>>> There is no contradiction involved, and you don't have to be a rocket
> >>>> scientist to understand it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oswald was outside in the sense that he was out the front door, breathing
> >>>> outside air. But, he was still within the confines of the building because
> >>>> he was in a very enclosed space (enclosed in all but one plane) within the
> >>>> building (deep to the street) and above ground level.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not everything is black or white. And when you add the Fritz Notes in
> >>>> which Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" that clinches
> >>>> it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Understand something, Von Pein: the discovery of the Fritz Notes in the
> >>>> late 90s was the most important discovery in the case since November 22,
> >>>> 1963. And Lee Harvey Oswald should have been declared innocent the day
> >>>> they were discovered.
> >>>
> >>> Er, but Cinque, the "out front with Bill Shelley" red herring appears to
> >>> document a time AFTER the shooting:
> >>>
> >>
> >> You wanted it to come out BEFORE the shooting?
> >>
> >
> > No, Cinque and the OIC wanted it to be BEFORE or AT the time of the shooting.
> >
>
> IT is the idea that Oswald said he was standing out front with Shelley.
> Some people complain that Fritz didn't admit that for so many years.
>

Then maybe those people should read Bookhout's report:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

And Fritz's notes:

http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm

Side by side and then see if they can claim that they STILL can't see that
the Shelley reference is to a time AFTER the assassination, Marsh.

Even YOU should be able to manage a SIMPLE comparison exercise like THAT,
Marsh.

Not that you'd ever bother to. Much easier to blow off steam.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

No thanks. I don't believe lies.