Oswald, Shelley, Bookhout, And Bugliosi
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald did NOT say, "Shelley told me I could leave" -- LNers fooling & pretending again. .... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: "Oswald lied repeatedly about things he would have no reason to lie about if he was innocent. (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a rifle. .... Shelley told me I could leave." [END DVP QUOTE.] .... This is actually an LN exaggeration. According to Fritz, Hosty, & Bookhout, it wasn't that cut & dry." <<<
Yes, Don [Willis], I will admit my (possible) error when I said this
in an earlier post (re: Oswald's lies):
"Shelley told me I could leave."
What I should have said, instead, is this:
"I figured there would be no more work done that day, so I just
went home."
The "Shelley" portion of that statement is possibly not accurate
(although I don't know for sure that it is not accurate, and my
comments and citation near the end of this post make it clear that the
Warren Commission most certainly was not lying or making up false
stories with respect to the topic of Bill Shelley).
Once again, the best place to turn for a detailed examination of
virtually any sub-topic connected to the JFK assassination is Vincent
Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", wherein we find these excerpts
(and I'll have more to say about these VB book excerpts later in this
post, explaining where Mr. Bugliosi has made a mistake here, which is
really a mistake in the Warren Report):
"There is one alleged lie of Oswald’s that doesn’t stand up.
Page 182 of the Warren Report reads that “Oswald told [Captain] Fritz
that after lunch [and presumably the shooting] he went outside, talked
with Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home.
He said that he left work because Bill Shelley said that there would
be no more work done that day in the building.”
"But there is nothing in the three citations the Warren Report
gives to back this statement up. Indeed, the name Bill Shelley isn’t
even mentioned in the text referred to by the three citations.
(Shelley, by the way, testified that he did not tell anyone to go home
after the shooting, and it is clear from his testimony that he did not
see Oswald after the shooting [7 H 391; 6 H 329–331].)
"Wondering where in the world the Commission had come up with
this, if at all, the closest I could come is in the contemporaneous
handwritten notes of Captain Fritz, taken at the time of the
interrogation--five brief pages written during twelve hours of
interrogation. Such severe condensation automatically causes
distortion.
"On page 1, Fritz writes, “Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off
[Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
front. Left wk [work] opinion nothing be done that day.”
"With respect to Fritz’s handwritten note that Oswald said he
had lunch on the first floor after the confrontation with the officer
on the second floor, Oswald couldn’t have told Fritz this, since he
couldn’t expect anyone to believe that after his confrontation with
the officer (Baker) in the second-floor lunchroom, which had to be
after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, he proceeded to go down to the
first floor and have his lunch and then left."
>>>[DVP INTERJECTION HERE: Although Buell Wesley Frazier is on record as having done that very thing--i.e., eating his lunch inside the TSBD Building AFTER the assassination had taken place, amidst all the commotion and confusion following the shooting. It does, indeed, sound unbelievable, but Frazier did it anyway; and Frazier went DOWN INTO THE BASEMENT, no less, to eat his lunch after the shooting, making it even harder to believe, since such an eating location would be even further away from all the excitement and action following the assassination. Boy, Wesley must have been hungry that day! Back to Bugliosi's quotes now:]<<<
"And in his subsequent thirteen-page typewritten report of his
interrogations of Oswald (WR, pp.599–611), Fritz says that Oswald told
him he was having lunch on the first floor at the time of the
shooting. When Fritz asked him where he was when the officer stopped
him, Oswald said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola.
(Fritz doesn’t say, as his contemporaneous notes do, that Oswald then
told him he returned to the first floor to have lunch.)
"When Fritz asked him why he left the building thereafter,
Oswald said there was so much excitement that he didn’t think there
would be any more work that day. Fritz makes no reference to Oswald
telling him that Shelley had told him this. (WR, pp.600–601)
"It would seem that Fritz’s writing, in his handwritten notes,
“Bill Shelley in front” probably was a reference to Oswald telling him
during the interrogation that on his way out of the building, he saw
Bill Shelley in front of the building.
"In any event, I could find no evidence that Oswald told the lie
that Shelley told him he could leave because there would be no more
work that day." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 537 of Endnotes in
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
-----------------
WHERE VINCENT BUGLIOSI WENT WRONG HERE:
This is actually a situation where Vince Bugliosi didn't know exactly
where to look for a certain statement to confirm something that he saw
in the Warren Commission Final Report.
And, in this particular (rare) instance, it would appear to be the
fault of the Warren Commission itself, because the Warren Report's
three citations on the page cited by Bugliosi above (WR Page 182) are,
indeed, a bit misleading.
The WC should have added another citation in Source Note #695 on Page
182 of the Warren Report, and that citation was supplied by Donald
Willis in his thread-starting post above, and I've confirmed it via
the link below, WR Page #619 [from FBI agent James Bookhout's 11/22/63
report concerning the matter]. Thanks Don.
WR Pg. 619:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Bookhout's FBI report dated 11/22/63 (and dictated on 11/24/63)
specifically backs up (almost verbatim) the verbiage we find on Page
182 of the Warren Report that Vince Bugliosi cited in his book. Here's
what we find in Bookhout's report:
“[Oswald] went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes
with foreman Bill Shelley, and thereafter went home. He [Oswald]
stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks
of Bill Shelley, he did not believe that there was going to be any
more work that day due to the confusion in the building.” -- WR; Page
619
Now, let's compare those words written by Jim Bookhout to the Warren
Report passage on Page 182 (shown below):
“Oswald told Fritz that after lunch he went outside, talked with
Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home. He
said that he left work because Bill Shelley said that there would be
no more work done that day in the building.”
So, quite obviously, the Warren Commission DID have a report to back
up the above words printed on Page 182 of the WR. It's just that the
source note that was attached to those words on Page 182 didn't make
reference to the specific source for these words found on that page:
"Bill Shelley said that there would be no more work done that day in
the building".
And I also think Vince Bugliosi was a little confused because of the
first three words that we find in that paragraph on Page 182 --
"Oswald told Fritz".
Bugliosi, therefore, was probably searching for a specific "Shelley"
reference ONLY in Captain Fritz's written notes and reports concerning
this matter, instead of looking for additional references to "Shelley"
elsewhere, such as Bookhout's reports.
It should also be noted that just because the Warren Commission was
relying on a report submitted by FBI agent James Bookhout for the
"Shelley" reference on Page 182, that doesn't mean that the Commission
was incorrect when it said on the same page that "Oswald told Fritz"
certain things.
And that's because Oswald WAS being interviewed BY CAPTAIN FRITZ at
the time, not by BOOKHOUT. Bookhout just happened to be there, just as
it says in Agent Bookhout's 11/22/63 report. We find these words at
the very top of Bookhout's report:
"Lee Harvey Oswald was interviewed at the Homicide and Robbery
Bureau, Dallas Police Department, by Captain J.W. FRITZ in the
presence of Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT, Federal Bureau of
Investigation."
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reclaiming-history.html
John Blubaugh
And where is the record of that interview?
JB
Gerry Simone
Even IF Oswald did say that 'Shelley told me I could leave", AT THE TIME,
could he have only been concerned about not appearing disobedient in order
to save his job (I know, his job was the least of his worries, but still)?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c4363783-0851-40c6...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>> "Oswald did NOT say, "Shelley told me I could leave" -- LNers fooling &
>>> pretending again. .... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: "Oswald lied repeatedly
>>> about things he would have no reason to lie about if he was innocent.
>>> (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a rifle. .... Shelley told me
>>> I could leave." [END DVP QUOTE.] .... This is actually an LN
>>> exaggeration. According to Fritz, Hosty, & Bookhout, it wasn't that cut
>>> & dry." <<<
Yes, Don [Willis], I will admit my (possible) error when I said this in an
earlier post (re: Oswald's lies):
"Shelley told me I could leave."
What I should have said, instead, is this:
"I figured there would be no more work done that day, so I just went
home."
The "Shelley" portion of that statement is possibly not accurate (although
I don't know for sure that it is not accurate, and my comments and
citation near the end of this post make it clear that the Warren
Commission most certainly was not lying or making up false stories with
respect to the topic of Bill Shelley).
Once again, the best place to turn for a detailed examination of virtually
any sub-topic connected to the JFK assassination is Vincent Bugliosi's
book "Reclaiming History", wherein we find these excerpts (and I'll have
more to say about these VB book excerpts later in this post, explaining
where Mr. Bugliosi has made a mistake here, which is really a mistake in
the Warren Report):
"There is one alleged lie of Oswald?s that doesn?t stand up. Page
182 of the Warren Report reads that ?Oswald told [Captain] Fritz that
after lunch [and presumably the shooting] he went outside, talked with
Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home. He said
that he left work because Bill Shelley said that there would be no more
work done that day in the building.?
"But there is nothing in the three citations the Warren Report gives
to back this statement up. Indeed, the name Bill Shelley isn?t even
mentioned in the text referred to by the three citations. (Shelley, by the
way, testified that he did not tell anyone to go home after the shooting,
and it is clear from his testimony that he did not see Oswald after the
shooting [7 H 391; 6 H 329?331].)
"Wondering where in the world the Commission had come up with this,
if at all, the closest I could come is in the contemporaneous handwritten
notes of Captain Fritz, taken at the time of the interrogation--five brief
pages written during twelve hours of interrogation. Such severe
condensation automatically causes distortion.
"On page 1, Fritz writes, ?Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off [Officer]
came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in front. Left wk
[work] opinion nothing be done that day.?
"With respect to Fritz?s handwritten note that Oswald said he had
lunch on the first floor after the confrontation with the officer on the
second floor, Oswald couldn?t have told Fritz this, since he couldn?t
expect anyone to believe that after his confrontation with the officer
(Baker) in the second-floor lunchroom, which had to be after the shooting
in Dealey Plaza, he proceeded to go down to the first floor and have his
lunch and then left."
>>>[DVP INTERJECTION HERE: Although Buell Wesley Frazier is on record as
>>>having done that very thing--i.e., eating his lunch inside the TSBD
>>>Building AFTER the assassination had taken place, amidst all the
>>>commotion and confusion following the shooting. It does, indeed, sound
>>>unbelievable, but Frazier did it anyway; and Frazier went DOWN INTO THE
>>>BASEMENT, no less, to eat his lunch after the shooting, making it even
>>>harder to believe, since such an eating location would be even further
>>>away from all the excitement and action following the assassination. Boy,
>>>Wesley must have been hungry that day! Back to Bugliosi's quotes now:]<<<
"And in his subsequent thirteen-page typewritten report of his
interrogations of Oswald (WR, pp.599?611), Fritz says that Oswald told him
he was having lunch on the first floor at the time of the shooting. When
Fritz asked him where he was when the officer stopped him, Oswald said he
was on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola. (Fritz doesn?t say, as his
contemporaneous notes do, that Oswald then told him he returned to the
first floor to have lunch.)
"When Fritz asked him why he left the building thereafter, Oswald
said there was so much excitement that he didn?t think there would be any
more work that day. Fritz makes no reference to Oswald telling him that
Shelley had told him this. (WR, pp.600?601)
"It would seem that Fritz?s writing, in his handwritten notes, ?Bill
Shelley in front? probably was a reference to Oswald telling him during
-----------------
?[Oswald] went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes
with foreman Bill Shelley, and thereafter went home. He [Oswald]
stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks
of Bill Shelley, he did not believe that there was going to be any
more work that day due to the confusion in the building.? -- WR; Page
619
Now, let's compare those words written by Jim Bookhout to the Warren
Report passage on Page 182 (shown below):
?Oswald told Fritz that after lunch he went outside, talked with
Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home. He
said that he left work because Bill Shelley said that there would be
no more work done that day in the building.?
charles
David,
Bookhout (FBI) did not join the interrogation of Oswald by Fritz until
3:15 pm some 15 minutes after the interrogation started. Bookhout
said in the interrogation sessions that he attended, questions and
answers were not repeated. When Fritz left the room the interrogation
stopped.
The notes that Fritz made about the coke, lunch, Shelley,and leaving
were made in the first 15 minutes of Oswald's interrogation without
the FBI present. During one of Fritz's many interruptions Bookhout
copied Fritz's notes that were taken before the FBI was allowed to
join the sessions. During Bookhout's writing of his report he assumed
what the notes meant and then destroyed his notes. That is the reason
you do not find Fritz saying in reports or testimony what you wish you
could find. Perhaps Bookhout didn't destroy his notes like he was
supposed to and some day a relative will disclose them and we will
then find the four notes copied just like Fritz's notes have them.
Just my opinion.
Charles
dcwi...@yahoo.com
You did such a thorough job coordinating Bugliosi and Bookhout and the
WR, I'm surprised you didn't notice the oddities of that Bookhout
report. Yes, I used it, too, but not without some trepidation:
1) According to Hosty's WC testimony, "the procedure is that when
there are 2 agents involved, they both must approve it, so there can
be no discrepancies." (p468). This procedure was followed with the
joint Hosty-Bookhout report. Not so with the solo Bookhout report on
p619 (WR). Hosty didn't co-sign it. Meanwhile, Bookhout signed the
joint report & thus suggested there were "no discrepancies".
2) Bookhout talked about the joint Hosty-Bookhout report in his WC
testimony, but I believe he did not say one word about the solo
Bookhout report.
3) Bookhout testified that he destroyed his notes "at the time" he
signed off on the joint report 11/23 (p313). The solo Bookhout report
was dictated 11/24. In other words, he had no notes from which to
work on 11/24! He was going solely on memory, and adding things to
the joint report, on 11/24, or...
4) The signed initials for the solo Bookhout report do not quite
match the signed initials for other Bookhout reports--compare with the
signed initials for the 11/23 interview (WR p621) and for the joint
Hosty-Bookhout report re 11/22 (Hosty, "Assignment: Oswald" p257).
Upshot: Bookhout may never have seen that 11/24 report
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reclaiming-history.html
greg
[Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
front. Left wk [work] opinion nothing be done that day.”
David, you have added punctuation where there was none in the
original.
Let;s see how differently placed punctuation changes things shall we?
"Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
opinion [was that] nothing would be dine that day."
This fits with the account of the interogation given by Harry Holmes
AND with the very earliest newspaper accounts which cited police
sources as saying that a cop had questioned Oswald on the first floor
before letting him loose...that cop was likely some one other than
Baker.
The second floor Baker-truly-Oswald encounter was a pure fabrication.
The Baker encounter happened on the 3rd or 4th floor just as he
initially claimed and with with a person 20 pounds heavier and about 7
years older than Oswald just as he initally claimed AND never
repudiated. This person (unlike Oswald) was a very good match for the
suspect seen by Rowland and Brennan.
greg
http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum
David Von Pein
>>> "Bookhout (FBI) did not join the interrogation of Oswald by Fritz
until 3:15 pm some 15 minutes after the interrogation started. Bookhout
said in the interrogation sessions that he attended, questions and answers
were not repeated. When Fritz left the room the interrogation stopped. The
notes that Fritz made about the coke, lunch, Shelley,and leaving were made
in the first 15 minutes of Oswald's interrogation without the FBI present.
