How Did The Conspirators Get Oswald To Do This?

[David Von Pein]

Here's a question that I don't recall ever being asked by anyone in
the past:

If Lee Harvey Oswald as being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?

Did the conspirators somehow put Oswald under some kind of a spell,
and then they told him to go to Irving on Thursday and tell a lie
about wanting to retrieve curtain rods?

And there surely isn't a CTer on the planet who will try and say that
Lee Oswald really DIDN'T go to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier on
Nov. 21st....is there?

So, we know for a fact that Oswald did make an unusual trip on Nov. 21
to Ruth Paine's home, which is the location where we also know that
Oswald's rifle was being stored in the Paine garage.

And unless you are a CTer who is buried a mile deep in conspiracy
nonsense, then another fact becomes crystal clear -- Oswald LIED to
Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".

Now, via the scenario of Lee Oswald being a totally innocent "patsy"
regarding everything that happened in Dallas the following day on Nov.
22, I'm just wondering how the conspiracy theorists can provide a
reasonable and logical (and believable) answer to the questions of:

1.) How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
11/21/63?

2.) And how did those very efficient plotters get Oswald to tell the
lie about the curtain rods? (Because all reasonable people know that
LHO's "curtain rod" tale was, indeed, a lie....mainly due to the fact
that NO CURTAIN RODS were ever found in the Book Depository; plus the
fact that if there HAD been any curtain rods at all, Oswald would have
said so to the police; but, instead, he denies he ever mentioned
curtain rods to Buell Frazier.)

3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy
get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on
Nov. 22nd? (Which is a package which, as I just mentioned, we know for
a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)

Those three questions are very important questions to answer in a
reasonable manner if you're a conspiracist who truly thinks Oswald was
just an unwitting patsy in the assassination of the President.

Because unless Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF up as a patsy, it's
rather difficult to find any logical or reasonable answers to those
three questions I just posed that would lead to a conclusion that Lee
Oswald was completely innocent in the events of Nov. 22. Particularly
when those three questions are evaluated and assessed in conjunction
with all of the OTHER things that incriminate Oswald in JFK's murder,
e.g., the guns, the shells, the paper bag on the sixth floor, LHO's
prints being all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located,
etc.

In short -- Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on November 21, 1963, are extremely
powerful evidence that indicate Lee Harvey Oswald was anything BUT an
innocent patsy when it comes to the assassination of President
Kennedy.

David Von Pein
September 28, 2011

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

[Ace Kefford]

Despite the taunting tone, a great post. Questions that in a logical
and rational world would cause the vast majority of conspiracy
believers to adjust their theories.

But if you think they can't wiggle and squiggle out of these
arguments, then you have never seen that worm approaching the hook.
There's always some obscure and irrelevant detail to divert from the
central argument. Once away from the real impact of the message/hook,
it's hard to get them back on point.

Still thanks for trying and if you convert one soul you have done your
job.

Ace

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/28/2011 10:44 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Here's a question that I don't recall ever being asked by anyone in
> the past:

Yes, that's true. It's only been asked 7,102 times before, but can't
remember anything.

>
> If Lee Harvey Oswald as being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>

Not so unusual.

> Did the conspirators somehow put Oswald under some kind of a spell,
> and then they told him to go to Irving on Thursday and tell a lie
> about wanting to retrieve curtain rods?
>

That's someone else's theory. That Ferrie's job was to hypnotize Oswald.
Or someone else's theory that the Oswald was the Manchurian Candidate
being controlled by the CIA's MK/Ultra program.
But I don't think those are the types of theories you want to hear
because you have no way to disprove them. They are just unlikely
possibilities, not physically impossible.
So you want kooks to propose easy to shoot down arguments to make you
look like the hero.

> And there surely isn't a CTer on the planet who will try and say that
> Lee Oswald really DIDN'T go to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier on
> Nov. 21st....is there?
>

No, not really. Because no one REALLY knows. What I have proposed many
times is that this was the last ditch effort to convince Marina to move
back in with him and if successful he would have the whole weekend to
find an apartment big enough for his growing family.
But you don't want to hear reasonable explanations like that. So if I
want to play your game I have to think up something improbable for you
to shoot down to play the hero. Let's see.
OK, they told Oswald that it was take your rifle to work week and they
wanted to see his rifle.
Someone offered to buy his rifle so he went to Irving to get the rifle
to sell at the TSBD.
Oswald couldn't sleep because the curtains were so flimsy in his room so
he went out to the Paines to steal a pair of curtain rods and some room
darkening curtains.
There, is that enough to keep you busy for a while?
Glad to help.

> So, we know for a fact that Oswald did make an unusual trip on Nov. 21
> to Ruth Paine's home, which is the location where we also know that
> Oswald's rifle was being stored in the Paine garage.
>

Not so unusual.

> And unless you are a CTer who is buried a mile deep in conspiracy
> nonsense, then another fact becomes crystal clear -- Oswald LIED to
> Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".
>

You have no way of proving that. You state things as facts because you
can't prove them. You don't know for a fact what Oswald told Frazier.
You weren't there. You only have hearsay.

> Now, via the scenario of Lee Oswald being a totally innocent "patsy"
> regarding everything that happened in Dallas the following day on Nov.
> 22, I'm just wondering how the conspiracy theorists can provide a
> reasonable and logical (and believable) answer to the questions of:
>

And who said that Oswald was a totally innocent patsy regarding
everything that happened in Dallas on Nov. 22? I don't remember anyone
claiming that Oswald was ordered to kill Tippit or that the killing of
Tippit was part of the master plan.
You seem to be stuck in the last century trying to tar all conspiracy
believers as covering up for a guilty man. Like calling for the lynching
of Emile Zola.

> 1.) How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
> 11/21/63?
>

Brain washing? Mind control? Patriotism? Remember his mother's theory
that Oswald was doing his patriotic duty for the CIA removing a dying
President. How about the theory that as an ONI agent Oswald was just
following orders to remove a security risk?

> 2.) And how did those very efficient plotters get Oswald to tell the
> lie about the curtain rods? (Because all reasonable people know that

More loaded questions based on premises you can't prove.

> LHO's "curtain rod" tale was, indeed, a lie....mainly due to the fact
> that NO CURTAIN RODS were ever found in the Book Depository; plus the

Which proves nothing. They didn't find his jacket for several days either.

> fact that if there HAD been any curtain rods at all, Oswald would have

There are curtain rods in the National Archives.

> said so to the police; but, instead, he denies he ever mentioned
> curtain rods to Buell Frazier.)
>

Why should Oswald mention curtain rods? We don't know what Oswald told
the police. The police are empowered to lie about the evidence and what
a suspect said. Did Oswald tell them that he ate lunch that day? Did
Oswald really tell them that he was eating lunch in the Domino room with
two black employees? Do you know what triple hearsay and perjury are?

> 3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy
> get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on
> Nov. 22nd? (Which is a package which, as I just mentioned, we know for
> a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)
>

Yeah, maybe they thought they were buying a pair of curtain rods from him.

> Those three questions are very important questions to answer in a
> reasonable manner if you're a conspiracist who truly thinks Oswald was
> just an unwitting patsy in the assassination of the President.
>

What if we don't want to fall for your lame construction. Can we just
skip your silly questions? What if some conspiracy believers agree with
the HSCA that Oswald was one of the shooters?
Will you still attack them with such venom?

> Because unless Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF up as a patsy, it's

I like that theory. Please expand on it. One possibility is that he was
covering up for someone else. Another is that he knew it was a
conspiracy, but he was assigned to take the fall. Like super patriot
Gordon Liddy who would be perfectly willing to confess to murders he
didn't commit to protect his bosses.