During one of Fritz's many interruptions Bookhout copied Fritz's notes
that were taken before the FBI was allowed to join the sessions. During
Bookhout's writing of his report he assumed what the notes meant and then
destroyed his notes. That is the reason you do not find Fritz saying in
reports or testimony what you wish you could find." <<<
How do you know all this, Charles? Citation please.
And Bookhout supposedly just MADE UP the part about Oswald saying that
he stood outside with Shelley "for 5 or 10 minutes"??
Is that what you want to believe--that Bookhout just MADE UP the "5 or
10 minutes" portion of his 11/22/63 report?
Is there ANYBODY connected in any way with this case who wasn't a liar
or a person doing underhanded and/or devious things? Anybody at all?
(Besides a CTer's favorite cop, Roger D. Craig, that is.)
David Von Pein
>>> "David, you have added punctuation where there was none in the
original." <<<
I didn't "add" a darn thing, Greg. It's a direct copy-&-paste quote from
Bugliosi's book.
Bugliosi didn't add any punctuation either, btw. He merely added bracketed
text for clarification. The Fritz quotes are verbatim otherwise.
>>> "The second floor Baker-truly-Oswald encounter was a pure
fabrication." <<<
You're silly.
Anthony Marsh
> "On page 1, Fritz writes, �Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off
> ===============
> [Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
> ===============
>
> David, you have added punctuation where there was none in the
> original.
>
> Let;s see how differently placed punctuation changes things shall we?
>
> "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
> had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
> opinion [was that] nothing would be dine that day."
>
> This fits with the account of the interogation given by Harry Holmes
> AND with the very earliest newspaper accounts which cited police
> sources as saying that a cop had questioned Oswald on the first floor
> before letting him loose...that cop was likely some one other than
> Baker.
>
> The second floor Baker-truly-Oswald encounter was a pure fabrication.
> The Baker encounter happened on the 3rd or 4th floor just as he
> initially claimed and with with a person 20 pounds heavier and about 7
> years older than Oswald just as he initally claimed AND never
> repudiated. This person (unlike Oswald) was a very good match for the
> suspect seen by Rowland and Brennan.
>
Never rely on witnesses for facts. A lot of the witnesses got the floors
wrong.
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> >>> "Bookhout (FBI) did not join the interrogation of Oswald by Fritz
>
> until 3:15 pm some 15 minutes after the interrogation started. Bookhout
> said in the interrogation sessions that he attended, questions and answers
> were not repeated. When Fritz left the room the interrogation stopped. The
> notes that Fritz made about the coke, lunch, Shelley,and leaving were made
> in the first 15 minutes of Oswald's interrogation without the FBI present.
> During one of Fritz's many interruptions Bookhout copied Fritz's notes
> that were taken before the FBI was allowed to join the sessions. During
> Bookhout's writing of his report he assumed what the notes meant and then
> destroyed his notes. That is the reason you do not find Fritz saying in
> reports or testimony what you wish you could find." <<<
>
> How do you know all this, Charles? Citation please.
>
> And Bookhout supposedly just MADE UP the part about Oswald saying that
> he stood outside with Shelley "for 5 or 10 minutes"??
>
> Is that what you want to believe--that Bookhout just MADE UP the "5 or
> 10 minutes" portion of his 11/22/63 report?
Again, the FBI interview report was dated 11/24/63, & as noted elsewhere
Bookhout may have had nothing to do with it....
>
> Is there ANYBODY connected in any way with this case who wasn't a liar
> or a person doing underhanded and/or devious things? Anybody at all?
> (Besides a CTer's favorite cop, Roger D. Craig, that is.)
Yeah, even Oswald made some fibs....
dcwi...@yahoo.com
Well, you can understand his skepticism. That first weekend, based on
various primary & secondary sources, the encounter was said to have
occurred anywhere from the first floor to the 4th floor....
David Von Pein
>>> "The FBI interview report [that appears on Page 619 of the WCR] was
dated 11/24/63..." <<<
It was DICTATED on November 24, yes. But there are TWO other dates on the
document as well -- November 22 (lower left) and November 25 (upper
right).
But the November 22 date at the lower left is, IMO, the most important
date, because that is almost certainly the date when FBI agent James W.
Bookhout WROTE THAT REPORT.
It wasn't dictated and typed up into an "official" report until November
24, true. But the material in the report was certainly WRITTEN on November
22.
What do you think the November 22 date means here, Donald? Do you think
that date was inserted there for no reason whatsoever?:
WR; Pg. 619 [Bookhout's 11/22/63 Report]:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
>>> "...and as noted elsewhere[,] Bookhout may have had nothing to do with
it." <<<
You're silly. It's BOOKHOUT'S OWN REPORT, for heaven's sake!
>>> "Yeah, even Oswald made some fibs." <<<
Difference being:
Lee Oswald had a lot of reasons to lie--he had just murdered two
people.
Roger Craig, OTOH, wasn't a murderer. He was just a big fat liar.
David Von Pein
DON WILLIS SAID:
>>> "As noted elsewhere, Bookhout may have had nothing to do with it." <<<
DVP SAID:
You're silly. It's BOOKHOUT'S OWN REPORT, for heaven's sake!
The bottom-line fact that arises to the surface after all this talk
about Bill Shelley and Jim Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report is this:
There is positively a SOLID SOURCE for these words that we find on
Page 182 of the Warren Commission Report:
“Oswald told Fritz that after lunch he went outside, talked with
Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home. He
said that he left work because Bill Shelley said that there would be
no more work done that day in the building.”
WR; Pg. 182:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0103b.htm
And that source is James Bookhout's FBI report that appears on Page
619 of the Warren Report (linked earlier).
In other words -- The Warren Commission did NOTHING WRONG and was NOT
MAKING STUFF UP when the Commission wrote what it wrote on Page #182
of its Final Report.
And upon realizing that the Bookhout report was obviously the source
that was being relied upon by the Warren Commission when it wrote
those words on Page 182, I wrote an e-mail to Vince Bugliosi (via his
secretary) on February 18, 2010, to tell him about the Bookhout
report, because Vince couldn't find any specific source for the "Bill
Shelley" and "no more work done that day" portions of Page 182.
===============================================
Subject: JFK Research
Date: 2/18/2010 4:57:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
------------------
Hi Rosemary,
I came across something today that I think Vince Bugliosi might be
interested in seeing. Here's the link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/86653e8a1a6c5243
Thanks.
David Von Pein
===============================================
Subject: Re: JFK Research
Date: 2/18/2010 12:21:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Celeste (Newton)
To: David Von Pein
------------------
Hi Dave,
Thanks so much for your e-mail. It was great hearing from you. I'll be
faxing this to Vince and know it will be appreciated. Also, have a
great 2010 (even though there's only about 10 months left.)
Regards, Rosemary
===============================================
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> >>> "The FBI interview report [that appears on Page 619 of the WCR] was
>
> dated 11/24/63..." <<<
>
> It was DICTATED on November 24, yes. But there are TWO other dates on the
> document as well -- November 22 (lower left) and November 25 (upper
> right).
>
> But the November 22 date at the lower left is, IMO, the most important
> date, because that is almost certainly the date when FBI agent James W.
> Bookhout WROTE THAT REPORT.
Even Bookhout suggests you're wrong. When counsel Stern asks if he has
"no notes respecting this whole matter", B replies, "No, other than the
reported interviewing report." (p313) "Report". Singular. B only
contributed to one report. He never mentioned doing one by himself.
"Report"--referring to the one "written by Hosty". (p312)
>
> It wasn't dictated and typed up into an "official" report until November
> 24, true. But the material in the report was certainly WRITTEN on November
> 22.
>
And you are sure of this *how*? You're saying that on 11/22 Bookhout
signed off on a joint report with Hosty *and* on a solo report? As Hosty
testified, the latter would go against FBI procedure--Hosty would have had
to sign off on it too.
> What do you think the November 22 date means here, Donald? Do you think
> that date was inserted there for no reason whatsoever?:
>
Clearly, that means that 11/22 was the date of the interview itself.
David Von Pein
DVP SAID (EARLIER):
>>> "It [Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report] wasn't dictated and typed up into
an "official" report until November 24, true. But the material in the
report was certainly WRITTEN on November 22." <<<
DONALD WILLIS SAID:
>>> "And you are sure of this *how*?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Because the report EXISTS, Don. It's among us here on Earth, as seen in
the Warren Report on page 619, here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
DONALD WILLIS SAID:
>>> "You're saying that on 11/22 Bookhout signed off on a joint report
with Hosty *and* on a solo report?" <<<
Of course that's what I'm saying. Because that's exactly what happened.
How do we KNOW that that is exactly what happened?
Because the two official FBI reports in question EXIST. They're HERE. In
black-and-white. In print. For all to see and read. (And also for CTers
like Donald Willis to mangle and misrepresent, as always.)
>>> "As Hosty testified, the latter would go against FBI procedure--Hosty
would have had to sign off on it too." <<<
Bullshit. Hosty didn't need to "sign off" on Bookhout's solo report.
You're just looking for an excuse (any excuse) for Bookhout's solo report
to be "fake" in some way. That's what conspiracy theorists do, 24/7 --
they "find" stuff they think they can label "fake" or "fraudulent", and TO
HELL with the proof for such accusations.
Right, Don?
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> DVP SAID (EARLIER):
>
> >>> "It [Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report] wasn't dictated and typed up into
>
> an "official" report until November 24, true. But the material in the
> report was certainly WRITTEN on November 22." <<<
According to Hosty & Bookhout, it couldn't have been:
Hosty: "Agent Bookhout & I took notes, & we dictated from the notes
the next day." (p468) The interview report, then, was dictated simply
from notes.
Bookhout: "[Notes] will normally be destroyed at the time you make
your, what we refer to as an interview report.
Stern: And in this case did you destroy your notes?
B: "That's correct."
S: "So you have no notes respecting this whole matter?"
B: "No, other than the reported interviewing report." (p313)
So Hosty and Bookhout's notes from 11/22 were dictated the next day, &
destroyed... 11/23.
Bookhout, then, had no notes from which to dictate 11/24. The only
legitimate report, then, was the one dictated 11/23 from Hosty's &
Bookhout's notes, which report Bookhout calls "the reported
interviewing report" [singular]. He shows no knowledge of a *second*,
solo report....
Ray
MORE WORK TODAY, that subject WAS discussed in Shelley's presence. Based
on the timing of Victoria Adam's presence, I submit this was about the
time that Lee Oswald came downstairs, coke in hand. Maybe no one noticed
him in the excitement, but that is not surprising.
Since Dealey Plaza was now a crime scene involving an attempt on the
POTUSA, you can bet your bottom dollar that EVERYONE, including Shelley,
immediately realized there would be nor more work that day.
Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman.
Mr. BALL - What is her full name?
Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know.
Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams?
Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so.
Mr. BALL - Would you say it was Vickie you saw?
Mr. LOVELADY - I couldn't swear.
Mr. BALL - Where was the girl?
Mr. LOVELADY - I don't remember what place she was but I remember
seeing a girl as she was talking to Bill or saw Bill or something,
then I went over and asked one of the guys what time it was and to see
if we should continue working or what.
greg
Here is your cut and paste from Bugliosi:
“Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off
[Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
front. Left wk [work] opinion nothing be done that day.”
Do you see those little marks between "in" and "to" and "lunch" and
"out"? They are called commas, David.
And they do not appear in Fritz' original note. Adding them gives a
certain meaning which may not have originally been intended.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
In that regard, my punctuation is just as likely to give the proper
meaning as yours. It is certainly better supported.
Here it is again:
"Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
greg
http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum.htm
greg
> On 2/19/2010 10:31 AM, greg wrote:
>
>
>
> > ===============
> > [Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
> > ===============
>
> > David, you have added punctuation where there was none in the
> > original.
>
> > Let;s see how differently placed punctuation changes things shall we?
>
> > "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
> > had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
> > opinion [was that] nothing would be dine that day."
>
> > This fits with the account of the interogation given by Harry Holmes
> > AND with the very earliest newspaper accounts which cited police
> > sources as saying that a cop had questioned Oswald on the first floor
> > before letting him loose...that cop was likely some one other than
> > Baker.
>
> > The second floor Baker-truly-Oswald encounter was a pure fabrication.
> > The Baker encounter happened on the 3rd or 4th floor just as he
> > initially claimed and with with a person 20 pounds heavier and about 7
> > years older than Oswald just as he initally claimed AND never
> > repudiated. This person (unlike Oswald) was a very good match for the
> > suspect seen by Rowland and Brennan.
>
> Never rely on witnesses for facts. A lot of the witnesses got the floors
> wrong.
Tony,
Some appear to have miscounted from outside. Can you name any who were
inside who got the floors wrong?
greg
Don,
If you're talking about Oswald, his encounter happened on the
1st floor (source: newspapers, Holmes) with a cop unlikely to have
been Baker -
2nd floor (source: Truly) with Baker
If you're talking about Baker, his encounter happened on the
3rd or 4th floor (source: Baker) with someone whose description did
not match Oswald
4th floor (source: Marvin Johnson, Will Fritz) with Oswald
2nd floor (source: Truly) with Oswald
There were two separate incidents. One with Oswald at the entrance
involving an unknown cop and possibly Shelley. The other on the 3rd or
4th floor involving Baker, Truly and an unknown suspect.
David Von Pein
In an endnote in his book "Reclaiming History", Vincent Bugliosi wrote
this:
"Fritz writes, “Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off [Officer] came
in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in front. Left wk
[work] opinion nothing be done that day.” "
Greg,
The "commas" added by Mr. Bugliosi are necessary (and they are not
deceiving in the slightest way). They simply serve as the "breaks" in
paragraphing. The commas substitute for the physical paragraphing that
we find in Captain Fritz's original handwritten notes.
Without the commas that Bugliosi has inserting in his book, it would
like all of Fritz's words were one continuous thought, which they
obviously were not.
I will admit my earlier error, however, when I said that Bugliosi had
added NO punctuation at all. He did add the commas. I stand corrected.
Thank you.
I suppose Bugliosi COULD have written the Fritz notes in the same
"line-by-line" structure that Fritz himself used on 11/22/63 when he
wrote those notes (sans the commas), but Vince didn't do that on page
537 of the "RH" endnotes.
Fritz wrote the notes in such a manner so that each line (or
paragraph) of text was representing a SEPARATE OBSERVATION or a
separate thought:
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
But the alternate manner in which VB printed out the Fritz notes on
page 537 (with commas inserted) IS definitely correct IMO, in order to
give the proper meaning of the original notes.
Bugliosi probably should have put brackets [] around each comma --
[,]. But most people only utilize brackets when they're adding WORDS,
not punctuation, like VB did with [Officer] and [work], for clarity.
Footnote -- You were wrong, though, when you accused ME of adding the
punctuation. I never added a thing.
dcwi...@yahoo.com
Good work!
greg
> In an endnote in his book "Reclaiming History", Vincent Bugliosi wrote
> this:
>
> "Fritz writes, “Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off [Officer] came
> in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in front. Left wk
> [work] opinion nothing be done that day.” "
>
> Greg,
>
> The "commas" added by Mr. Bugliosi are necessary (and they are not
> deceiving in the slightest way). They simply serve as the "breaks" in
> paragraphing. The commas substitute for the physical paragraphing that
> we find in Captain Fritz's original handwritten notes.
Um. No David. Here is how it was written:
"Claims 2nd floor Coke when
off came in
to 1st floor had lunch
out with Bill Shelley in
front
lt wk opinion nothing be
done that dat etc"
Commas do not substitute for paragraphing. As a writer, I'm sure Bugliosi
is aware of that. What Fritz wrote is nonsensical WITHOUT the insertion of
punctuation - no matter how else you slice and dice it.
> Without the commas that Bugliosi has inserting in his book, it would
> like all of Fritz's words were one continuous thought, which they
> obviously were not.
Exactly. But where was that realization one post ago?
> I will admit my earlier error, however, when I said that Bugliosi had
> added NO punctuation at all. He did add the commas. I stand corrected.
> Thank you.
My pleasure.
> I suppose Bugliosi COULD have written the Fritz notes in the same
> "line-by-line" structure that Fritz himself used on 11/22/63 when he
> wrote those notes (sans the commas), but Vince didn't do that on page
> 537 of the "RH" endnotes.
>
> Fritz wrote the notes in such a manner so that each line (or
> paragraph) of text was representing a SEPARATE OBSERVATION or a
> separate thought:
Well, he should have said what he did with it. If he left the
impression that what he wrote was exactly how Fritz wrote it, then
that is misleading his readership. Hell, it fooled his biggest fan...
> http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
>
> But the alternate manner in which VB printed out the Fritz notes on
> page 537 (with commas inserted) IS definitely correct IMO, in order to
> give the proper meaning of the original notes.
"Proper" i.e. something that fits the Lone Nut scenario.
But let's take another look.
"Claims 2nd floor coke when officer came in." Since no officer "came in"
to where Oswald was LATER alleged to be, how can this relate to the 2nd
floor, apart from the fact that he had a coke he had obtained from the 2nd
floor?
If you want to suggest that Oswald was talking about Baker coming into the
building - not the second floor lunch room, how did Oswald know that Baker
had just entered the building? For all Oswald knew, he'd been stationed in
the building as part of Presidential security. Maybe Oswald used ESP - the
same as when he used it to know that Jarman and Norman had just come back
inside....
Or...my punctuation makes better sense of it.
"Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I] had
lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as] opinion
[was that] nothing would be done that day."
> Bugliosi probably should have put brackets [] around each comma --
> [,]. But most people only utilize brackets when they're adding WORDS,
> not punctuation, like VB did with [Officer] and [work], for clarity.
Bugliosi didn't need to use brackets. He needed to explain what he had
done with the text instead of leaving the impression that the
punctuation was in the original.
> Footnote -- You were wrong, though, when you accused ME of adding the
> punctuation. I never added a thing.
My bad. I will never again make the mistake of assuming you are the
author of anything you post.
> http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
greg
I second that!
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> In an endnote in his book "Reclaiming History", Vincent Bugliosi wrote
> this:
>
> in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in front. Left wk
>
>
> Greg,
>
> The "commas" added by Mr. Bugliosi are necessary (and they are not
> deceiving in the slightest way). They simply serve as the "breaks" in
> paragraphing. The commas substitute for the physical paragraphing that
> we find in Captain Fritz's original handwritten notes.
>
> Without the commas that Bugliosi has inserting in his book, it would
> like all of Fritz's words were one continuous thought, which they
> obviously were not.
>
> I will admit my earlier error, however, when I said that Bugliosi had
> added NO punctuation at all. He did add the commas. I stand corrected.
> Thank you.
>
And like Harris you will later deny making that error and even deny
posting this message admitting that error.
> I suppose Bugliosi COULD have written the Fritz notes in the same
> "line-by-line" structure that Fritz himself used on 11/22/63 when he
> wrote those notes (sans the commas), but Vince didn't do that on page
> 537 of the "RH" endnotes.
>
I think he could have, but decided not to make it into a work of art.
> Fritz wrote the notes in such a manner so that each line (or
> paragraph) of text was representing a SEPARATE OBSERVATION or a
> separate thought:
>
> http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
>
>
>
> But the alternate manner in which VB printed out the Fritz notes on
> page 537 (with commas inserted) IS definitely correct IMO, in order to
> give the proper meaning of the original notes.
>
It is correct only if you understand grammar.
>
> Bugliosi probably should have put brackets [] around each comma --
> [,]. But most people only utilize brackets when they're adding WORDS,
> not punctuation, like VB did with [Officer] and [work], for clarity.
>
I don't think brackets would be appropriate. More confusing than helpful.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 20, 2:01 pm, dcwill...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 12:23 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "David, you have added punctuation where there was none in the
>>
>>> original."<<<
>>
>>> I didn't "add" a darn thing, Greg. It's a direct copy-&-paste quote from
>>> Bugliosi's book.
>>
>>> Bugliosi didn't add any punctuation either, btw. He merely added bracketed
>>> text for clarification. The Fritz quotes are verbatim otherwise.
>>
>>>>>> "The second floor Baker-truly-Oswald encounter was a pure
>>
>>> fabrication."<<<
>>
>>> You're silly.
>>
>> Well, you can understand his skepticism. That first weekend, based on
>> occurred anywhere from the first floor to the 4th floor....
>
> Don,
>
> If you're talking about Oswald, his encounter happened on the
> 1st floor (source: newspapers, Holmes) with a cop unlikely to have
> been Baker -
Garbage. It's like relying on witness errors about the floor numbers as
absolute proof. Silly.
> 2nd floor (source: Truly) with Baker
>
The lunchroom, the Coke machine was on the second floor.
Regardless of what you call the floors the confrontation happened in the
lunchroom and Baker walked UP to it.
> If you're talking about Baker, his encounter happened on the
> 3rd or 4th floor (source: Baker) with someone whose description did
> not match Oswald
More garbage.
> 4th floor (source: Marvin Johnson, Will Fritz) with Oswald
> 2nd floor (source: Truly) with Oswald
>
> There were two separate incidents. One with Oswald at the entrance
> involving an unknown cop and possibly Shelley. The other on the 3rd or
> 4th floor involving Baker, Truly and an unknown suspect.
>
What is your agenda in rewriting history?
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 20, 1:53 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/19/2010 10:31 AM, greg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ===============
>>> [Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
>>> ===============
>>
>>> David, you have added punctuation where there was none in the
>>> original.
>>
>>> Let;s see how differently placed punctuation changes things shall we?
>>
>>> "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
>>> had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
>>> opinion [was that] nothing would be dine that day."
>>
>>> This fits with the account of the interogation given by Harry Holmes
>>> AND with the very earliest newspaper accounts which cited police
>>> sources as saying that a cop had questioned Oswald on the first floor
>>> before letting him loose...that cop was likely some one other than
>>> Baker.
>>
>>> The second floor Baker-truly-Oswald encounter was a pure fabrication.
>>> The Baker encounter happened on the 3rd or 4th floor just as he
>>> initially claimed and with with a person 20 pounds heavier and about 7
>>> years older than Oswald just as he initally claimed AND never
>>> repudiated. This person (unlike Oswald) was a very good match for the
>>> suspect seen by Rowland and Brennan.
>>
>> Never rely on witnesses for facts. A lot of the witnesses got the floors
>> wrong.
>
> Tony,
> Some appear to have miscounted from outside. Can you name any who were
> inside who got the floors wrong?
>
Is this a silliness contest?
YOU YOURSELF have been quoting people who were on the inside whom you
said named a different floor, even Baker. Got peddle your nonsense
somewhere else. Go try to find some gullible people.
Anthony Marsh
>>>>> "David, you have added punctuation where there was none in the
>>
>> original."<<<
>>
>> I didn't "add" a darn thing, Greg. It's a direct copy-&-paste quote from
>> Bugliosi's book.
>>
>> Bugliosi didn't add any punctuation either, btw. He merely added bracketed
>> text for clarification. The Fritz quotes are verbatim otherwise.
>>
>>>>> "The second floor Baker-truly-Oswald encounter was a pure
>>
>> fabrication."<<<
>>
>> You're silly.
>
> Here is your cut and paste from Bugliosi:
>
> [Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
>
>
> Do you see those little marks between "in" and "to" and "lunch" and
> "out"? They are called commas, David.
>
Did you ever graduate from grammar school? Those are grammar. They
indicate a break in thought. Fritz did not bother putting punctuation in
his notes. He knew where it should be. If had wanted to add punctuation he
might put a period after each phrase. Bugliosi decided a period after each
phrase might misrepresent the flow of what Fritz was writing down so he
decided a comma would be better.
You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why? Cui bono? What agenda
are you trying to push?
> And they do not appear in Fritz' original note. Adding them gives a
> certain meaning which may not have originally been intended.
>
The fact that they are all commas is more neutral.
I would have preferred multiple spaces, but Bugliosi did not.
Or maybe his editor did not.
> http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
>
> In that regard, my punctuation is just as likely to give the proper
> meaning as yours. It is certainly better supported.
>
> Here it is again:
>
> "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
> had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
> opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
>
Fine, but you are trying to make it read like more of a narrative.
greg
> On 2/22/2010 12:34 AM, greg wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 1:53 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/19/2010 10:31 AM, greg wrote:
>
> >>> ===============
> >>> [Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
Tony,
I have not quoted anyone APART from Baker. And I don't believe Baker
got it wrong.
You said "a lot of witnesses got the floors wrong". I agreed that some
did from the outside.
What I am asking you is who ELSE entered the building and got the
floor numbers wrong?
If you can't answer, just say so. I mean, it's not as if we don't both
know that the answer is "no one". But go ahead and prove me wrong.
And what is this with the "silliness" BS from you and DVP? Are we in
Miss Prissies Kindergarten? Jeez, I feel like I'm being lashed with an
ostrich featther....
greg
> On 2/22/2010 12:34 AM, greg wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 7:23 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "David, you have added punctuation where there was none in the
>
> >> original."<<<
>
> >> I didn't "add" a darn thing, Greg. It's a direct copy-&-paste quote from
> >> Bugliosi's book.
>
> >> Bugliosi didn't add any punctuation either, btw. He merely added bracketed
> >> text for clarification. The Fritz quotes are verbatim otherwise.
>
> >>>>> "The second floor Baker-truly-Oswald encounter was a pure
>
> >> fabrication."<<<
>
> >> You're silly.
>
> > Here is your cut and paste from Bugliosi:
>
> > ?Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off
> > [Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
> > front. Left wk [work] opinion nothing be done that day.?
>
> > Do you see those little marks between "in" and "to" and "lunch" and
> > "out"? They are called commas, David.
>
> Did you ever graduate from grammar school? Those are grammar.
Yes. Go to Miss Prissy. She has a gold star for you.
I was pointin g out the bleeding obvious to DVP. I guess sarcasm just
passes you by...
They
> indicate a break in thought. Fritz did not bother putting punctuation in
> his notes.
Another gold star! Are you teacher's pet or what?
He knew where it should be. If had wanted to add punctuation he
> might put a period after each phrase. Bugliosi decided a period after each
> phrase might misrepresent the flow of what Fritz was writing down so he
> decided a comma would be better.
you got inside the Bug's head how? As I have pointed out, there are a
number of ways that the note can be punctuated. Each subtly changes the
meaning. You got inside the Bug's head how in order to know how he knedw
which meaning to convey? Maybe the Bug summoned up the spirit of Fritz and
asked him?
> You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why? Cui bono? What agenda
> are you trying to push?
LOL! The difference in meaning by the different placement of a comma or
two is not a molehill. It is the difference between Oswald placing himself
on the first floor (which I remind you is how Harry Holmes interpreted it)
and placing himself on the 2nd - which is what Fritz' note indicates ONLY
by the judicial placement of commas.
> > And they do not appear in Fritz' original note. Adding them gives a
> > certain meaning which may not have originally been intended.
>
> The fact that they are all commas is more neutral.
> I would have preferred multiple spaces, but Bugliosi did not.
> Or maybe his editor did not.
Maybe he should have consulted you. You seem to live in his head
anyway, so it's not as if it would have been a long distance call.
> >http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
>
> > In that regard, my punctuation is just as likely to give the proper
> > meaning as yours. It is certainly better supported.
>
> > Here it is again:
>
> > "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
> > had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
> > opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
>
> Fine, but you are trying to make it read like more of a narrative.
So it's okay when the Bug fills in some blank spaces , but not when I
do it, no matter how logically?
David Von Pein
>>> "Commas [inserted by Bugliosi on Pg. 537 of RH Endnotes] do not
substitute for paragraphing." <<<
Yes, they most certainly do. (As anyone can easily see--and determine.)
greg
Here is what you said earlier, David:
QUOTE ON
The "commas" added by Mr. Bugliosi are necessary (and they are not
deceiving in the slightest way). They simply serve as the "breaks" in
paragraphing. The commas substitute for the physical paragraphing that
we find in Captain Fritz's original handwritten notes.
Without the commas that Bugliosi has inserting in his book, it would
like all of Fritz's words were one continuous thought, which they
obviously were not.
QUOTE OFF
Paragraphs and punctuation are two different things. One cannot
substitute for the other, and you seemed to almost grasp that point in
your second para above.
Are you going to respond to the rest of post or are you content to let
Tony do your heavy lifting?
Anthony Marsh
Yes, and I said I think the right way to do it is with multiple spaces.
> meaning. You got inside the Bug's head how in order to know how he knedw
> which meaning to convey? Maybe the Bug summoned up the spirit of Fritz and
> asked him?
>
Bugliosi was not the first one to interpret Fritz's notes.
>> You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why? Cui bono? What agenda
>> are you trying to push?
>
> LOL! The difference in meaning by the different placement of a comma or
> two is not a molehill. It is the difference between Oswald placing himself
> on the first floor (which I remind you is how Harry Holmes interpreted it)
I don't see Holmes interpreting Fritz's notes. Did he write an article
about this? Oswald did not interpret Fritz's notes. What I see is YOU
interpreting Fritz's notes. How do you interpret Fritz's notes to indicate
Oswald on the 1st floor?
> and placing himself on the 2nd - which is what Fritz' note indicates ONLY
> by the judicial placement of commas.
>
>>> And they do not appear in Fritz' original note. Adding them gives a
>>> certain meaning which may not have originally been intended.