> rather difficult to find any logical or reasonable answers to those
> three questions I just posed that would lead to a conclusion that Lee
> Oswald was completely innocent in the events of Nov. 22. Particularly

What is your preoccupation with saying that Oswald must be completely
innocent of all crimes forever. No one thinks that. Many of agree that
Oswald shot and killed Tippit. Only a few k**ks claim that Oswald did
not shoot at Walker.

> when those three questions are evaluated and assessed in conjunction
> with all of the OTHER things that incriminate Oswald in JFK's murder,
> e.g., the guns, the shells, the paper bag on the sixth floor, LHO's
> prints being all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located,
> etc.
>
> In short -- Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on November 21, 1963, are extremely
> powerful evidence that indicate Lee Harvey Oswald was anything BUT an
> innocent patsy when it comes to the assassination of President
> Kennedy.
>

So, in your perfect world no person is ever framed for murder and such a
thing is impossible.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 10:44 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> Here's a question that I don't recall ever being asked by anyone in
>> the past:
>
> Yes, that's true. It's only been asked 7,102 times before, but can't
> remember anything.
>
>>
>> If Lee Harvey Oswald as being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
>> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
>> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
>> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
>> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>>
>
> Not so unusual.
>
>> Did the conspirators somehow put Oswald under some kind of a spell,
>> and then they told him to go to Irving on Thursday and tell a lie
>> about wanting to retrieve curtain rods?
>>
>
> That's someone else's theory. That Ferrie's job was to hypnotize Oswald.
> Or someone else's theory that the Oswald was the Manchurian Candidate
> being controlled by the CIA's MK/Ultra program.
> But I don't think those are the types of theories you want to hear
> because you have no way to disprove them. They are just unlikely
> possibilities, not physically impossible.

They are impossible. That degree of hypnotic control exists only in
science fiction.

> So you want kooks to propose easy to shoot down arguments to make you
> look like the hero.
>
>> And there surely isn't a CTer on the planet who will try and say that
>> Lee Oswald really DIDN'T go to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier on
>> Nov. 21st....is there?
>>
>
> No, not really. Because no one REALLY knows. What I have proposed many
> times is that this was the last ditch effort to convince Marina to move
> back in with him and if successful he would have the whole weekend to
> find an apartment big enough for his growing family.

How convenient that you've never found a place for Oswald in your theory
of the assassination. You've never decided whether you believe he fired a
shot or knew the person who did, whether he was involved or controlled or
just happened, coincidentally, to do exactly what your conspirators
required so that the crime would be pinned on him.

This means that you don't have to confront the flagrant contradiction that
would be evident here if Oswald were supposed to be part of the conspiracy
you believe in and yet was thinking about backing out of it at the last
minute. He surely would not have continued in that path if he had been
able to start rebuilding a life with Marina.

Enough, enough. I can only take so much of your blather.
/sm

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f142f661ff0417f4/dd43d48936fc52c9?#dd43d48936fc52c9


TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "[Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to Irving, Texas, on Thursday, November 21, 1963 was] Not so unusual." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Name one other time when Oswald went to Irving on a Thursday.

You can't do it. Because it never happened (except for the day before
JFK's assassination).


>>> "You want kooks to propose easy to shoot down arguments to make you
look like the hero." <<<


No. I'm challenging the "kooks" to propose just one reasonable and
believable "Oswald Is Innocent" scenario for Oswald's Thursday-night
trip to Irving and his "curtain rod" tale and his taking a package to
work on 11/22. That's all.

>>> "What I have proposed many times is that this was the last ditch
effort to convince Marina to move back in with him and if successful he
would have the whole weekend to find an apartment big enough for his
growing family." <<<

Yes, I think Oswald did want to get back together quickly with Marina. But
this is only PART of the scenario. He used the "curtain rod" lie for a
reason. And that reason was so that he could use the same curtain rod lie
AGAIN on Friday morning, should he decide he wanted to go ahead with his
plan to bring his rifle to work and shoot the President, which (of course)
he ultimately did decide to do.

Per Buell Frazier, Oswald also said that Marina had made him some curtains
for his rented room. But as far as I am aware, Marina had made no curtains
for her husband at any time. So that was part of the lie too. (Unless you
want to call Wesley Frazier a liar, instead of calling Oswald one, which
is just silly under the circumstances.)

>>> "OK, they told Oswald that it was take your rifle to work week and
they wanted to see his rifle. Someone offered to buy his rifle so he went
to Irving to get the rifle to sell at the TSBD. Oswald couldn't sleep
because the curtains were so flimsy in his room so he went out to the
Paines to steal a pair of curtain rods and some room darkening curtains.
There, is that enough to keep you busy for a while? Glad to help." <<<

Naturally, any CTer can just start making up goofy "alternate" theories to
explain away Oswald's incriminating actions and lies -- as we can see with
the above goofy explanation just now provided by Anthony Marsh above.

But is it REASONABLE and BELIEVABLE under the circumstances and after
we examine the REST of the evidence pertaining to the assassination on
November 22nd?

1.) Oswald's gun is found in the Depository.

2.) Shells from Oswald's gun are found under the sniper's window.

3.) Bullet fragments from Oswald's gun are found in JFK's limousine.

4.) Oswald's prints are all over the place DEEP within the Sniper's
Nest.

5.) Oswald's gun turns up missing from Ruth Paine's garage.

Therefore, given the above facts, is Tony Marsh's explanation a
reasonable one to explain why Oswald went to Irving on Thursday,
11/21/63, and for the "curtain rod" tale that Oswald told Wesley
Frazier?

If anybody answers: "Yes, Dave, Tony's scenario is perfectly
reasonable and believable under the circumstances", then that person
needs a reality check asap.

>>> "You don't know for a fact what Oswald told Frazier. You weren't
there. You only have hearsay." <<<

Well, duh!

Of course all I have is Frazier's "hearsay". But it's "hearsay" that Buell
Frazier has never (ever) recanted or backed away from. Every time he tells
his story, we always hear about how Oswald told Frazier about the curtain
rods.

Tony, are you REALLY willing to call Frazier a liar? Or just mistaken
about hearing the words "curtain rods" come out of Oswald's mouth? Do you
really think Wes Frazier was wrong about that? I doubt you do.

>>> "And who said that Oswald was a totally innocent patsy regarding
everything that happened in Dallas on Nov. 22?" <<<

A lot of conspiracy theorists think Oswald was totally innocent of
shooting the two men that Oswald obviously shot and killed. THAT'S what I
mean when I say that many CTers think Oswald was a "totally innocent
patsy". I'm talking about Oswald being a GUNMAN/KILLER. And you know that,
of course. You just want to argue, which I knew you would when I first
posted this thread at the aaj newsgroup.

>>> "I don't remember anyone claiming that Oswald was ordered to kill
Tippit or that the killing of Tippit was part of the master plan." <<<

You'd better go talk to Jim Garrison's ghost then. Because Kook
Garrison most certainly thought (in 1967 anyway) that the murder of
J.D. Tippit was, indeed, part of the "master plan". Here's exactly
what Garrison told Playboy Magazine in 1967:

"The murder of Tippit, which I am convinced Oswald didn't commit,
was clearly designed to set the stage for Oswald's liquidation in the
Texas Theater after another anonymous tip-off. .... The clincher, as far
as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges were found at the scene of the
[Tippit] slaying. .... We suspect that cartridges had been previously
obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and left at the murder site by the
real killers as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald." -- Jim Garrison;
1967

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jim-garrison-part-1.html


>>> "They didn't find his [Oswald's] jacket for several days either." <<<

Yes, but they DID eventually find that blue jacket, didn't they Tony?
So, logically, if Oswald had really had curtain rods in that package
on Nov. 22, then some rods would have turned up inside the TSBD after
the assassination. But none did, per CE2640 and Roy Truly:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm

>>> "There are curtain rods in the National Archives." <<<

So? Those are Ruth Paine's rods. They certainly aren't rods that were
found in the Book Depository. But, of course, you know this already, Tony.
You just thought it would be nice to throw up that "strawman" about rods
being in the National Archives....even though you know full well that
those are the exact same rods that were still wrapped in Paine's garage
after the assassination. So why even mention those rods? Just for the fun
of it?