>>
>> The fact that they are all commas is more neutral.
>> I would have preferred multiple spaces, but Bugliosi did not.
>> Or maybe his editor did not.
>
> Maybe he should have consulted you. You seem to live in his head
> anyway, so it's not as if it would have been a long distance call.
>
I don't mind correcting Bugliosi. He does mind though.
>>> http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
>>
>>> In that regard, my punctuation is just as likely to give the proper
>>> meaning as yours. It is certainly better supported.
>>
>>> Here it is again:
>>
>>> "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
>>> had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
>>> opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
>>
>> Fine, but you are trying to make it read like more of a narrative.
>
> So it's okay when the Bug fills in some blank spaces , but not when I
> do it, no matter how logically?
>
I didn't say ok, but I am not going to waste everyone's time saying that
"wk" really means "wok" instead of "work."
And again you seem to be totally unaware of the fact that Bugliosi is
not the one who found Fritz's notes and was not the first to interpret them.
greg
> > you got inside the Bug's head how? As I have pointed out, there are a
> > number of ways that the note can be punctuated. Each subtly changes the
>
> Yes, and I said I think the right way to do it is with multiple spaces.
Yesit'snicetohavespaciingintext. Ye gads!
> > meaning. You got inside the Bug's head how in order to know how he knedw
> > which meaning to convey? Maybe the Bug summoned up the spirit of Fritz and
> > asked him?
>
> Bugliosi was not the first one to interpret Fritz's notes.
No one said he wasn't. But he IS one of the people who is the subject
of this thread, so it is HIS interpretation that is under the
microscope. His interpretation is dependant upon where HE placed HIS
commas.
> >> You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why? Cui bono? What agenda
> >> are you trying to push?
>
> > LOL! The difference in meaning by the different placement of a comma or
> > two is not a molehill. It is the difference between Oswald placing himself
> > on the first floor (which I remind you is how Harry Holmes interpreted it)
>
> I don't see Holmes interpreting Fritz's notes.
The "it" is Oswald's answers under the interrogation. They only had to
be noted by Holmes, not interpreted. If he needed what Oswald said to
be "interpreted, he only had to ask for clarification. Now that that
little distraction is out of the way, I'll repeat the main point - if
you use different punctuation on Fritz' notes, Oswald places himself
on the 1st floor. Holmes' - the ONE member of the interrogation team
who was not a cop or FBI agent, claimed that is what Oswald said, and
therefore adds weight to my punctuation of the note.
"Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
You see, several workers stated they were in the habit of going to the
second floor for a coke and bringing it back down to the domino room
to have with lunch. Oswald also was seen to do this on a number of
occasions. And that is what he appears to have done on 11/22. Fritz'
note says so. He claimed he had a coke he'd gotten from the 2nd floor
at the time the officer came in to the first where he (Oswald) was
having lunch. He left work for the reason he said - the scuttlebutt
amongst the men (including Shelley) was that there would be no more
work that day. Wes Frazier backed tis up in his interview with
Manchester (he told Manchester that he left after lunch because he
thought there'd be no more work that day - "Death of a President" p.
355 of the paperback edition).
Face it. You've been hoodwinked by the TSBD lunch hour fairy tale.
Time to wake up and smell the napalm.
Did he write an article
> about this? Oswald did not interpret Fritz's notes. What I see is YOU
> interpreting Fritz's notes. How do you interpret Fritz's notes to indicate
> Oswald on the 1st floor?
See above. And I'll add - how does YOUR interpretation make sense?
With Bugliosi's placement of commas, you have Oswald drinking a coke
in the second floor lunch room (something he was not known to do) at
the time Baker supposedly spots him through a door - THEN you have
Oswald saying he went downstairs for lunch. That is exactly how it
reads and HAS to be interpreted with the commas where the Bug has
them.
My comma placement has him taking the coke down to the 1st floor to
have with lunch - per his usual habit - then having an encounter with
a cop - Just as written in the newspapers and just as Holmes quuoted
Oswald.
> > and placing himself on the 2nd - which is what Fritz' note indicates ONLY
> > by the judicial placement of commas.
>
> >>> And they do not appear in Fritz' original note. Adding them gives a
> >>> certain meaning which may not have originally been intended.
>
> >> The fact that they are all commas is more neutral.
> >> I would have preferred multiple spaces, but Bugliosi did not.
> >> Or maybe his editor did not.
>
> > Maybe he should have consulted you. You seem to live in his head
> > anyway, so it's not as if it would have been a long distance call.
>
> I don't mind correcting Bugliosi. He does mind though.
How can you correct him on this when you essentially agree with his
nonsensical interpretation?
> >>>http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
>
> >>> In that regard, my punctuation is just as likely to give the proper
> >>> meaning as yours. It is certainly better supported.
>
> >>> Here it is again:
>
> >>> "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
> >>> had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
> >>> opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
>
> >> Fine, but you are trying to make it read like more of a narrative.
>
> > So it's okay when the Bug fills in some blank spaces , but not when I
> > do it, no matter how logically?
>
> I didn't say ok, but I am not going to waste everyone's time saying that
> "wk" really means "wok" instead of "work."
> And again you seem to be totally unaware of the fact that Bugliosi is
> not the one who found Fritz's notes and was not the first to interpret them.
So? Are those other people named in the subject of this thread? If
not, why would you want to bring them into it, if not just to change
the subject? Cui Bono?
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 24, 1:51 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> you got inside the Bug's head how? As I have pointed out, there are a
>>> number of ways that the note can be punctuated. Each subtly changes the
>>
>> Yes, and I said I think the right way to do it is with multiple spaces.
>
> Yesit'snicetohavespaciingintext. Ye gads!
>
>>> meaning. You got inside the Bug's head how in order to know how he knedw
>>> which meaning to convey? Maybe the Bug summoned up the spirit of Fritz and
>>> asked him?
>>
>> Bugliosi was not the first one to interpret Fritz's notes.
>
> No one said he wasn't. But he IS one of the people who is the subject
> of this thread, so it is HIS interpretation that is under the
> microscope. His interpretation is dependant upon where HE placed HIS
> commas.
>
Again you seem to be unaware of the original notes and the fact that
others before Bugliosi have interpreted them. They need to be interpreted
because Fritz wrote them in his own kind of shorthand. Do we need to be
mind readers to figure what he meant? No, just knowledgeable about the
facts.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html
>>>> You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why? Cui bono? What agenda
>>>> are you trying to push?
>>
>>> LOL! The difference in meaning by the different placement of a comma or
>>> two is not a molehill. It is the difference between Oswald placing himself
>>> on the first floor (which I remind you is how Harry Holmes interpreted it)
>>
>> I don't see Holmes interpreting Fritz's notes.
>
> The "it" is Oswald's answers under the interrogation. They only had to
> be noted by Holmes, not interpreted. If he needed what Oswald said to
If you have the Holmes notes then post then as I just posted the Fritz
notes.
> be "interpreted, he only had to ask for clarification. Now that that
No. Oswald was quite clear that the confrontation with the officer took
place on the 2nd floor and that during the shooting he was on the 1st
floor eating lunch.
> little distraction is out of the way, I'll repeat the main point - if
> you use different punctuation on Fritz' notes, Oswald places himself
> on the 1st floor. Holmes' - the ONE member of the interrogation team
No, you are not allowed to add your own punctuation that way. The 2nd
floor was in the context of the confrontation with the officer. Then on
the next line the 1st floor was in the context of eating lunch. Two
different time frames.
> who was not a cop or FBI agent, claimed that is what Oswald said, and
> therefore adds weight to my punctuation of the note.
>
Garbage. Produce the Holmes notes to back up your claim.
> "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
> had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
> opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
Fritz separated the two time frames on separate lines. Your sentence
makes no sense.
>
> You see, several workers stated they were in the habit of going to the
> second floor for a coke and bringing it back down to the domino room
> to have with lunch. Oswald also was seen to do this on a number of
Fine, but Oswald said he was on the 2nd floor getting a Coke WHEN the
officer came in.
> occasions. And that is what he appears to have done on 11/22. Fritz'
> note says so. He claimed he had a coke he'd gotten from the 2nd floor
> at the time the officer came in to the first where he (Oswald) was
> having lunch. He left work for the reason he said - the scuttlebutt
> amongst the men (including Shelley) was that there would be no more
> work that day. Wes Frazier backed tis up in his interview with
> Manchester (he told Manchester that he left after lunch because he
> thought there'd be no more work that day - "Death of a President" p.
> 355 of the paperback edition).
>
> Face it. You've been hoodwinked by the TSBD lunch hour fairy tale.
> Time to wake up and smell the napalm.
>
Just like Pamela when you can't prove your kooky idea your only way out is
to claim that I've been hoodwinked. The difference is I can read and
understand English.
> Did he write an article
>> about this? Oswald did not interpret Fritz's notes. What I see is YOU
>> interpreting Fritz's notes. How do you interpret Fritz's notes to indicate
>> Oswald on the 1st floor?
>
> See above. And I'll add - how does YOUR interpretation make sense?
> With Bugliosi's placement of commas, you have Oswald drinking a coke
> in the second floor lunch room (something he was not known to do) at
The notes do not say "drinking" so don't add that. Only that he had a Coke.
> the time Baker supposedly spots him through a door - THEN you have
> Oswald saying he went downstairs for lunch. That is exactly how it
No, you are adding your own timeframe. There is no THEN in the notes.
Oswald is talking about different things at different times.
Down South it is quite common to eat your lunch and then get a soda.
> reads and HAS to be interpreted with the commas where the Bug has
> them.
>
> My comma placement has him taking the coke down to the 1st floor to
> have with lunch - per his usual habit - then having an encounter with
You don't that it was his usual habit to drink the soda at the same time
he ate his sandwich.
> a cop - Just as written in the newspapers and just as Holmes quuoted
> Oswald.
>
Forget the newspapers. They are not corroboration. They simply passed on
a lot of misinformation.
>>> and placing himself on the 2nd - which is what Fritz' note indicates ONLY
>>> by the judicial placement of commas.
>>
>>>>> And they do not appear in Fritz' original note. Adding them gives a
>>>>> certain meaning which may not have originally been intended.
>>
>>>> The fact that they are all commas is more neutral.
>>>> I would have preferred multiple spaces, but Bugliosi did not.
>>>> Or maybe his editor did not.
>>
>>> Maybe he should have consulted you. You seem to live in his head
>>> anyway, so it's not as if it would have been a long distance call.
>>
>> I don't mind correcting Bugliosi. He does mind though.
>
> How can you correct him on this when you essentially agree with his
> nonsensical interpretation?
>
I didn't say that I agree with him on anything. I might accidentally
have said the same thing he says long before he did. So is he agreeing
with me?
>>>>> http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
>>
>>>>> In that regard, my punctuation is just as likely to give the proper
>>>>> meaning as yours. It is certainly better supported.
>>
>>>>> Here it is again:
>>
>>>>> "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
>>>>> had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
>>>>> opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
>>
>>>> Fine, but you are trying to make it read like more of a narrative.
>>
>>> So it's okay when the Bug fills in some blank spaces , but not when I
>>> do it, no matter how logically?
>>
>> I didn't say ok, but I am not going to waste everyone's time saying that
>> "wk" really means "wok" instead of "work."
>> And again you seem to be totally unaware of the fact that Bugliosi is
>> not the one who found Fritz's notes and was not the first to interpret them.
>
> So? Are those other people named in the subject of this thread? If
> not, why would you want to bring them into it, if not just to change
> the subject? Cui Bono?
>
Because you are pretending that Bugliosi is the dissenter and that you
represent the consensus. The opposite is the case.
Again, what is your agenda with this interpretation? What are you trying
to prove? Spit it out, man.
greg
> On 2/24/2010 11:04 AM, greg wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 1:51 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> you got inside the Bug's head how? As I have pointed out, there are a
> >>> number of ways that the note can be punctuated. Each subtly changes the
>
> >> Yes, and I said I think the right way to do it is with multiple spaces.
>
> > Yesit'snicetohavespaciingintext. Ye gads!
>
> >>> meaning. You got inside the Bug's head how in order to know how he knedw
> >>> which meaning to convey? Maybe the Bug summoned up the spirit of Fritz and
> >>> asked him?
>
> >> Bugliosi was not the first one to interpret Fritz's notes.
>
> > No one said he wasn't. But he IS one of the people who is the subject
> > of this thread, so it is HIS interpretation that is under the
> > microscope. His interpretation is dependant upon where HE placed HIS
> > commas.
>
> Again you seem to be unaware of the original notes and the fact that
> others before Bugliosi have interpreted them.
On the first point, I linked to those notes in an earlier post to this
thread. On the second point, who gives a rats who interpreted them,
unless you're looking to apportion blame for misleading the public?
The fact remaims however, that Bugliosi is one of the subjects of this
thread, so whether he copied your, or anyone else's interpretation, or
independantly came to the same interpretation as others means SFA.
They need to be interpreted
> because Fritz wrote them in his own kind of shorthand. Do we need to be
> mind readers to figure what he meant? No, just knowledgeable about the
> facts.
Which you are not. You are merely parroting the official line. When
that crosses pathes with the facts, it is merely coincidental.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html
>
> >>>> You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why? Cui bono? What agenda
> >>>> are you trying to push?
>
> >>> LOL! The difference in meaning by the different placement of a comma or
> >>> two is not a molehill. It is the difference between Oswald placing himself
> >>> on the first floor (which I remind you is how Harry Holmes interpreted it)
>
> >> I don't see Holmes interpreting Fritz's notes.
>
> > The "it" is Oswald's answers under the interrogation. They only had to
> > be noted by Holmes, not interpreted. If he needed what Oswald said to
>
> If you have the Holmes notes then post then as I just posted the Fritz
> notes.
Enough of the obtuse replies. If I mention "elephants in the room" -
that does not mean I have an elephant in my hip pocket. As you know,
notes were not kept after they had been used to write the reports.
> > be "interpreted, he only had to ask for clarification. Now that that
>
> No. Oswald was quite clear that the confrontation with the officer took
> place on the 2nd floor and that during the shooting he was on the 1st
> floor eating lunch.
Oh really? He was really clear on that, was he?
From Holmes' interrogation report:
"Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the
commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went
down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and
his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the
policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply
walked out the front door of the building."
> > little distraction is out of the way, I'll repeat the main point - if
> > you use different punctuation on Fritz' notes, Oswald places himself
> > on the 1st floor. Holmes' - the ONE member of the interrogation team
>
> No, you are not allowed to add your own punctuation that way. The 2nd
> floor was in the context of the confrontation with the officer. Then on
> the next line the 1st floor was in the context of eating lunch. Two
> different time frames.