>>> "Why should Oswald mention curtain rods? We don't know what Oswald
told the police. The police are empowered to lie about the evidence and
what a suspect said." <<<

"Empowered to lie about the evidence", Tony? You're unbelievable.

>>> "Did Oswald tell them that he ate lunch that day?" <<<

He sure did.

But, naturally, a conspiracy theorist like you feel compelled to point
the blame at the cops, instead of pointing it at the guilty party
(Oswald).

To a CTer like Marsh, apparently the POLICE have a much bigger reason
to tell a bunch of lies than does the accused double-killer named
Oswald. Tony, you're unbelievable.


>>> "What if we don't want to fall for your lame construction[?] Can we

just skip your silly questions?" <<<

I guess not, Tony, since you feel compelled to answer each and every
one.

But since you brought up "lame construction", I'd like to offer up a
response I received from another "out in left field" conspiracist
named Walt Cakebread. Walt was answering my initial question, which
was: How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
11/21/63?

Here is Walt's brilliant reply:

"Answer....They didn't. You're either displaying your dishonesty
or your stupidity by asking this rhetorical question. Oswald's FBI
manipulator had told him that if things happened as the FBI thought
they would during JFK's visit on Friday the stage would be set for him
(LHO) to "flee" to Cuba under suspiction [sic] as "the leader of a
small band of communists' (FPFCC) who had plotted to shoot JFK. His
FBI manipulator told him that if he wanted to see his wife and kids
one last time before "fleeing" on Friday he should use the pretext of
needing curtain rods for his room." -- Walt; 9/29/11

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/d9e8de38a2eabbfd

>>> "What if some conspiracy believers agree with the HSCA that Oswald was
one of the shooters? Will you still attack them with such venom?" <<<

Of course not. But most Internet CTers believe Oswald was NOT a shooter.
Therefore, those CTers are flat-out nuts, and I won't hesitate to call
them that.

>>> "One possibility is that he was covering up for someone else. Another
is that he knew it was a conspiracy, but he was assigned to take the
fall." <<<

And another (more reasonable) possibility is that Oswald acted alone
in killing Kennedy and Tippit. (Which is the scenario the evidence
favors, of course.)

Never thought of that possibility, did you Tony?

>>> "What is your preoccupation with saying that Oswald must be completely

innocent of all crimes forever[?] No one thinks that." <<<

Huh?


>>> "Many agree that Oswald shot and killed Tippit." <<<

You won't find many of those CTers prowling the online forums,
however.


>>> "Only a few kooks claim that Oswald did not shoot at Walker." <<<

Nonsense. Almost every CTer I've ever talked to thinks Oswald was
completely innocent of the Walker shooting too.

The Anybody-But-Oswald kooks almost have to believe that Oswald was
innocent of shooting at Walker too -- because if they were to actually
admit that Oswald had MURDER IN HIS VEINBS (which the Walker shooting
attempt most certainly proves), then it would be a much more difficult
task for those same ABO conspiracy theorists to prop up their fantasy
about Oswald being snow-white innocent of the JFK and Tippit murders too.

>>> "So, in your perfect world no person is ever framed for murder and
such a thing is impossible." <<<

When did I ever say any such thing?

Decided to end your post with a "strawman", eh Tony? Nice.

[bigdog]

On Sep 28, 10:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

Of course these are great questions, David, and I will almost bet you what
the CT response, if any, will be. His handler(s) made him do it. That is
the stock answer whenever the anybody-but-Oswald crowd is asked why Oswald
did so many things that not only made him look guilty, but also left him
without an alibi for the time of the shooting. As if Oswald was a mind
numbed robot who was obediently following their orders without question.
The whole concept of Oswald responding to a handler this way is comical.
It is something the CTs needed to dream up to explain away Oswald's guilty
behaviour, before, during, and after the shooting.

The other thing that is not talked about much by anyone is that Oswald's
curtain rod story makes no sense in light of Oswald's normal pattern. He
would return to Irving after work on Friday to spend Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday with his family, before returning to Dallas on Monday morning,
spending Monday thru Thursday evening at his rooming house. So why would
Oswald make the special trip to Irving on Thursday evening. If he brought
curtain rods with him to work on Friday morning, he wouldn't be able to
take them back to his rooming house anyway if he was planning to return to
Irving on Friday to spend the weekend with his family. The earliest he
would have been returning to his rooming house would be after work on the
following Monday, so why not just stick to his normal routine, pick up the
curtain rods on his weekend trip and bring them into work with him on
Monday. It's almost too obvious that what he picked up at Ruth Paine's
house on Thursday evening was something that he needed before the weekend.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/29/2011 2:21 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f142f661ff0417f4/dd43d48936fc52c9?#dd43d48936fc52c9
>
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>

>>>> "[Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to Irving, Texas, on Thursday, November
21, 1963 was] Not so unusual."<<<

>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Name one other time when Oswald went to Irving on a Thursday.
>

Not my point. Why are you fixated on Thursday. If he went there for
Thanksgiving did he go on Friday afternoon?

> You can't do it. Because it never happened (except for the day before
> JFK's assassination).
>

And if he had gone out on Wednesday you'd be saying the same thing.

>
>>>> "You want kooks to propose easy to shoot down arguments to make you
> look like the hero."<<<
>
>
> No. I'm challenging the "kooks" to propose just one reasonable and
> believable "Oswald Is Innocent" scenario for Oswald's Thursday-night
> trip to Irving and his "curtain rod" tale and his taking a package to
> work on 11/22. That's all.
>

No, you never challenge. You bait.

>
>>>> "What I have proposed many times is that this was the last ditch
> effort to convince Marina to move back in with him and if successful he
> would have the whole weekend to find an apartment big enough for his
> growing family."<<<
>
> Yes, I think Oswald did want to get back together quickly with Marina. But
> this is only PART of the scenario. He used the "curtain rod" lie for a
> reason. And that reason was so that he could use the same curtain rod lie

Now, wait a minute. I thought you were a loyal WC defender. You are
supposed to say he lied to cover up going out to get the rifle. That's an
article of faith with you guys. You're straying from the true religion.

> AGAIN on Friday morning, should he decide he wanted to go ahead with his
> plan to bring his rifle to work and shoot the President, which (of course)
> he ultimately did decide to do.
>

And why does it have to be curtain rods if they don't match his rifle in
size? Why not tent poles? Why not a fishing rod?

> Per Buell Frazier, Oswald also said that Marina had made him some curtains
> for his rented room. But as far as I am aware, Marina had made no curtains
> for her husband at any time. So that was part of the lie too. (Unless you
> want to call Wesley Frazier a liar, instead of calling Oswald one, which
> is just silly under the circumstances.)
>

I am just suggesting that if you want to be an equal opportunity accuser,
don't just accuse the police of lying also accuse Frazier. You may not
realize that there are some people who accuse Frazier of knowingly being
Oswald's accomplice.

>
>>>> "OK, they told Oswald that it was take your rifle to work week and
> they wanted to see his rifle. Someone offered to buy his rifle so he went
> to Irving to get the rifle to sell at the TSBD. Oswald couldn't sleep
> because the curtains were so flimsy in his room so he went out to the
> Paines to steal a pair of curtain rods and some room darkening curtains.
> There, is that enough to keep you busy for a while? Glad to help."<<<
>
>
> Naturally, any CTer can just start making up goofy "alternate" theories to
> explain away Oswald's incriminating actions and lies -- as we can see with
> the above goofy explanation just now provided by Anthony Marsh above.
>

Naturally, any WC defender can just start making up goofy alternative
theories to explain away Oswald's actions.
YOU asked for some goofy explanations, so don't blame me for fulfilling
your request. If you don't want someone to tell, don't ask.

> But is it REASONABLE and BELIEVABLE under the circumstances and after
> we examine the REST of the evidence pertaining to the assassination on
> November 22nd?
>

And who is qualified to judge what is reasonable and believable? Do you
think it is reasonable and believable that Castro paid Oswald $6,500 to
assassinate President Kennedy? Do you think it it reasonable and
believable that Kennedy was shot in the back by an ice bullet which melted
away? It wasn't the conspiracy kooks who proposed those theories. Clean up
your own house first.

> 1.) Oswald's gun is found in the Depository.
>
> 2.) Shells from Oswald's gun are found under the sniper's window.
>
> 3.) Bullet fragments from Oswald's gun are found in JFK's limousine.
>
> 4.) Oswald's prints are all over the place DEEP within the Sniper's
> Nest.
>
> 5.) Oswald's gun turns up missing from Ruth Paine's garage.
>
> Therefore, given the above facts, is Tony Marsh's explanation a
> reasonable one to explain why Oswald went to Irving on Thursday,
> 11/21/63, and for the "curtain rod" tale that Oswald told Wesley
> Frazier?
>

Which explanation? I offered you several. We can vote on them.

> If anybody answers: "Yes, Dave, Tony's scenario is perfectly
> reasonable and believable under the circumstances", then that person
> needs a reality check asap.
>
>
>>>> "You don't know for a fact what Oswald told Frazier. You weren't
> there. You only have hearsay."<<<
>
> Well, duh!
>
> Of course all I have is Frazier's "hearsay". But it's "hearsay" that Buell
> Frazier has never (ever) recanted or backed away from. Every time he tells
> his story, we always hear about how Oswald told Frazier about the curtain
> rods.

That you know.

>
> Tony, are you REALLY willing to call Frazier a liar? Or just mistaken
> about hearing the words "curtain rods" come out of Oswald's mouth? Do you
> really think Wes Frazier was wrong about that? I doubt you do.
>

I don't think Frazier was a liar. I am not allowed to call the WC
defenders liars. I don't mind calling the police and the government
liars. I prove that Posner and Bugliosi and Gus Russo and Lattimer are
liars.

>
>>>> "And who said that Oswald was a totally innocent patsy regarding
> everything that happened in Dallas on Nov. 22?"<<<
>
> A lot of conspiracy theorists think Oswald was totally innocent of

A lot? Ok, I'll grant you that, all 12 or 13. The prolem is your
Bugliosi tactic of tarring all people with the same broad brush.

> shooting the two men that Oswald obviously shot and killed. THAT'S what I
> mean when I say that many CTers think Oswald was a "totally innocent
> patsy". I'm talking about Oswald being a GUNMAN/KILLER. And you know that,
> of course. You just want to argue, which I knew you would when I first
> posted this thread at the aaj newsgroup.
>
>

And that is WHY you started this thread. To bait me. Because you KNEW
that there would be no one else with the patience to take on your
nonsense point by point.

>>>> "I don't remember anyone claiming that Oswald was ordered to kill
> Tippit or that the killing of Tippit was part of the master plan."<<<
>
> You'd better go talk to Jim Garrison's ghost then. Because Kook
> Garrison most certainly thought (in 1967 anyway) that the murder of
> J.D. Tippit was, indeed, part of the "master plan". Here's exactly
> what Garrison told Playboy Magazine in 1967:
>

Maybe in 1967. Why not also refer to what Tink believed in 1967 as if it
is an absolute?

> "The murder of Tippit, which I am convinced Oswald didn't commit,
> was clearly designed to set the stage for Oswald's liquidation in the
> Texas Theater after another anonymous tip-off. .... The clincher, as far
> as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges were found at the scene of the
> [Tippit] slaying. .... We suspect that cartridges had been previously
> obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and left at the murder site by the
> real killers as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald." -- Jim Garrison;
> 1967
>

I think I already explained that some people had that theory.
Why not bring up Tink's misinterpretation of the dented lip? Or the
Mentasana film showing the second rifle? I was on the forefront of
explaining to these guys in person why they were wrong. What were you
doing then, interviewing strippers?

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jim-garrison-part-1.html
>
>
>>>> "They didn't find his [Oswald's] jacket for several days either."<<<
>
> Yes, but they DID eventually find that blue jacket, didn't they Tony?
> So, logically, if Oswald had really had curtain rods in that package
> on Nov. 22, then some rods would have turned up inside the TSBD after
> the assassination. But none did, per CE2640 and Roy Truly:
>

No. Logical fallacy.

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm
>
>
>>>> "There are curtain rods in the National Archives."<<<
>
> So? Those are Ruth Paine's rods. They certainly aren't rods that were
> found in the Book Depository. But, of course, you know this already, Tony.

Yes, and I have suggested that Oswald stole Michael Paine's curtain rods.

> You just thought it would be nice to throw up that "strawman" about rods
> being in the National Archives....even though you know full well that
> those are the exact same rods that were still wrapped in Paine's garage
> after the assassination. So why even mention those rods? Just for the fun
> of it?
>
>
>
>>>> "Why should Oswald mention curtain rods? We don't know what Oswald
> told the police. The police are empowered to lie about the evidence and
> what a suspect said."<<<
>
> "Empowered to lie about the evidence", Tony? You're unbelievable.
>

It's a simple facts which has been pointed out by prosecutors in
documentaries, that the police are allowed by law to lie about the
evidence to mislead the suspect and the public.

>
>>>> "Did Oswald tell them that he ate lunch that day?"<<<
>
> He sure did.
>
> But, naturally, a conspiracy theorist like you feel compelled to point
> the blame at the cops, instead of pointing it at the guilty party
> (Oswald).
>

Well, it was the police who arrested Oswald. I hope I didn't
accidentally neglect the FBI and the CIA.

> To a CTer like Marsh, apparently the POLICE have a much bigger reason
> to tell a bunch of lies than does the accused double-killer named
> Oswald. Tony, you're unbelievable.
>

The police always have a much bigger reason to tell a bunch of lies than
does the accused killer. Look at the Charles Stuart case. They will use
any trick to convict the accused.

>
>>>> "What if we don't want to fall for your lame construction[?] Can we
> just skip your silly questions?"<<<
>
> I guess not, Tony, since you feel compelled to answer each and every
> one.
>
> But since you brought up "lame construction", I'd like to offer up a
> response I received from another "out in left field" conspiracist
> named Walt Cakebread. Walt was answering my initial question, which
> was: How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
> 11/21/63?
>
> Here is Walt's brilliant reply:
>
> "Answer....They didn't. You're either displaying your dishonesty
> or your stupidity by asking this rhetorical question. Oswald's FBI
> manipulator had told him that if things happened as the FBI thought
> they would during JFK's visit on Friday the stage would be set for him
> (LHO) to "flee" to Cuba under suspiction [sic] as "the leader of a
> small band of communists' (FPFCC) who had plotted to shoot JFK. His
> FBI manipulator told him that if he wanted to see his wife and kids
> one last time before "fleeing" on Friday he should use the pretext of
> needing curtain rods for his room." -- Walt; 9/29/11
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/d9e8de38a2eabbfd
>

Ok, explain why you are being allowed to quote wording from another
newsgroup that I would be forbidden and banned from posting here? Of
course Walt Brown would say things like that. I have battled him many
times. He is a kook. So what?