Sheesh. Here it is again as it was originally written including
spacing and line breaks:
quote on:
Claims 2nd floor Coke when
off came in
to 1st floor had lunch
out with Bill Shelley in
front
lt wk opinion nothing be
done that day etc
quote off
It makes absolutely no sense. There is no "spacing" or extra line
breaks to help make sense of it - let alone punctuation. There just
is no rhyme or reason for example having "front" on a line of it's
own, and other lines are not complete sentenses, so cannot stand alone
to mean anything.
With the imagined punctuation and line breaks per Bugliosi, you and
whoever else you think deserves "credit", we get:
quote on:
Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off
[Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
front. Left wk [work] opinion nothing be done that day.
quote off
Your interpretion therefore has to be that
1) Oswald had a Coke when the Officer came in.
2) Oswald then went to the 1st floor and ate lunch
3) Oswald then stood outside with Bill Shelley
4) Oswald then left due to the opinion that no more work would be done
that day.
If you cannot see the problem there, I guess have to point it out.
You have either Baker barnstorming the building PRIOR to the
assassination OR, you have Oswald eating lunch AFTER the
assassination, throwing out the entire Oak Cliff timeline.
If you say you interpret some other way, then you're necessarily
changing the whole note to suit yourself.
> > who was not a cop or FBI agent, claimed that is what Oswald said, and
> > therefore adds weight to my punctuation of the note.
>
> Garbage. Produce the Holmes notes to back up your claim.
There's that obtuseness again. I suppose you will claim that his
report, the relevant part of which is found above, does not reflect
his notes?
> > "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
> > had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
> > opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
>
> Fritz separated the two time frames on separate lines. Your sentence
> makes no sense.
To use your phrase, "garbage"!
Fritz separated nothing except the individual words. As written, it
may as well be a stream-of-consciousness poem.
Show me how YOU think he separated the two time frames. I dare you.
For those who want the facts, here is the note again.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html
Clearly, there is no separation of time frames, and no sense to the
line breaks.
> > You see, several workers stated they were in the habit of going to the
> > second floor for a coke and bringing it back down to the domino room
> > to have with lunch. Oswald also was seen to do this on a number of
>
> Fine, but Oswald said he was on the 2nd floor getting a Coke WHEN the
> officer came in.
Nope. All you can rightly determine from Fritz' shorthand about a Coke
is that Oswald had one he had obtained from the second floor when the
officer came in. He then goes on to say where he was when this
happened "the officer came in to 1st floor"
> > occasions. And that is what he appears to have done on 11/22. Fritz'
> > note says so. He claimed he had a coke he'd gotten from the 2nd floor
> > at the time the officer came in to the first where he (Oswald) was
> > having lunch. He left work for the reason he said - the scuttlebutt
> > amongst the men (including Shelley) was that there would be no more
> > work that day. Wes Frazier backed tis up in his interview with
> > Manchester (he told Manchester that he left after lunch because he
> > thought there'd be no more work that day - "Death of a President" p.
> > 355 of the paperback edition).
>
> > Face it. You've been hoodwinked by the TSBD lunch hour fairy tale.
> > Time to wake up and smell the napalm.
>
> Just like Pamela when you can't prove your kooky idea your only way out is
> to claim that I've been hoodwinked. The difference is I can read and
> understand English.
Uh huh. And when you don't want to face up to an unpalatable truth,
you ignore it and attack the messenger.
> > Did he write an article
> >> about this? Oswald did not interpret Fritz's notes. What I see is YOU
> >> interpreting Fritz's notes. How do you interpret Fritz's notes to indicate
> >> Oswald on the 1st floor?
>
> > See above. And I'll add - how does YOUR interpretation make sense?
> > With Bugliosi's placement of commas, you have Oswald drinking a coke
> > in the second floor lunch room (something he was not known to do) at
>
> The notes do not say "drinking" so don't add that. Only that he had a Coke.
Fair point, but it changes nothing.
> > the time Baker supposedly spots him through a door - THEN you have
> > Oswald saying he went downstairs for lunch. That is exactly how it
>
> No, you are adding your own timeframe. There is no THEN in the notes.
I thought you understood English? "Then" is an adverb here connoting
"next in the order of time", or to have it your way, the next time
sequence/frame.
> Oswald is talking about different things at different times.
Yes. But you just denied that above, claiming there is no implied
"then" and therefore only one time frame.
> Down South it is quite common to eat your lunch and then get a soda.
Ah, you've trotted out the ye Olde "Things are Different in Texas" all-
encompassing excuse for any and all discrepencies. It's usually used
by Lone Nutters. Hmmmm.
Doesn't matter how common it is. You don't know that Oswald did that,
and in any case, - whether you like it or not, by accepting the Bug's
punctuation of the note, you have Oswald eating lunch after obtaining
the Coke.
> > reads and HAS to be interpreted with the commas where the Bug has
> > them.
>
> > My comma placement has him taking the coke down to the 1st floor to
> > have with lunch - per his usual habit - then having an encounter with
>
> You don't that it was his usual habit to drink the soda at the same time
> he ate his sandwich.
Others said it was his usual habit, regardless of your attempt to
invoke the "Things are different in Texas" excuse.
> > a cop - Just as written in the newspapers and just as Holmes quuoted
> > Oswald.
>
> Forget the newspapers. They are not corroboration. They simply passed on
> a lot of misinformation.
First report published in the Sydney Morning Herald
quote on
During the frantic search for the President's killer, police were
posted at exits to the warehouse.
Police said a man, whom they identified as Oswald, walked through
the
door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman.
Oswald told the policeman that "I work here," and when another
employee
confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said.
quote off
Did you see the part that said "Police said"? Why do you suppose
police would spread ***this particular*** misinformation about Oswald?
How is that Holmes would record Oswald also stating that his encounter
with a cop happened at the first floor entrance? Did Oswald have ESP
and therefore lnew what the papers would publish?
> >>> and placing himself on the 2nd - which is what Fritz' note indicates ONLY
> >>> by the judicial placement of commas.
>
> >>>>> And they do not appear in Fritz' original note. Adding them gives a
> >>>>> certain meaning which may not have originally been intended.
>
> >>>> The fact that they are all commas is more neutral.
> >>>> I would have preferred multiple spaces, but Bugliosi did not.
> >>>> Or maybe his editor did not.
>
> >>> Maybe he should have consulted you. You seem to live in his head
> >>> anyway, so it's not as if it would have been a long distance call.
>
> >> I don't mind correcting Bugliosi. He does mind though.
>
> > How can you correct him on this when you essentially agree with his
> > nonsensical interpretation?
>
> I didn't say that I agree with him on anything. I might accidentally
> have said the same thing he says long before he did. So is he agreeing
> with me?
Who gives a rats? You're both wrong.
> >>>>>http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
>
> >>>>> In that regard, my punctuation is just as likely to give the proper
> >>>>> meaning as yours. It is certainly better supported.
>
> >>>>> Here it is again:
>
> >>>>> "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
> >>>>> had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
> >>>>> opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
>
> >>>> Fine, but you are trying to make it read like more of a narrative.
>
> >>> So it's okay when the Bug fills in some blank spaces , but not when I
> >>> do it, no matter how logically?
>
> >> I didn't say ok, but I am not going to waste everyone's time saying that
> >> "wk" really means "wok" instead of "work."
> >> And again you seem to be totally unaware of the fact that Bugliosi is
> >> not the one who found Fritz's notes and was not the first to interpret them.
>
> > So? Are those other people named in the subject of this thread? If
> > not, why would you want to bring them into it, if not just to change
> > the subject? Cui Bono?
>
> Because you are pretending that Bugliosi is the dissenter and that you
> represent the consensus. The opposite is the case.
Of course I am the dissenter! Wow!
There was once a consensus that no one could survive travel at speeds
of over 40 miles an hour. But hey, we can. So do try and keep up.
> Again, what is your agenda with this interpretation? What are you trying
> to prove? Spit it out, man.
Ooooh you using the "a' word yet again in the pejorative.
I of course claim as a fact that I do nothing but follow the evidence.
You are free to keep supporting the official narrative, though it only
occasionaly collides with the truth.
David Von Pein
>>> "It [Captain Fritz' handwritten notes] makes absolutely no sense.
There is no "spacing" or extra line breaks to help make sense of it--let
alone punctuation." <<<
Captain J. Will Fritz' handwritten notes make perfect sense, per Vincent
Bugliosi's book (and the punctuation that Bugliosi properly and correctly
added to those Fritz notes).
Why is this so?
Because Bugliosi KNOWS WHAT THE MEANING OF THE NOTES IS.
And Bugliosi knows this because he's not relying on JUST Fritz'
handwritten notes. He's relying also on Fritz' final typewritten report,
which was based partly on his notes.
Therefore, when Bugliosi added his two "commas", he did so with the
knowledge of WHERE exactly those commas (i.e., breaks) should go, because
Bugliosi had also read Fritz' final typed report [WR, Pg. 600, below].
Why isn't that fact obvious to everyone, even Greg?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 25, 2:49 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/24/2010 11:04 AM, greg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 1:51 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> you got inside the Bug's head how? As I have pointed out, there are a
>>>>> number of ways that the note can be punctuated. Each subtly changes the
>>
>>>> Yes, and I said I think the right way to do it is with multiple spaces.
>>
>>> Yesit'snicetohavespaciingintext. Ye gads!
>>
>>>>> meaning. You got inside the Bug's head how in order to know how he knedw
>>>>> which meaning to convey? Maybe the Bug summoned up the spirit of Fritz and
>>>>> asked him?
>>
>>>> Bugliosi was not the first one to interpret Fritz's notes.
>>
>>> No one said he wasn't. But he IS one of the people who is the subject
>>> of this thread, so it is HIS interpretation that is under the
>>> microscope. His interpretation is dependant upon where HE placed HIS
>>> commas.
>>
>> Again you seem to be unaware of the original notes and the fact that
>> others before Bugliosi have interpreted them.
>
> On the first point, I linked to those notes in an earlier post to this
> thread. On the second point, who gives a rats who interpreted them,
> unless you're looking to apportion blame for misleading the public?
His punctuation does not mislead the public. Your interpretation does.
And again I ask you WHY you do that. What's your agenda. What are you
trying to prove by misrepresenting the notes?
> The fact remaims however, that Bugliosi is one of the subjects of this
> thread, so whether he copied your, or anyone else's interpretation, or
> independantly came to the same interpretation as others means SFA.
>
> They need to be interpreted
>> because Fritz wrote them in his own kind of shorthand. Do we need to be
>> mind readers to figure what he meant? No, just knowledgeable about the
>> facts.
>
> Which you are not. You are merely parroting the official line. When
> that crosses pathes with the facts, it is merely coincidental.
>
There is no official line. Bugliosi is not the official line.
I didn't get my interpretation from Bugliosi. I got it before Bugliosi.
>> http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html
>>
>>>>>> You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why? Cui bono? What agenda
>>>>>> are you trying to push?
>>
>>>>> LOL! The difference in meaning by the different placement of a comma or
>>>>> two is not a molehill. It is the difference between Oswald placing himself
>>>>> on the first floor (which I remind you is how Harry Holmes interpreted it)
>>
>>>> I don't see Holmes interpreting Fritz's notes.
>>
>>> The "it" is Oswald's answers under the interrogation. They only had to
>>> be noted by Holmes, not interpreted. If he needed what Oswald said to
>>
>> If you have the Holmes notes then post then as I just posted the Fritz
>> notes.
>
> Enough of the obtuse replies. If I mention "elephants in the room" -
> that does not mean I have an elephant in my hip pocket. As you know,
> notes were not kept after they had been used to write the reports.
>
>>> be "interpreted, he only had to ask for clarification. Now that that
>>
>> No. Oswald was quite clear that the confrontation with the officer took
>> place on the 2nd floor and that during the shooting he was on the 1st
>> floor eating lunch.
>
> Oh really? He was really clear on that, was he?
>
Yes, he was.
> From Holmes' interrogation report:
>
> "Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the
> commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went
> down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and
> his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the
> policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply
> walked out the front door of the building."
>
Which says nothing about which floor so you bring it up only to distract.
>>> little distraction is out of the way, I'll repeat the main point - if
>>> you use different punctuation on Fritz' notes, Oswald places himself
>>> on the 1st floor. Holmes' - the ONE member of the interrogation team
>>
>> No, you are not allowed to add your own punctuation that way. The 2nd
>> floor was in the context of the confrontation with the officer. Then on
>> the next line the 1st floor was in the context of eating lunch. Two
>> different time frames.
>
> Sheesh. Here it is again as it was originally written including
> spacing and line breaks:
>
> quote on:
> Claims 2nd floor Coke when
> off came in
> to 1st floor had lunch
> out with Bill Shelley in
> front
> lt wk opinion nothing be
> done that day etc
> quote off
>
> It makes absolutely no sense. There is no "spacing" or extra line
> breaks to help make sense of it - let alone punctuation. There just
It makes perfect sense to someone who speaks English.
> is no rhyme or reason for example having "front" on a line of it's
It's not a poem. The lines do not have to rhyme.
> own, and other lines are not complete sentenses, so cannot stand alone
> to mean anything.
>
Shorthand does not stand alone.
> With the imagined punctuation and line breaks per Bugliosi, you and
> whoever else you think deserves "credit", we get:
>
No, not PER Bugliosi, PRE Bugliosi.
Just because you were not aware of the Fritz notes before Bugliosi
doesn't mean the rest of us had not already analyzed them before Bugliosi.
> quote on:
> Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off
> [Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
> front. Left wk [work] opinion nothing be done that day.
> quote off
>
> Your interpretion therefore has to be that
>
> 1) Oswald had a Coke when the Officer came in.
> 2) Oswald then went to the 1st floor and ate lunch
No, there is no THEN.
And interrogation does not always follow chronological order.
> 3) Oswald then stood outside with Bill Shelley
> 4) Oswald then left due to the opinion that no more work would be done
> that day.
>
> If you cannot see the problem there, I guess have to point it out.
> You have either Baker barnstorming the building PRIOR to the
> assassination OR, you have Oswald eating lunch AFTER the
> assassination, throwing out the entire Oak Cliff timeline.
>
First, I don't have Oswald eating lunch at all. And just because Oswald
says something does not mean it was a fact.
There is no problem with the timeline.
> If you say you interpret some other way, then you're necessarily
> changing the whole note to suit yourself.
>
>>> who was not a cop or FBI agent, claimed that is what Oswald said, and
>>> therefore adds weight to my punctuation of the note.
>>
>> Garbage. Produce the Holmes notes to back up your claim.
>
> There's that obtuseness again. I suppose you will claim that his
> report, the relevant part of which is found above, does not reflect
> his notes?
His notes? Show me his notes.
>
>>> "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off[icer] came in to first floor [where I]
>>> had lunch. [Then] out with Bill Shelley in front. Left w[or]k [as]
>>> opinion [was that] nothing would be done that day."
>>
>> Fritz separated the two time frames on separate lines. Your sentence
>> makes no sense.