>
>>>> "What if some conspiracy believers agree with the HSCA that Oswald was
> one of the shooters? Will you still attack them with such venom?"<<<
>
> Of course not. But most Internet CTers believe Oswald was NOT a shooter.

You don't know that for a fact. You can not take an unbiased survey.
On another forum they do have a function to take polls, but it is
automatically biased by the membership and how the questions are phrased.
We did take a poll at one of the conferences. Look that up. About 500
researchers and not all were conspiracy kooks.

> Therefore, those CTers are flat-out nuts, and I won't hesitate to call
> them that.
>

Now, wait a minute. Is this a battle of one-upsmanhip? I only call them
kooks, but you one-up me by calling them flat-out nuts? I'll have to
take off a couple of weeks to think up some more stiff terms.

>
>>>> "One possibility is that he was covering up for someone else. Another
> is that he knew it was a conspiracy, but he was assigned to take the
> fall."<<<
>
> And another (more reasonable) possibility is that Oswald acted alone
> in killing Kennedy and Tippit. (Which is the scenario the evidence
> favors, of course.)
>

Nope.

> Never thought of that possibility, did you Tony?
>

I think you were not here for the first 9,742 times that I stated that I
am open to the possibility that Oswald was involved in the Kennedy
conspiracy, but doubt that he was a shooter.

>
>>>> "What is your preoccupation with saying that Oswald must be completely
> innocent of all crimes forever[?] No one thinks that."<<<
>
> Huh?
>

You made a straw man argument.

>
>>>> "Many agree that Oswald shot and killed Tippit."<<<
>
> You won't find many of those CTers prowling the online forums,
> however.
>

You will find some. If you learn to stop painting with a broad brush.
Some newsgroups attract the most fanatical from both sides.

>
>>>> "Only a few kooks claim that Oswald did not shoot at Walker."<<<
>
> Nonsense. Almost every CTer I've ever talked to thinks Oswald was
> completely innocent of the Walker shooting too.
>

Silly. That's not even true here. And I was the one who explained WHY
Oswald missed while all you WC defenders were befuddled.

> The Anybody-But-Oswald kooks almost have to believe that Oswald was
> innocent of shooting at Walker too -- because if they were to actually
> admit that Oswald had MURDER IN HIS VEINBS (which the Walker shooting
> attempt most certainly proves), then it would be a much more difficult
> task for those same ABO conspiracy theorists to prop up their fantasy
> about Oswald being snow-white innocent of the JFK and Tippit murders too.
>

Now, wait a minute. Why don't we up the ante and add you to the group
which thinks Oswald killed Schrand as well?

>
>
>>>> "So, in your perfect world no person is ever framed for murder and
> such a thing is impossible."<<<
>
> When did I ever say any such thing?

You seem not to understand that it does happen.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not my theory, but someone has a theory that Oswald was the inside man
to let the shooters in and be the lookout, locking up the elevator so
they wouldn't be disturbed. I have said that I doubt that Oswald was a
shooter.
Do you think the conspirators got him to defect to Russia?
Do you think the conspirators impersonated Oswald in Mexico?

> This means that you don't have to confront the flagrant contradiction
> that would be evident here if Oswald were supposed to be part of the
> conspiracy you believe in and yet was thinking about backing out of it
> at the last minute. He surely would not have continued in that path if
> he had been able to start rebuilding a life with Marina.
>

I don't have any theory about Oswald backing out of the conspiracy.
Some kook has a theory that he intentionally missed to expose the
conspiracy, forcing the shot from the grassy knoll.
The question the police was Did you shoot the President not Did you
shoot AT the President. Nor Did you shoot your rifle in Dealey Plaza.
Oswald never said that he never shot AT anybody.

[jas]

David, good points all. However, you should know by now that CTs don't
usually apply common sense and rational logic to their mode of thinking.

[Village Theatre Guild]

On Sep 29, 1:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0...

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...

Oswald was told to bring his gun to the TSBD by David Atlee. He is
supposedly going to sell it.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I don't believe he was part of any conspiracy.

> > This means that you don't have to confront the flagrant contradiction
> > that would be evident here if Oswald were supposed to be part of the
> > conspiracy you believe in and yet was thinking about backing out of it
> > at the last minute. He surely would not have continued in that path if
> > he had been able to start rebuilding a life with Marina.
>
> I don't have any theory about Oswald backing out of the conspiracy.

Right. Again: you don't have any clear theory about Oswald's involvement
or non-involvement with any conspiracy, so you can accept the notion that
he was giving Marina one last chance to restart their life together the
night before the assassination without considering that a man involved in
a conspiracy of this sort would have a hard time changing direction at
that point or considering out he might have done it. Like, he could have
called in sick or something? Ha ha.

> Some kook has a theory that he intentionally missed to expose the
> conspiracy, forcing the shot from the grassy knoll.
> The question the police was Did you shoot the President not Did you
> shoot AT the President. Nor Did you shoot your rifle in Dealey Plaza.
> Oswald never said that he never shot AT anybody.
>
>

I have no idea what you think you're replying to there.
/sm

[davidemerling]

Also, if the intent was to frame Oswald, how did the conspirators
control Oswald from having an ironclad alibi? For instance, what if
Oswald was standing on the steps of the building alongside numerous
other TSBD employees? He would have probably been photographed there
(as in the Altgens photo) or several employees would have said, "Lee
was standing right next to me when the shots rang out."

NOTE: Please, spare me any lame argument that Oswald *was*
photographed by Altgens. That has been proven to be Billy Lovelady and
even Oswald, himself, never claimed to have been at that location. If
he was, don't you think he would have said so? (http://
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens.jpg)

There are countless things he could have done and places he could have
been during the shooting that would have given him an ironclad alibi -
thus neutralizing any attempt to frame him. How could he be an
unwitting patsy and nobody having control of his actions?

Of course - the standard conspiracy retort to this is: How do you
*know* they didn't control his actions?

I don't. But, then again, there is no evidence or proof that ANYBODY
was controlling his actions.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

On Sep 29, 10:26 pm, Village Theatre Guild

<villagetheatregu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oswald was told to bring his gun to the TSBD by David Atlee. He is
> supposedly going to sell it.

And the evidence that this happened
is ......................................?

[Questionin]

Playing devil's advocate here.
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e82158f-06a1-44f6...@g23g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

We only have Frazier's word for this evidence. Backed by his sister's word.
But no body questions why would Frazier bring a rifle into the building.
Maybe the FBI threatened him so he turned on his only friend.

>
> 3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy
> get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on
> Nov. 22nd? (Which is a package which, as I just mentioned, we know for
> a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)

Funny. Why not check out the WC evidence? It shows the rifle with a ruler.
And the brown rifle bag and the ruler. None of the measurements match. First
the bag was smaller than the rifle. And 2nd Frazier's "eyewitness" testimony
states he saw that the package was a foot shorter than the bag. But he never
said it looked bulky or heavy?

Mrs Bledshoe claimed to have known Oswald and sworn in affidavids she was on
the bus with Oswald after the assassination. But the clothing she described
wasn't Oswald but the very same as the cloths belonging to Lovelady. No one
questioned her further.

[Chuck Schuyler]

> /sm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Marsh currently believes that around a dozen people carried out the
assassination in an exotic plot involving insurance shooter(s) to kill
the POTUS from the front, if the TSBD shooter(s) goofed up, and that
thousands were accesories after the fact---actively covering it up for
fear of WWlll, etc. Humorously, he considers his theory to be a "small
conspiracy."