>
> To use your phrase, "garbage"!
>
> Fritz separated nothing except the individual words. As written, it
> may as well be a stream-of-consciousness poem.
>
Fritz grouped concepts on separate lines in many places. He was limited
by the size of the paper.
> Show me how YOU think he separated the two time frames. I dare you.
>
> For those who want the facts, here is the note again.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html
>
Tell everyone when the notes were uploaded there.
As compared to when Bugliosi's book came out.
This should be fun.
> Clearly, there is no separation of time frames, and no sense to the
> line breaks.
>
Clearly there is a separation of time frames, and line breaks indicate
changes in subject.
>>> You see, several workers stated they were in the habit of going to the
>>> second floor for a coke and bringing it back down to the domino room
>>> to have with lunch. Oswald also was seen to do this on a number of
>>
>> Fine, but Oswald said he was on the 2nd floor getting a Coke WHEN the
>> officer came in.
>
> Nope. All you can rightly determine from Fritz' shorthand about a Coke
> is that Oswald had one he had obtained from the second floor when the
No, all we can rightly determine is that from Fritz's shorthand is that
Oswald said he had one when the officer came into the room on the second
floor.
> officer came in. He then goes on to say where he was when this
> happened "the officer came in to 1st floor"
>
No, you are misinterpreting the notes to mold them to fit your wacky theory.
If he had meant the officer came into the 1 floor he would have written
it all together as "into."
>>> occasions. And that is what he appears to have done on 11/22. Fritz'
>>> note says so. He claimed he had a coke he'd gotten from the 2nd floor
>>> at the time the officer came in to the first where he (Oswald) was
>>> having lunch. He left work for the reason he said - the scuttlebutt
>>> amongst the men (including Shelley) was that there would be no more
>>> work that day. Wes Frazier backed tis up in his interview with
>>> Manchester (he told Manchester that he left after lunch because he
>>> thought there'd be no more work that day - "Death of a President" p.
>>> 355 of the paperback edition).
>>
>>> Face it. You've been hoodwinked by the TSBD lunch hour fairy tale.
>>> Time to wake up and smell the napalm.
>>
>> Just like Pamela when you can't prove your kooky idea your only way out is
>> to claim that I've been hoodwinked. The difference is I can read and
>> understand English.
>
> Uh huh. And when you don't want to face up to an unpalatable truth,
> you ignore it and attack the messenger.
>
What are you claiming is unpalatable? You have yet to come clean about
what you think the truth is and what your agenda is. You seem to be
following Pamela's lead and trying to portray me as a WC defender
because I won't buy your particular wacky theory. That is proof that
your theory is wacky.
>>> Did he write an article
>>>> about this? Oswald did not interpret Fritz's notes. What I see is YOU
>>>> interpreting Fritz's notes. How do you interpret Fritz's notes to indicate
>>>> Oswald on the 1st floor?
>>
>>> See above. And I'll add - how does YOUR interpretation make sense?
>>> With Bugliosi's placement of commas, you have Oswald drinking a coke
>>> in the second floor lunch room (something he was not known to do) at
>>
>> The notes do not say "drinking" so don't add that. Only that he had a Coke.
>
> Fair point, but it changes nothing.
>
It changes the event when you add things.
>>> the time Baker supposedly spots him through a door - THEN you have
>>> Oswald saying he went downstairs for lunch. That is exactly how it
>>
>> No, you are adding your own timeframe. There is no THEN in the notes.
>
> I thought you understood English? "Then" is an adverb here connoting
> "next in the order of time", or to have it your way, the next time
> sequence/frame.
>
>> Oswald is talking about different things at different times.
>
> Yes. But you just denied that above, claiming there is no implied
> "then" and therefore only one time frame.
>
Then means AFTER. You are assuming after.
>> Down South it is quite common to eat your lunch and then get a soda.
>
> Ah, you've trotted out the ye Olde "Things are Different in Texas" all-
> encompassing excuse for any and all discrepencies. It's usually used
> by Lone Nutters. Hmmmm.
>
No, no lone nutter says anything about how they eat lunch in Texas.
Again your agenda is clear when you use Pamela's tactic of accusing me
of being a lone nutter.
> Doesn't matter how common it is. You don't know that Oswald did that,
> and in any case, - whether you like it or not, by accepting the Bug's
> punctuation of the note, you have Oswald eating lunch after obtaining
> the Coke.
>
I had that interpretation before Bugliosi published his book. This has
been around for a while and we have discussed it several times before.
>>> reads and HAS to be interpreted with the commas where the Bug has
>>> them.
>>
>>> My comma placement has him taking the coke down to the 1st floor to
>>> have with lunch - per his usual habit - then having an encounter with
>>
>> You don't that it was his usual habit to drink the soda at the same time
>> he ate his sandwich.
>
> Others said it was his usual habit, regardless of your attempt to
> invoke the "Things are different in Texas" excuse.
>
Others said? Cite and quote exactly what they said, not what YOU add.
>>> a cop - Just as written in the newspapers and just as Holmes quuoted
>>> Oswald.
>>
>> Forget the newspapers. They are not corroboration. They simply passed on
>> a lot of misinformation.
>
> First report published in the Sydney Morning Herald
>
So what? So what if some newspaper quoted Weitzman calling the rifle a
Mauser? Don't believe everything you read in a newspaper.
> quote on
> During the frantic search for the President's killer, police were
> posted at exits to the warehouse.
> Police said a man, whom they identified as Oswald, walked through
> the
> door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman.
> Oswald told the policeman that "I work here," and when another
> employee
> confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said.
> quote off
>
That account is wrong.
> Did you see the part that said "Police said"? Why do you suppose
> police would spread ***this particular*** misinformation about Oswald?
>
I don't care which policeman said it, it's wrong. Just like Craig lying
to corroborate Weitzman.
> How is that Holmes would record Oswald also stating that his encounter
> with a cop happened at the first floor entrance? Did Oswald have ESP
> and therefore lnew what the papers would publish?
>
Maybe he read it in the newspaper.
The point is that you are misrepresenting by pretending that your view
is the consensus and I am the dissenter. The opposite is the case.
>> Again, what is your agenda with this interpretation? What are you trying
>> to prove? Spit it out, man.
>
> Ooooh you using the "a' word yet again in the pejorative.
>
Because you won't answer it.
> I of course claim as a fact that I do nothing but follow the evidence.
No, you don't. You misrepresent the evidence. Like Harris. To push a
wacky theory.
> You are free to keep supporting the official narrative, though it only
> occasionaly collides with the truth.
>
There is no official narrative.
greg
> >>> "It [Captain Fritz' handwritten notes] makes absolutely no sense.
>
> There is no "spacing" or extra line breaks to help make sense of it--let
> alone punctuation." <<<
>
> Captain J. Will Fritz' handwritten notes make perfect sense, per Vincent
> Bugliosi's book
Yes, it does make perfect grammatical sense. But that desn't make it
true.
(and the punctuation that Bugliosi properly and correctly
> added to those Fritz notes).
>
> Why is this so?
>
> Because Bugliosi KNOWS WHAT THE MEANING OF THE NOTES IS.
>
> And Bugliosi knows this because he's not relying on JUST Fritz'
> handwritten notes. He's relying also on Fritz' final typewritten report,
> which was based partly on his notes.
The notes he claims he never took during the interrogations?
Mr. BALL. That was about what time you heard that? You have a little
notebook there.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I have a notebook.
Mr. BALL. Did you make notes as of that time?
Mr. FRITZ. We made this, not at that time, we made this after the
tragedy.
Mr. BALL. How long after?
Mr. FRITZ. We started on it real soon after, and we have been working
on it ever since.
Assuming the above was not is not a lie, I think it's likely that Fritz
took his notes from the reports and notes of others... say for instance,
the joint Hosty - Bookhout report which says "went to the 2nd floor where
the Coca-Cola machine was located & obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his
lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F.
Kennedy passed this building."
Fritz' note pretty much follows that if you insert the commas as I have.
To get a different interpretation, you have to put the commas where the
Bug does.
> Therefore, when Bugliosi added his two "commas", he did so with the
> knowledge of WHERE exactly those commas (i.e., breaks) should go, because
> Bugliosi had also read Fritz' final typed report [WR, Pg. 600, below].
Clearly Fritz' report was not based on the interrogations. It was based on
what his assistants dredged up from other sources e.g Truly's false report
of 11/23. If it had been based on the interrogations, it would reflect the
same information as the Holmes and Hosty/Bookhout reports (as his own
notes in fact do when read with the correct punctuation!)
> Why isn't that fact obvious to everyone, even Greg?
LOL You weren't even aware that the Bug had changed anything in the notes
till I pointed it out, and it has taken several days since for you to
formulate this response - which has taken approximately 5 minutes for me
to demolish.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm
Anthony Marsh
Hey, that's not fair, using the actual Fritz report to prove that these
guys are kooks.
David Von Pein
>>> "You weren't even aware that the Bug had changed anything in the notes till I pointed it out, and it has taken several days since for you to formulate this response - which has taken approximately 5 minutes for me to demolish." <<<
You've demolished nothing. Bugliosi's "commas" are in the proper
places to align with Fritz' typed report on WR p.600. And this is true
regardless of whether I was initially aware that Bugliosi had inserted
any commas or not.
>>> "Clearly Fritz' report was not based on the interrogations. It was based on what his assistants dredged up from other sources e.g. Truly's false report of 11/23. If it had been based on the interrogations, it would reflect the same information as the Holmes and Hosty/Bookhout reports (as his own notes in fact do when read with the correct punctuation!)" <<<
LOL. What a bunch of crap.
Captain Fritz, in his final typewritten report, says these words over
and over again: "I asked him...". And then Fritz goes on to say what
Oswald's replies were after he was "asked" the various question by
Fritz himself.
Let me guess, you think Captain Fritz merely used the words "I asked
him" dozens of times in his final, formal report just to throw people
off, right Greg?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=624
greg
> >>> "You weren't even aware that the Bug had changed anything in the notes till I pointed it out, and it has taken several days since for you to formulate this response - which has taken approximately 5 minutes for me to demolish." <<<
>
> You've demolished nothing. Bugliosi's "commas" are in the proper
> places to align with Fritz' typed report on WR p.600. And this is true
> regardless of whether I was initially aware that Bugliosi had inserted
> any commas or not.
It's a fact that he put them there whether or not you were aware of
it, but in the proper place? I think not.
> >>> "Clearly Fritz' report was not based on the interrogations. It was based on what his assistants dredged up from other sources e.g. Truly's false report of 11/23. If it had been based on the interrogations, it would reflect the same information as the Holmes and Hosty/Bookhout reports (as his own notes in fact do when read with the correct punctuation!)" <<<
>
> LOL. What a bunch of crap.
And your evidence for that is...?
> Captain Fritz, in his final typewritten report, says these words over
> and over again: "I asked him...". And then Fritz goes on to say what
> Oswald's replies were after he was "asked" the various question by
> Fritz himself.
So he did put those words, you clever little wascle.
> Let me guess, you think Captain Fritz merely used the words "I asked
> him" dozens of times in his final, formal report just to throw people
> off, right Greg?
Why would I think that? I'm sure he did ask him those questions.
Harrry Holmes' report corroborates that ("Captain Fritz made some
mention of ...", "Captain Fritz asked him", "Captain Fritz then asked
him about..."). Kelley's reports also specifically mention Fritz'
questions. In short, there is no discrepancies with that side of it.
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
Here is what Fritz said in regard to the first time Oswald is asked
where he was at the time of the assassination:
quote on
I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the
President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about
that time on the first floor. Mr. Truly had told me that one of the
police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting
somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when
the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor
drinking a coca cola when the officer came in.
quote off
Isn't that interesting? Oswald says he is having lunch on the fisrt
floor when the motorcade passes but Fritz recalls Truly telling him
that a cop stopped him "somewhere near the back stairway" This of
course, could only be a reference to the first floor. Certainly no
mention of a lunchroom. What is more interesting is that, according to
Fritz, Oswald disagrees with Truly and insists he was on the 2nd floor
DRINKING a coke. Oswald is giving a worse alibi than that initially
offered up for him by Truly!
According to this garbage anyway....
greg
Let's see where this leads, shall we?
The story Biffle ran has Oswald in a little store-room near the back
stairway when Baker and Truly spot him. The source for this is not named
then, but is in later versions (if I recall Don's work correctly?) as
being Truly. Truly testified that a reporter eavesdropped on his
conversation with Fritz. This has to be Biffle. So there we go... both
Biffle AND Fritz heard Truly say Oswald was near the back stairwell on the
1st floor. All Oswald ever said about the 2nd floor was that that was
where he obtained his Coke. But it would suit those framing him to move
the Baker encounter to the 2nd floor, so Oswald on 1st floor in a little
store-room became Oswald on 2nd floor in the lunch-room.
Baker, at the time of making his affidavit, would not mention seeing
onyone on the 1st as he knew he could not possibly have been the sniper.
He only mentions an encounter on the 3rd or 4th floor as being of any
possible significance to the inquiry. This person, aged around 30, 5' 9",
165lb, dark hair and wearing a lt brown jacket matches the Rowland/Brennan
suspect much better than Oswald. And as even you guys must be able to
recall by now (how many times have you been told?), Baker did not even
recognise Oswald when his affidavit was being taken DESPITE Oswald sitting
handcuffed in the same tiny office. Had he recognised him, he of course,
had the perfect opportunity to get his description right AND to add that
the arrestee was the individual he stopped in the building.
The Oswald-Cop encounter mentioned in other newspaper accounts happened at
the entrance (eg the Sydney Morning Herald). This is the encounter Oswald
is talking about at his last interrogation as noted by Holmes..."a police
officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask
me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told
the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me
to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just
went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." I believe "my
superintendant" should have read "my supervisor"... Bill Shelley....
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. Somewhere near the back stairway says nothing about which floor.
But then he clearly says he was on the second floor when the officer came
in. How are you going to deny that?
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald says he is having lunch on the first floor when the motorcade
passes but Fritz recalls Truly telling him that a cop stopped him
"somewhere near the back stairway". This of course, could only be a
reference to the first floor." <<<
Why does it have to mean ONLY the first floor?
That reference made by Captain Fritz obviously DOES NOT have to
indicate only the first floor?
How do we know this?
Because the encounter between Oswald and Baker did not occur on the
first floor, it occurred on the second floor. So, quite logically,
that reference to "somewhere near the back stairway" MUST be referring
to WHERE THE OSWALD/BAKER ENCOUNTER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. And it wasn't
on Floor #1.
Plus, the place where Marrion Baker stopped Lee Oswald WAS, indeed,
"somewhere near the back stairway" on the second floor. It was very
close to the "back stairway", in fact, otherwise Officer Baker would
NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE OSWALD as Baker was hurriedly climbing
those back stairs.
And in the following 1963 Secret Service reconstruction video, we can
see just how close to the "back stairway" is to the door which leads
to the second-floor lunchroom (at the 23:15 mark near the very end of
the video):
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html
>>> "What is more interesting is that, according to Fritz, Oswald
disagrees with Truly and insists he was on the 2nd floor DRINKING a coke.
Oswald is giving a worse alibi than that initially offered up for him by
Truly!" <<<
Any additional hairs you wish to split today?
The "Coke" thing has been over-emphasized by conspiracy theorists for
40+ years. Oswald was probably in that lunchroom within sixth seconds
of firing his third and last rifle bullet at President Kennedy.
The trip from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest to the second-floor
lunchroom was reconstructed by John Howlett of the Secret Service in
only 74 seconds, and that was with Howlett moving at merely a "fast
walk" [WR; Pg. 152]:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
No test was done by the Secret Service or the Warren Commission (as
far as I'm aware) that had someone attempting to get from the sixth
floor to the second floor while RUNNING or JOGGING. The only tests
mentioned on Page 152 of the Warren Report are two "walking" tests.
And even there, we've got Howlett getting to the second floor in 78
seconds or less on each of his two "walking" re-creation tests.
BTW, I'm not sure if the re-creation of the agent going from the 6th
Floor to the 2nd Floor that is shown in above-linked Secret Service
video is the same as one of the two re-creations that are mentioned on
Page 152 of the Warren Report.
But, anyway, the person in the video is moving at a snail's pace
during the time when he is on camera. Oswald would have unquestionably
been moving much faster than the man is moving in that Secret Service
reconstruction video.
Plus, as has been mentioned by others on these forums in the past,
it's quite possible (but not provable, of course) that Oswald could
have merely grabbed himself a Coke bottle off of one of the tables
just after he entered the lunchroom.
There are photos taken of the lunchroom, in fact, which show Coke
bottles on one of the tables, with the picture below being one such
photo (and, FWIW, one of the two Coke bottles in this photograph is
nearly full). I do not know, however, exactly when this picture was
taken, or if it was taken on 11/22/63 or not:
In any event, even if Oswald bought his Coke out of the soda machine
on the second floor, he still would have had enough time, IMO, to
travel the distance from his sixth-floor sniper's perch to the second-
floor lunchroom and purchase a Coke from the vending machine before he
encountered Officer Baker. And that's because it's highly doubtful
that Lee Harvey Oswald was merely "walking" from the sixth floor to
the lunchroom.
===================================
RELATED "SODA POP" LINKS:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD, MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, AND THE COCA-COLA:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9213fb839278ac33
DR. PEPPER TALK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61f644cfaeee6415
===================================
David Von Pein
CORRECTION/ADDENDUM TO MY LAST POST:
The re-creation of the agent going from the 6th Floor to the 2nd Floor
that is shown in the above-linked Secret Service video is not one of
the two re-creations that are mentioned on Page 152 of the Warren
Report. The two WC/USSS reconstruction tests were performed on March
20, 1964, whereas that Secret Service video was made in late 1963.
The man representing the gunman in the video is moving at a snail's
pace during the time he is on camera. Oswald would have unquestionably
been moving much faster than the man is moving in that Secret Service
reconstruction video.
And Oswald would have also very likely been moving quite a bit faster
than John Howlett's "walking" re-creations that were done in March
1964.
greg
Unless this is going to turn into another "things are different in
Texas" excuse, people referring to a "back stairway" are usually
talkiing about the top or bottom of that stairway - not a floor
landing a few flights up. In any case, "back stairway" is the exact
same term overheard by the eavesdropping Biffle, who also heard Truly
say it was near a small store-room. And indeed, there is a small store-
room near the back stairway - on the first floor.
> But then he clearly says he was on the second floor when the officer came
> in. How are you going to deny that?
Which "he" are you talking about? Fritz was recalling Truly's account
in regard to "back stairway", so Oswald was not contradicting himself
in the alleged "on the second floor" statement. Not that this
statement was being accurately quoted by Fritz, anyway. It was not.
Oswald only mentioned the second floor in relation to where he
obtained his Coke. He never said he was confronted by a cop on that
floor.
> > mention of a lunchroom. What is more interesting is that, according to
greg
> >>> "Oswald says he is having lunch on the first floor when the motorcade
>
> passes but Fritz recalls Truly telling him that a cop stopped him
> "somewhere near the back stairway". This of course, could only be a
> reference to the first floor." <<<
>
> Why does it have to mean ONLY the first floor?
See my reply to Tony.
> That reference made by Captain Fritz obviously DOES NOT have to
> indicate only the first floor?
Again, refer to my answer to Tony.
> How do we know this?
Okay. Short answer. Corroboration per Biffle who was indeed
referencing 1st floor.
> Because the encounter between Oswald and Baker did not occur on the
> first floor, it occurred on the second floor. So, quite logically,
> that reference to "somewhere near the back stairway" MUST be referring
> to WHERE THE OSWALD/BAKER ENCOUNTER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. And it wasn't
> on Floor #1.
Circular logic.
> Plus, the place where Marrion Baker stopped Lee Oswald WAS, indeed,
> "somewhere near the back stairway" on the second floor. It was very
> close to the "back stairway",
The term "back stairway" logically refers to a stairway that is in the
back of the building. If you want to reference the back of the landing
on the second floor, you would logically refer to it in that, ir some
similar way.
in fact, otherwise Officer Baker would
> NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE OSWALD as Baker was hurriedly climbing
> those back stairs.
If he did see Oswald at all, it was a brief glimpse on the first
floor, and one that made no impression on him as being connected to
the shooting. How do we know this? Because he did not mention it in
his affadivit. What he talks about is an encounter on the 3rd or 4th
floor with a man most similar to the Rowland/Brennan suspect -- and
indeed, also matching the description of the Mexico City Oswald
impersonator.
> And in the following 1963 Secret Service reconstruction video, we can
> see just how close to the "back stairway" is to the door which leads
> to the second-floor lunchroom (at the 23:15 mark near the very end of
> the video):
Who else but you WC apologists would try and call a second floor
landing a "back stairway"?
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html
>
> >>> "What is more interesting is that, according to Fritz, Oswald
>
> disagrees with Truly and insists he was on the 2nd floor DRINKING a coke.
> Oswald is giving a worse alibi than that initially offered up for him by
> Truly!" <<<
>
> Any additional hairs you wish to split today?
>
> The "Coke" thing has been over-emphasized by conspiracy theorists for
> 40+ years. Oswald was probably in that lunchroom within sixth seconds
> of firing his third and last rifle bullet at President Kennedy.
The Coke thing was mentioned only because I was accused by Tony of
adding that word when it did not appear in Fritz' note. But Lo! there
it is in Fritz' report supposedly based on his notes.
Other wise I don't give a rats arse about the Coke. It's merely a
distraction.
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/265.+TSBD+SECOND+FLOOR...
>
> In any event, even if Oswald bought his Coke out of the soda machine
> on the second floor, he still would have had enough time, IMO, to
> travel the distance from his sixth-floor sniper's perch to the second-
> floor lunchroom and purchase a Coke from the vending machine before he
> encountered Officer Baker. And that's because it's highly doubtful
> that Lee Harvey Oswald was merely "walking" from the sixth floor to
> the lunchroom.
>
> ===================================
>
> RELATED "SODA POP" LINKS:
>
> LEE HARVEY OSWALD, MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, AND THE COCA-COLA:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9213fb839278ac33
>
> DR. PEPPER TALK:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61f644cfaeee6415
>
> ===================================
All immaterial. I don't care about the Coke. I don't need the Coke to
prove Oswald could or could not get down from the 6th floor in time
for a Baker encounter since clearly THERE WAS NO BAKER ENCOUNTER ON
THE SECOND FLOOR.
So... no offence... but take your little Coke divesions and put them
back in the bottle...
David Von Pein
>>> "clearly THERE WAS NO BAKER ENCOUNTER ON THE SECOND FLOOR." <<<
Oh, goodie! A CTer gets to call somebody else a big fat liar (again)--
Roy S. Truly this time, since Truly corroborates Baker's SECOND-floor
encounter with everybody's favorite patsy for all 11/22 murders.
Pathetic attempts at rewriting the history of this crime. As per usual.
Anthony Marsh
Ridiculous. Back stairway could be any floor and anywhere on the stairway.
greg
Pathetic attempt at rebuttal - ignoring the details while screwing up the
most basic point.
Truly did NOT corroborate Baker. Baker made his statement on 11/22. It
said he had he had an encounter on the 3rd or 4th floor with a person
whose description did not match Oswald. Truly made his statement 11/23
saying there was an encounter with Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. How
is THAT corroboration of Baker's statement? You may live in the Twilight
Zone, but from where I am, that is not corroboration of Baker's statement.
You possibly meant to say that Baker later changed his tune and fell into
line with the official lie?
"Back stairway" = "2nd floor landing"? LOL
Show me ONE instance where any of the official documents referred to the
landing of any floor as anything OTHER than a landing. Show me ONE
instance in any of the official documents where the stairway at the back
of the building is referred to in any other way than as the "back
stairway".
Good luck with that one!
And oh yes I've checked. ;-)
David Von Pein
Truly most definitely corroborated Baker...via WC testimony.
Let me guess--BOTH Baker AND Truly lied their respective asses off in
front of the evil, strong-arming WC. Right, Gregory?
In short -- Greg is just creating a make-believe person on the "3rd or
4th floor" that Greg himself knows was never there.
But, like virtually all CTers, Greg likes fantasy and make-believe
shooters way more than the facts.
Sean Smiley
> greghttp://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum.htm
Sean Smiley
> >>> "clearly THERE WAS NO BAKER ENCOUNTER ON THE SECOND FLOOR." <<<
>
> Oh, goodie! A CTer gets to call somebody else a big fat liar (again)--
> Roy S. Truly this time, since Truly corroborates Baker's SECOND-floor
> encounter with everybody's favorite patsy for all 11/22 murders.
But, as noted elsewhere, Truly was pretty clearly Biffle's source for
"storage room on the first floor" for the site of the Great
Encounter. So, *you're* calling Truly a liar when you say the
encounter was somewhere above that storage room....
greg
greg
http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum.htm
I said "usually". All depends on context. In any case, the term used
was "near the back stairway", not "on the back stairway..."
But maybe you would care to take up the challenge your new side-kick
avoided even acknowledging. All you have to do is point to one single
document in the 26 volumes where a "floor landing" is called a "back
stairway", or where the stairs located at the back of the building are
called anything other than the "the back stairs" or "back stairway".
Good luck!
greg
I guess Tony and his new sidekick David aren't up to the challenge made
asking them to support their argument with examples from the vollumes.
So this will really send them into a tizzy.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encounters-
t42.htm
With thanks to Don, Sean M and Ray...
> greghttp://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum.htm
> I said "usually". All depends on context. In any case, the term used
> was "near the back stairway", not "on the back stairway..."
>
> But maybe you would care to take up the challenge your new side-kick
> avoided even acknowledging. All you have to do is point to one single
> document in the 26 volumes where a "floor landing" is called a "back
> stairway", or where the stairs located at the back of the building are
> called anything other than the "the back stairs" or "back stairway".
>
> Good luck!
>
> > > same term overheard by the eavesdroppingBiffle, who also heard Truly
Anthony Marsh
>
> I guess Tony and his new sidekick David aren't up to the challenge made
> asking them to support their argument with examples from the vollumes.
>
Which volumes do you want, WC or HSCA?
> So this will really send them into a tizzy.
>
> http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encounters-=
> t42.htm
>
Yeah, you guys really got me stumped with your 404 - NOT FOUND
You guys is simply brilliant, dude.
greg
> On 3/8/2010 10:11 PM, greg wrote:
>
>
>
> > I guess Tony and his new sidekick David aren't up to the challenge made
> > asking them to support their argument with examples from the vollumes.
>
> Which volumes do you want, WC or HSCA?
Nice dodge. Either will do.
> > So this will really send them into a tizzy.
>
> >http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encou...
> > t42.htm
>
> Yeah, you guys really got me stumped with your 404 - NOT FOUND
Again, nice dodge. But you know damn well the link broke upon posting
- you are also savvy enough to work out how to access the link,.
> You guys is simply brilliant, dude.
There is nothing brilliant about it. The stories that emerged in the
first 24 hours tell a different story to the one which emerged from
the WC. I think anyone truly interested in ascertaining what went on
inside the TSBD during the lunch period and subsequent police
searches need to take that in to account and weigh up which is most
likely to be true.
That you prefer the story slowy built up over time and culminating in
false WC witness testimony, over what those people originally said in
police statements and to reporters speaks at best of intellectual
laziness. That those early reports corroborate what Oswald said during
his interrogations, only heightens the need to have those statements
recognized as more pertinent to the case. And finally, that we can see
what Oswald said in those interogations, despite efforts to change its
meaning to better fit with the official version is largely (but not
wholly) thanks to the much maligned Harry Holmes. Though he may have
played a part in manufactuaing evidence against Oswald, he appears to
have been out of the loop in the false scenario being built around
Oswald's whereabouts inside the building - and therefore gave the
facts of what Oswald said.
> >> greghttp://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/http://reopenkennedycase.forumoti...
Sean Smiley
Good summary, Greg. I've noticed myself that LNers & some CTers too,
maybe, take WC testimony as gospel, at the expense of anything else, even
when that testimony is contradicted by hard evidence....
bigdog
> On Mar 10, 9:24 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 3/8/2010 10:11 PM, greg wrote:
>
> > > I guess Tony and his new sidekick David aren't up to the challenge made
> > > asking them to support their argument with examples from the vollumes.
>
> > Which volumes do you want, WC or HSCA?
>
> Nice dodge. Either will do.
>
> > > So this will really send them into a tizzy.
>
> > >http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encou...
> > > t42.htm
>
> > Yeah, you guys really got me stumped with your 404 - NOT FOUND
>
> Again, nice dodge. But you know damn well the link broke upon posting
> - you are also savvy enough to work out how to access the link,.
>
> > You guys is simply brilliant, dude.
>
> There is nothing brilliant about it. The stories that emerged in the
> first 24 hours tell a different story to the one which emerged from
> the WC. I think anyone truly interested in ascertaining what went on
> inside the TSBD during the lunch period and subsequent police
> searches need to take that in to account and weigh up which is most
> likely to be true.
>
The reality is usually different from the initial reports. Do you believe
a SS agent was killed in the attack? That was in the initial reports. How
about the make of the rifle being reported as four different makes of a
.30 caliber rifle? Or the man and the woman on the GK who were suspects.
Then we have the Reagan shooting. Jim Brady was killed in the attack.
Reagan wasn't hit. You can put credence in the initial reports if you
want. I'll go with the verifiable evidence.