If he was forced to confront the contradictions you alluded to above,
he'd need to reexamine the whole thing and recognize many more people
would need to be involved on the front end of the shooting, with
additional hundreds of people involved in the cover-up.

[markusp]

On Sep 30, 8:25 am, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, if the intent was to frame Oswald, how did the conspirators
> control Oswald from having an ironclad alibi?

They likely already had that assurance when Oswald was recruited for
low-level intelligence missions. Certainly a covert intelligence
operation will not groom an operative that they suspect may possess an
independent streak and establish alibis. First, the note to Mr. Hunt
was confirmed to be in Oswald's writing. Perhaps Oswald was troubled
by his role. That note's existence (former existence) can be most
logically interpreted that Oswald held suspicions about his role.
Other explanations for that note are difficult to accept. Second, if
Oswald (or any other operative) were to engage in the preliminary
events leading up to the murder, such as ordering a rifle through an
alias, attend local rifle ranges and cause a ruckus, then he would
have an awfully difficult time proclaiming innocence for pulling the
trigger, yet explain other evidence that is certainly incriminating.

For instance, what if
> Oswald was standing on the steps of the building alongside numerous
> other TSBD employees? He would have probably been photographed there
> (as in the Altgens photo) or several employees would have said, "Lee
> was standing right next to me when the shots rang out."

That remains a very valid question. If the conspirators intended to
finger him as the lone patsy, yet hard evidence was discovered to
exist that proves he was elsewhere, this would have been anticipated.
In that case, the actual shooters would not be known to him (Oswald),
so the conspirators could simply then lean back and think, "Okay, this
Oswald scenario didn't work out, but good luck in trying to find the
real killers." With the orchestration that seems to have been in place
for the Mexico City charade, as well as Oswald's overt activities
while in NOLA, it can logically be viewed as having Cubans, whether
anti- or pro-Castro, be the bad guys.

> NOTE: Please, spare me any lame argument that Oswald *was*
> photographed by Altgens. That has been proven to be Billy Lovelady and
> even Oswald, himself, never claimed to have been at that location. If
> he was, don't you think he would have said so? (http://
> mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens.jpg)

Spot on with that one. It was Lovelady. Also, George H.W. Bush was not
in DP that day either. The man pointed out to allegedly be him by a
few CT's is unquestionably Det. Gus Rose.

> There are countless things he could have done and places he could have
> been during the shooting that would have given him an ironclad alibi -
> thus neutralizing any attempt to frame him. How could he be an
> unwitting patsy and nobody having control of his actions?

For the same reason that we don't hire kids to mow our lawns that we
suspect won't perform the duty as we expect.

> Of course - the standard conspiracy retort to this is: How do you
> *know* they didn't control his actions?

If I had proof of it, I'd have provided it already. Claims of control
are easy to assert, but next to impossible to prove. It does appear to
me that some guidance was in place for his actions up to the point of
him being in the lunch room immediately after. Beyond that point, it
sure looks like he went into a controlled panic and fled as
inconspicuously as he could. One aspect that I don't think is
considered enough is that Oswald attempted to phone "Mr. Abt". This
tells me that he may very well have believed that if he performed his
role perfectly, yet still somehow managed to be arrested or charged,
he would be exonerated through support from those ethereal
intelligence higher-ups.

> I don't. But, then again, there is no evidence or proof that ANYBODY
> was controlling his actions.

The Dallas police certainly did, with the midnight Kangaroo court
press conference.
~Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, they could make the photo disappear. Or alter it.
So what if someone said Oswald was standing next to him? Just call him a
kook and kill him.

> NOTE: Please, spare me any lame argument that Oswald *was*
> photographed by Altgens. That has been proven to be Billy Lovelady and
> even Oswald, himself, never claimed to have been at that location. If
> he was, don't you think he would have said so? (http://
> mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens.jpg)
>
> There are countless things he could have done and places he could have
> been during the shooting that would have given him an ironclad alibi -
> thus neutralizing any attempt to frame him. How could he be an
> unwitting patsy and nobody having control of his actions?
>

The shooting only took about 9 seconds. Why does Oswald need a specific
alibi for those 9 seconds beyond an alibi for the rest of the time? If he
had an alibi up to that 9 seconds by being in the Domino Room do you think
he could get up to the sixth floor and fire those shots then get back to
the Domino Room all within 9 seconds?

> Of course - the standard conspiracy retort to this is: How do you
> *know* they didn't control his actions?
>

How do you KNOW they didn't control the evidence and the witnesses? Like
tell a witness that she should not go around telling people that she heard
6 shots. Or changing the newspaper to remove a reference to shots from the
knoll?

[Anthony Marsh]

That was not the question. Try answering my questions. One theory is that
he did not know he was being set up as the patsy by the conspirators. Just
following orders. Be at a certain corner at a certain time and await
further orders.

>
>>> This means that you don't have to confront the flagrant contradiction
>>> that would be evident here if Oswald were supposed to be part of the
>>> conspiracy you believe in and yet was thinking about backing out of it
>>> at the last minute. He surely would not have continued in that path if
>>> he had been able to start rebuilding a life with Marina.
>>
>> I don't have any theory about Oswald backing out of the conspiracy.
>
> Right. Again: you don't have any clear theory about Oswald's involvement
> or non-involvement with any conspiracy, so you can accept the notion that
> he was giving Marina one last chance to restart their life together the
> night before the assassination without considering that a man involved in
> a conspiracy of this sort would have a hard time changing direction at
> that point or considering out he might have done it. Like, he could have
> called in sick or something? Ha ha.
>

Why would he call in sick?
I did not say that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy.

[jas]

One thing one learns when asking a CT for evidence is don't hold one's
breath.

[bobr]

On 9/28/2011 9:44 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>

Oswald was part of the conspiracy. He was located in the TSBD. It is
possible that he even fired the rifle. However the actual assassins were
located in possibly two completely different buildings. The only shooter
that day who fired more than one shot was Oswald. The other assassins each
fired one shot only.

If only Oswald was firing the president would have survuved. It was
assassins at the two other locations firing two shots almost
simultaneously when they reached the grassy knoll that struck the
president in the head and killed him.

Oswald was not the "lone gunman".

[Anthony Marsh]

How, wait a second. Why can't our stock response be that DVP's
handler(s) made him write this?

> did so many things that not only made him look guilty, but also left him
> without an alibi for the time of the shooting. As if Oswald was a mind
> numbed robot who was obediently following their orders without question.

Yes, sounds like a lot of the WC defenders here.

> The whole concept of Oswald responding to a handler this way is comical.
> It is something the CTs needed to dream up to explain away Oswald's guilty
> behaviour, before, during, and after the shooting.
>
> The other thing that is not talked about much by anyone is that Oswald's
> curtain rod story makes no sense in light of Oswald's normal pattern. He
> would return to Irving after work on Friday to spend Friday, Saturday, and
> Sunday with his family, before returning to Dallas on Monday morning,
> spending Monday thru Thursday evening at his rooming house. So why would
> Oswald make the special trip to Irving on Thursday evening. If he brought
> curtain rods with him to work on Friday morning, he wouldn't be able to
> take them back to his rooming house anyway if he was planning to return to
> Irving on Friday to spend the weekend with his family. The earliest he
> would have been returning to his rooming house would be after work on the
> following Monday, so why not just stick to his normal routine, pick up the
> curtain rods on his weekend trip and bring them into work with him on
> Monday. It's almost too obvious that what he picked up at Ruth Paine's
> house on Thursday evening was something that he needed before the weekend.
>

That's right. We've only written about it thousands of times, but you've
never seen those messages.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Really funny, coming from you.

> One theory is that
> he did not know he was being set up as the patsy by the conspirators. Just
> following orders. Be at a certain corner at a certain time and await
> further orders.
>
>

But if he was duped into behaving in such a way as to get himself
framed, that means he *was* part of the conspiracy, though it would
not have been the conspiracy he imagined or the part he would have
wanted.
If you think *that*, that on November 22, 1963, he was following
orders from some figures in the shadows, then how could you entertain
the (otherwise quite plausible, and what I think happened) notion that
Oswald was hoping Marina would agree to come back to him that last
night in Irving?
But of course any notion of what Oswald was up to that day is always
someone else's theory, in your telling.
You won't commit to any theory about that (lest it be criticized).

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> This means that you don't have to confront the flagrant contradiction
> >>> that would be evident here if Oswald were supposed to be part of the
> >>> conspiracy you believe in and yet was thinking about backing out of it
> >>> at the last minute. He surely would not have continued in that path if
> >>> he had been able to start rebuilding a life with Marina.
>
> >> I don't have any theory about Oswald backing out of the conspiracy.
>
> > Right. Again: you don't have any clear theory about Oswald's involvement
> > or non-involvement with any conspiracy, so you can accept the notion that
> > he was giving Marina one last chance to restart their life together the
> > night before the assassination without considering that a man involved in
> > a conspiracy of this sort would have a hard time changing direction at
> > that point or considering out he might have done it. Like, he could have
> > called in sick or something? Ha ha.
>
> Why would he call in sick?
> I did not say that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy.
>

Of course not.
And you have not said that he wasn't.
You'd never pin yourself down like that.

Oswald has an infinitely mutable position in your "theory."
You've never decided how you think he fits in.

Yet you seem pretty darn sure Richard Helms and Frank Bender were part
of what went down.
Mind-boggling.

/sm

[bigdog]

Even funnier is that he considers other conspiracy theories to be
wacky.

[bigdog]

On Sep 30, 7:57 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:25 am, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, if the intent was to frame Oswald, how did the conspirators
> > control Oswald from having an ironclad alibi?
>
> They likely already had that assurance when Oswald was recruited for
> low-level intelligence missions. Certainly a covert intelligence
> operation will not groom an operative that they suspect may possess an
> independent streak and establish alibis. First, the note to Mr. Hunt
> was confirmed to be in Oswald's writing. Perhaps Oswald was troubled
> by his role. That note's existence (former existence) can be most
> logically interpreted that Oswald held suspicions about his role.
> Other explanations for that note are difficult to accept. Second, if
> Oswald (or any other operative) were to engage in the preliminary
> events leading up to the murder, such as ordering a rifle through an
> alias, attend local rifle ranges and cause a ruckus, then he would
> have an awfully difficult time proclaiming innocence for pulling the
> trigger, yet explain other evidence that is certainly incriminating.
>

Really. You think these conspirators were planning the assassination
the previous spring before any presidential trip was planned. Do you
think they knew that come fall, Oswald would be working in a building
overlooking a motorcade route that hadn't been selected yet for a
presidential trip that wasn't even planned. What amazing foresight
these guys had.

>  For instance, what if
>
> > Oswald was standing on the steps of the building alongside numerous
> > other TSBD employees? He would have probably been photographed there
> > (as in the Altgens photo) or several employees would have said, "Lee
> > was standing right next to me when the shots rang out."
>
> That remains a very valid question. If the conspirators intended to
> finger him as the lone patsy, yet hard evidence was discovered to
> exist that proves he was elsewhere, this would have been anticipated.
> In that case, the actual shooters would not be known to him (Oswald),
> so the conspirators could simply then lean back and think, "Okay, this
> Oswald scenario didn't work out, but good luck in trying to find the
> real killers." With the orchestration that seems to have been in place
> for the Mexico City charade, as well as Oswald's overt activities
> while in NOLA, it can logically be viewed as having Cubans, whether
> anti- or pro-Castro, be the bad guys.
>

Or maybe a little nobody stuck his cheap little rifle out a window and
shot a guy less than 90 yards away. Is that too complex an idea?

Or maybe he had just shot JFK and was trying to leave the scene when
he heard footsteps coming up the stairway and he ducked into the
lunchroom to avoid being spotted.

> > I don't. But, then again, there is no evidence or proof that ANYBODY
> > was controlling his actions.
>
> The Dallas police certainly did, with the midnight Kangaroo court
> press conference.

They had him in custody. Nobody was controlling his actions.

[bigdog]

You mean I can breath now?

Thank you.

[bigdog]

On Sep 30, 10:46 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 9:44 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> Oswald was part of the conspiracy. He was located in the TSBD. It is
> possible that he even fired the rifle.

You think?

> However the actual assassins were
> located in possibly two completely different buildings. The only shooter
> that day who fired more than one shot was Oswald. The other assassins each
> fired one shot only.
>

And since there were zero other assassins, 0 X 1 = 0.

> If only Oswald was firing the president would have survuved.

Oh really. It takes more than one shooter to kill somebody?

> It was
> assassins at the two other locations firing two shots almost
> simultaneously when they reached the grassy knoll that struck the
> president in the head and killed him.
>

Funny that only fragments from Oswald's gun were found.

> Oswald was not the "lone gunman".

Just the only one for who any evidence exists.

[Anthony Marsh]

I never said shooters plural. One shooter behind the fence who took one
shot, only at the end.

> the POTUS from the front, if the TSBD shooter(s) goofed up, and that
> thousands were accesories after the fact---actively covering it up for
> fear of WWlll, etc. Humorously, he considers his theory to be a "small
> conspiracy."
>

I never said Accessories After the Fact. You are thinking of Sylvia Meagher.

[clarkw...@charter.net]

On Sep 28, 7:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's a question that I don't recall ever being asked by anyone in
> the past:

An indication you have a short memory,

>
> If Lee Harvey Oswald as being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case),

Do LNer's preclude Oswald's voluntarily being set up? If so, when did
this momentous occassion occur?

> I'm
> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?

Clearly, Lee voluntarily did that, And my reply is:

So what?

I bought gas in my car today. Who was I planninmg to assasinate?
Visiting your wife is not evidence of an assassination plan.

It seems this is another case of LNer's experiencing a "Homer Simpson"
moment.

>
> Did the conspirators somehow put Oswald under some kind of a spell,
> and then they told him to go to Irving on Thursday and tell a lie
> about wanting to retrieve curtain rods?

Duh! Another "Homer Simpson" moment. Show there's a rifle in the
paperbag he took to work the next morning.

You can't do it. It's impossible. No LNer ever has.

Correctly claiming it doesn't contain "curtain rods" is not evidence
it contained a rifle. It has been demonstrated conclusively on this
site that there is no more evidence the bag contained a disassembled
rifle than it contained the disassembled Russian battleship Marat,
with a crew of 800 men.

>
> And there surely isn't a CTer on the planet who will try and say that
> Lee Oswald really DIDN'T go to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier on
> Nov. 21st....is there?

Which only proves that, given 48 years to do so, an LNer can get a
fact right,

>
> So, we know for a fact that Oswald did make an unusual trip on Nov. 21
> to Ruth Paine's home, which is the location where we also know that
> Oswald's rifle was being stored in the Paine garage.

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence the rifle was in the Paine's garage on
November 21. This is an outright proven LN fantasy. If you have such
proof, POST IT. Otherwise, stand in line behind all the other LNer's
who had their dog "eat their evidence."

Never mind. You can't. You're an LNer and therefore you have no
evidence.