> That you prefer the story slowy built up over time and culminating in
> false WC witness testimony, over what those people originally said in
> police statements and to reporters speaks at best of intellectual
> laziness. That those early reports corroborate what Oswald said during
> his interrogations, only heightens the need to have those statements
> recognized as more pertinent to the case. And finally, that we can see
> what Oswald said in those interogations, despite efforts to change its
> meaning to better fit with the official version is largely (but not
> wholly) thanks to the much maligned Harry Holmes. Though he may have
> played a part in manufactuaing evidence against Oswald, he appears to
> have been out of the loop in the false scenario being built around
> Oswald's whereabouts inside the building - and therefore gave the
> facts of what Oswald said.
>
Whether stories are told immediately or later on, they all need to be
scrutinized and compared to other forms of evidence to determine
reliability. Witnesses are typically unreliable. If they were reliable,
most of the witnesses would have agreed on what happened. They sure as
hell didn't.
greg
> On Mar 10, 10:00 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:24 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 3/8/2010 10:11 PM, greg wrote:
>
> > > > I guess Tony and his new sidekick David aren't up to the challenge made
> > > > asking them to support their argument with examples from the vollumes.
>
> > > Which volumes do you want, WC or HSCA?
>
> > Nice dodge. Either will do.
>
> > > > So this will really send them into a tizzy.
>
> > > >http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encou...
> > > > t42.htm
>
> > > Yeah, you guys really got me stumped with your 404 - NOT FOUND
>
> > Again, nice dodge. But you know damn well the link broke upon posting
> > - you are also savvy enough to work out how to access the link,.
>
> > > You guys is simply brilliant, dude.
>
> > There is nothing brilliant about it. The stories that emerged in the
> > first 24 hours tell a different story to the one which emerged from
> > the WC. I think anyone truly interested in ascertaining what went on
> > inside the TSBD during the lunch period and subsequent police
> > searches need to take that in to account and weigh up which is most
> > likely to be true.
>
> The reality is usually different from the initial reports.
But you're not talking about "reports" are you Bigdog? You're talking
about rumors. You do understand the difference don't you?
Do you believe
> a SS agent was killed in the attack? That was in the initial reports.
Newspapers "reporting" an unsubstantiated rumor.
That's not the same thing as quoting a director of the building.
Again, you do understand the difference, I assume?
How
> about the make of the rifle being reported as four different makes of a
> .30 caliber rifle?
Yeah, how about it? If you want to debate that issue, start a separate
thread. What you have there is a mix of misidentifcations from inknown
sources and possible misidentifications from known sources.
Or the man and the woman on the GK who were suspects.
Don't know anything about that. Got a cite?
> Then we have the Reagan shooting. Jim Brady was killed in the attack.
> Reagan wasn't hit. You can put credence in the initial reports if you
> want. I'll go with the verifiable evidence.
Oh boy. You're really reaching now. Separate thread for that, too.
> > That you prefer the story slowy built up over time and culminating in
> > false WC witness testimony, over what those people originally said in
> > police statements and to reporters speaks at best of intellectual
> > laziness. That those early reports corroborate what Oswald said during
> > his interrogations, only heightens the need to have those statements
> > recognized as more pertinent to the case. And finally, that we can see
> > what Oswald said in those interogations, despite efforts to change its
> > meaning to better fit with the official version is largely (but not
> > wholly) thanks to the much maligned Harry Holmes. Though he may have
> > played a part in manufactuaing evidence against Oswald, he appears to
> > have been out of the loop in the false scenario being built around
> > Oswald's whereabouts inside the building - and therefore gave the
> > facts of what Oswald said.
>
> Whether stories are told immediately or later on, they all need to be
> scrutinized and compared to other forms of evidence to determine
> reliability.
Exactly. Truly and Campbell corroborated each other on that first day.
Do you think they were hallucinating? And Oswald confirmed: he was on
the first floor drinking a coke when Baker & Truly came in.
Witnesses are typically unreliable. If they were reliable,
> most of the witnesses would have agreed on what happened. They sure as
> hell didn't.
Hiding behind generalisations doesn't cut it any better than Tony's
ducks and weaves. Address the specifics noted in this thread if you
can.
greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum.htm
http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/
bigdog
Of course I understand the difference. The stuff you believe were reports
and the stuff you don't believe were rumors.
> How
>
> > about the make of the rifle being reported as four different makes of a
> > .30 caliber rifle?
>
> Yeah, how about it? If you want to debate that issue, start a separate
> thread. What you have there is a mix of misidentifcations from inknown
> sources and possible misidentifications from known sources.
>
Like the stuff you want to believe.
> Or the man and the woman on the GK who were suspects.
>
> Don't know anything about that. Got a cite?
>
It was reported by at least one of the networks. I believe it was CBS but
I would have to go through my copy of the CBS coverage to verify that.
No matter how you spin it, what it comes down to is you want to cherry
pick the early reports that agree with what you want to believe and
dismiss all the other early reports as rumor instead of recognizing that
much of what is initially believed turns out not to be true. That isn't
unique to the JFK assassination. It is typical for any big story. Newsmen
scurry around try to gather any piece of information they can and in the
process, they pick up a lot of misinformation. It takes time to seperate
the factual information from the rumors which is why none of the early
reports should be accepted at face value without corroborating evidence.
Anthony Marsh
> On Mar 10, 9:24 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/8/2010 10:11 PM, greg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I guess Tony and his new sidekick David aren't up to the challenge made
>>> asking them to support their argument with examples from the vollumes.
>>
>> Which volumes do you want, WC or HSCA?
>
> Nice dodge. Either will do.
>
>>> So this will really send them into a tizzy.
>>
>>> http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encou...
>>> t42.htm
>>
>> Yeah, you guys really got me stumped with your 404 - NOT FOUND
>
> Again, nice dodge. But you know damn well the link broke upon posting
> - you are also savvy enough to work out how to access the link,.
>
Yeah, I did and it still comes up empty. Just like you.
greg
> On Mar 10, 10:09 pm, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 7:18 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Mar 10, 9:24 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 3/8/2010 10:11 PM, greg wrote:
>
> > > > > > I guess Tony and his new sidekick David aren't up to the challenge made
> > > > > > asking them to support their argument with examples from the vollumes.
>
> > > > > Which volumes do you want, WC or HSCA?
>
> > > > Nice dodge. Either will do.
>
> > > > > > So this will really send them into a tizzy.
>
> > > > > >http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encou...
> > > > > > t42.htm
>
> > > > > Yeah, you guys really got me stumped with your 404 - NOT FOUND
>
> > > > Again, nice dodge. But you know damn well the link broke upon posting
> > > > - you are also savvy enough to work out how to access the link,.
>
>
> > > > There is nothing brilliant about it. The stories that emerged in the
> > > > first 24 hours tell a different story to the one which emerged from
> > > > the WC. I think anyone truly interested in ascertaining what went on
> > > > inside the TSBD during the lunch period and subsequent police
> > > > searches need to take that in to account and weigh up which is most
> > > > likely to be true.
>
>
> > But you're not talking about "reports" are you Bigdog? You're talking
> > about rumors. You do understand the difference don't you?
>
> > Do you believe
>
> > > a SS agent was killed in the attack? That was in the initial reports.
>
> > Newspapers "reporting" an unsubstantiated rumor.
>
> > That's not the same thing as quoting a director of the building.
> > Again, you do understand the difference, I assume?
>
> Of course I understand the difference. The stuff you believe were reports
> and the stuff you don't believe were rumors.
Now now bigdog. I'm reyling on the ordinary meaning of the words in
distinguishing between them.
The Hosty/Bookhout report was not based on rumor. It was based on
Oswald's answers under interrogation.
The Holmes report was not based on rumor. It was based on Oswald's
answers under interrogation.
The Herald Tribune story was not based on rumor. It quoted Occhus
Campbell.
Unconfirmed stories of a Secret Service agent being killed by
definistion, were based on a rumor.
If you are unable or unwilling to grasp the first three examples and
the last, there is no point in continuing.
> > How
>
> > > about the make of the rifle being reported as four different makes of a
> > > .30 caliber rifle?
>
> > Yeah, how about it? If you want to debate that issue, start a separate
> > thread. What you have there is a mix of misidentifcations from inknown
> > sources and possible misidentifications from known sources.
>
> Like the stuff you want to believe.
Give the examples you're allegedly referring to. Otherwise this is
just mud throwing.
> > Or the man and the woman on the GK who were suspects.
>
> > Don't know anything about that. Got a cite?
>
> It was reported by at least one of the networks. I believe it was CBS but
> I would have to go through my copy of the CBS coverage to verify that.
Sounds like another rumor. You are trying for all you're worth to
compare apples to oranges.
None of the evidence I cited was based on rumor.
> > > Then we have the Reagan shooting. Jim Brady was killed in the attack.
> > > Reagan wasn't hit. You can put credence in the initial reports if you
> > > want. I'll go with the verifiable evidence.
>
> > Oh boy. You're really reaching now. Separate thread for that, too.
>
> > > > That you prefer the story slowy built up over time and culminating in
> > > > false WC witness testimony, over what those people originally said in
> > > > police statements and to reporters speaks at best of intellectual
> > > > laziness. That those early reports corroborate what Oswald said during
> > > > his interrogations, only heightens the need to have those statements
> > > > recognized as more pertinent to the case. And finally, that we can see
> > > > what Oswald said in those interogations, despite efforts to change its
> > > > meaning to better fit with the official version is largely (but not
> > > > wholly) thanks to the much maligned Harry Holmes. Though he may have
> > > > played a part in manufactuaing evidence against Oswald, he appears to
> > > > have been out of the loop in the false scenario being built around
> > > > Oswald's whereabouts inside the building - and therefore gave the
> > > > facts of what Oswald said.
>
> > > Whether stories are told immediately or later on, they all need to be
> > > scrutinized and compared to other forms of evidence to determine
> > > reliability.
>
> > Exactly. Truly and Campbell corroborated each other on that first day.
> > Do you think they were hallucinating? And Oswald confirmed: he was on
> > the first floor drinking a coke when Baker & Truly came in.
>
> > Witnesses are typically unreliable. If they were reliable,
>
> > > most of the witnesses would have agreed on what happened. They sure as
> > > hell didn't.
>
> > Hiding behind generalisations doesn't cut it any better than Tony's
> > ducks and weaves. Address the specifics noted in this thread if you
> > can.
>
> No matter how you spin it, what it comes down to is you want to cherry
> pick the early reports that agree with what you want to believe and
> dismiss all the other early reports as rumor
I did no such thing. My conclusions were based on th evidence, not
cherry-picked to fit a theory.
Furthermore. there are no early reports which contradict the evidence
I used. If I am wrong about that, please feel free to cite them.
Lastly, I did not dismiss anything that did not fit as a "rumor". You
are the one wanting to introduce rumors that have nothing to do with
the discussion.
The first report contradicting my findings was not made until the
Saturday by Roy Truly -- but THAT report -- discussing a 2nd a second
floor lunch room encounter was a completely different story to what he
told Fritz within an hour or so of the assassination. We know this
because Fritz himself wrote in a report that Truly told him he had
seen Oswald on the first floor - and this corroborated Kent Biffle's
story already published based on his eavesdropping on that Truly-Fritz
discussion.
instead of recognizing that
> much of what is initially believed turns out not to be true. That isn't
> unique to the JFK assassination. It is typical for any big story. Newsmen
> scurry around try to gather any piece of information they can and in the
> process, they pick up a lot of misinformation. It takes time to seperate
> the factual information from the rumors which is why none of the early
> reports should be accepted at face value without corroborating evidence.
The reports I'm specifically referring to were (a) NOT rumors and (b)
WERE corroborated.
bigdog
Nice job of reversing field. We weren't talking about the reports of
Oswald's interrogation. I responded to your claim about the reliability of
the early reports regarding what went on in the TSBD and in the subsequent
police search of the premises. You tried to use those early unconfirmed
reports to claim they supported Oswald's story. You are trying to advance
rumors to defend Oswald.
> The Herald Tribune story was not based on rumor. It quoted Occhus
> Campbell.
>
> Unconfirmed stories of a Secret Service agent being killed by
> definistion, were based on a rumor.
>
> If you are unable or unwilling to grasp the first three examples and
> the last, there is no point in continuing.
>
> > > How
>
> > > > about the make of the rifle being reported as four different makes of a
> > > > .30 caliber rifle?
>
> > > Yeah, how about it? If you want to debate that issue, start a separate
> > > thread. What you have there is a mix of misidentifcations from inknown
> > > sources and possible misidentifications from known sources.
>
> > Like the stuff you want to believe.
>
> Give the examples you're allegedly referring to. Otherwise this is
> just mud throwing.
>
> > > Or the man and the woman on the GK who were suspects.
>
> > > Don't know anything about that. Got a cite?
>
> > It was reported by at least one of the networks. I believe it was CBS but
> > I would have to go through my copy of the CBS coverage to verify that.
>
> Sounds like another rumor. You are trying for all you're worth to
> compare apples to oranges.
>
No, I'm comparing rotten apples to rotten apples. I'm comparing the
early rumors that you claim are fact to the early rumors were know are
ludicrous. It's a fair comparison.
Early reports of anything are not evidence. Evidence consists of physical
evidence and statements made under oath, none of which supports your
conclusions. The things you are trying to advance are hearsay.
> Furthermore. there are no early reports which contradict the evidence
> I used. If I am wrong about that, please feel free to cite them.
>
When you use real evidence, I will be glad to respond to that.
> Lastly, I did not dismiss anything that did not fit as a "rumor". You
> are the one wanting to introduce rumors that have nothing to do with
> the discussion.
>
> The first report contradicting my findings was not made until the
> Saturday by Roy Truly -- but THAT report -- discussing a 2nd a second
> floor lunch room encounter was a completely different story to what he
> told Fritz within an hour or so of the assassination.
Neither the report nor Fritz's statement constitute evidence. These
are cases of somebody said that somebody said.... This is why courts
do not except hearsay. Everytime a story gets told, there is a very
good chance of the listener not understanding exactly what he is being
told and then he tells it to someone else and the story continues to
get twisted. For the most part, courts insist on first person accounts
of events.
> We know this
> because Fritz himself wrote in a report that Truly told him he had
> seen Oswald on the first floor - and this corroborated Kent Biffle's
> story already published based on his eavesdropping on that Truly-Fritz
> discussion.
>
Somebody said that somebody said...
> instead of recognizing that
>
> > much of what is initially believed turns out not to be true. That isn't
> > unique to the JFK assassination. It is typical for any big story. Newsmen
> > scurry around try to gather any piece of information they can and in the
> > process, they pick up a lot of misinformation. It takes time to seperate
> > the factual information from the rumors which is why none of the early
> > reports should be accepted at face value without corroborating evidence.
>
> The reports I'm specifically referring to were (a) NOT rumors and (b)
> WERE corroborated.
>
Corroborated by whom? Oswald?