>
> And unless you are a CTer who is buried a mile deep in conspiracy
> nonsense, then another fact becomes crystal clear -- Oswald LIED to
> Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".

Doh! Another "Homer Simpson" moment! The only thing that becomes
"crystal clear" is that LHO lied to Frazier. There's STILL no rifle
in the paperbag. If there is, PROVE IT.

You can't because there isn't. There is NO RIFLE in the paperbag,
disassembled, miniatururized, or CUT IN HALF. It's am LN FANTASY.

If it's not a fantasy, PROVE IT'S NOT.

Never mind. You can't. You're an LNer and therefore you have no
evidence.

You destroy your own case before you even begin.

>
> Now, via the scenario of Lee Oswald being a totally innocent "patsy"
> regarding everything that happened in Dallas the following day on Nov.
> 22, I'm just wondering how the conspiracy theorists can provide a
> reasonable and logical (and believable) answer to the questions of:
>

> 1.) How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
> 11/21/63?

How did those amazing plotters get him to go to Irving on 11/9/63? If
there is no connection between the 11/09/63 trip, how can you claim an
11/21/63 trip connection?

Never mind. You can't. You're an LNer and therefore you have no
evidence.

>
> 2.) And how did those very efficient plotters get Oswald to tell the
> lie about the curtain rods?

Here's a suggestion. Read your own post. You already covered this -
And failed. The bag didn't contain curtainrods. The burden of proof
is on YOU to prove it contained a rifle.

Never mind. You can't. You're an LNer and therefore you have no
evidence.

> (Because all reasonable people know that
> LHO's "curtain rod" tale was, indeed, a lie....mainly due to the fact
> that NO CURTAIN RODS were ever found in the Book Depository;

So it took you 48 years to figure this out? Do I have to wait another
48 years before you get something else right? Because some of us
aren't willing to wait/live that long.

> plus the
> fact that if there HAD been any curtain rods at all, Oswald would have
> said so to the police; but, instead, he denies he ever mentioned
> curtain rods to Buell Frazier.)

WOW! You are an intellectual GIANT! And it only took you 48 years to
think of this? How could the rest of us NOT see this? My God! We
must be as stupid as - as what - as LNer's!

>
> 3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy
> get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on
> Nov. 22nd? (Which is a package which, as I just mentioned, we know for
> a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)

Demonstrate you know for a FACT that it contained a rifle. It's
already been demonstrated on this very site, repeatedly, that it could
just as easily contain the Russian battleship Marat (or even the
Bismark) with a crew of 800 men.

So how did you get from it not containing curtain rods to its
containing a rifle?

Never mind. You can't. You're an LNer and therefore you have no
evidence.

>
> Those three questions are very important questions to answer in a
> reasonable manner if you're a conspiracist who truly thinks Oswald was
> just an unwitting patsy in the assassination of the President.

And what if he was willing?

Or is this yet another "Homer Simpson" moment for the LN population?
What else can we sell them? The Brooklyn Bridge? Oh! I know! "Case
Closed" by Gerald Posner. Don't have a copy? Just look up FICTION in
your local library.

>
> Because unless Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF up as a patsy, it's
> rather difficult to find any logical or reasonable answers to those
> three questions I just posed that would lead to a conclusion that Lee
> Oswald was completely innocent in the events of Nov. 22.

You set the criteria. Having made an IMPOSSIBLE CASE for which you
can't PROVE a SINGLE POINT in your favor ("Never mind. You can't.
You're an LNer and therefore you have no evidence.") you then list the
ONLY REMAINING ALTERNATIVE.

The best way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own
evidence. :)

Unless you can dig yourself out of the hole you dug yourself (which
you can't), then you must accept the argument that you, yourself,
reached as the obvious conclusion ("Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF
up as a patsy"). Because UNLESS you have some evidence to the
contrary (And you can't. You're an LNer and therefore you have no
evidence.) then that is ONLY conclusion that fits the evidence.

It's your logic. Disprove yourself.

Never mind. You can't. You're an LNer and therefore you have no
evidence.

>Particularly
> when those three questions are evaluated and assessed in conjunction
> with all of the OTHER things that incriminate Oswald in JFK's murder,
> e.g., the guns, the shells, the paper bag on the sixth floor, LHO's
> prints being all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located,
> etc.

And this disproves your claim that "Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF
up as a patsy" exactly HOW?

Or did your dog eat your evidence?

That happens to ALL LNer's around here. You guy's need to learn to
feed your dogs so that you can actually POST some EVIDENCE.

>
> In short -- Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on November 21, 1963, are extremely
> powerful evidence that indicate Lee Harvey Oswald was anything BUT an
> innocent patsy when it comes to the assassination of President
> Kennedy.
>

WOW! I'm stunned! It only took you 48 years to figure this out! Now
ALL you have to do is PROVE Oswald acted alone.

Never mind. You can't. You're an LNer and therefore you have no
evidence.

I'd offer to lend you a shovel to dig your way out of the hole you dig
yourself but I'd like to have it back within the next 48 years.


::Clark::

[Anthony Marsh]

When are YOU going to learn how to upload a document?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2011 7:57 PM, markusp wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:25 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, if the intent was to frame Oswald, how did the conspirators
>> control Oswald from having an ironclad alibi?
>
> They likely already had that assurance when Oswald was recruited for
> low-level intelligence missions. Certainly a covert intelligence
> operation will not groom an operative that they suspect may possess an
> independent streak and establish alibis. First, the note to Mr. Hunt
> was confirmed to be in Oswald's writing. Perhaps Oswald was troubled

Too many false assumptions.
I don't think you can prove it was Oswald's handwriting.
And you don't know which Hunt it refers to. Could just have been a hoax
to link Oswald to H.L. Hunt like the Pedro Charles letters linked him to
Castro.

> by his role. That note's existence (former existence) can be most
> logically interpreted that Oswald held suspicions about his role.
> Other explanations for that note are difficult to accept. Second, if
> Oswald (or any other operative) were to engage in the preliminary
> events leading up to the murder, such as ordering a rifle through an
> alias, attend local rifle ranges and cause a ruckus, then he would
> have an awfully difficult time proclaiming innocence for pulling the
> trigger, yet explain other evidence that is certainly incriminating.
>

Oswald did not buy the rifle to shoot at President Kennedy. He bought it
to shoot at General Walker.
I am not a fan of conspiracy theories which push the planning of the JFK
assassination back to the Civil War.

> For instance, what if
>> Oswald was standing on the steps of the building alongside numerous
>> other TSBD employees? He would have probably been photographed there
>> (as in the Altgens photo) or several employees would have said, "Lee
>> was standing right next to me when the shots rang out."
>
> That remains a very valid question. If the conspirators intended to
> finger him as the lone patsy, yet hard evidence was discovered to
> exist that proves he was elsewhere, this would have been anticipated.
> In that case, the actual shooters would not be known to him (Oswald),
> so the conspirators could simply then lean back and think, "Okay, this
> Oswald scenario didn't work out, but good luck in trying to find the
> real killers." With the orchestration that seems to have been in place
> for the Mexico City charade, as well as Oswald's overt activities
> while in NOLA, it can logically be viewed as having Cubans, whether
> anti- or pro-Castro, be the bad guys.
>

Oswald could have been one of several patsies they prepared. Remember
how after the Wallace assassination attempt Colson sent E. Howard Hunt
to plant Leftist literature in Bremmer's apartment.
The old tricks are the best tricks.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2011 9:28 AM, clarkw...@charter.net wrote:
> On Sep 28, 7:44 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Here's a question that I don't recall ever being asked by anyone in
>> the past:
>
> An indication you have a short memory,
>
>>
>> If Lee Harvey Oswald as being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
>> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case),
>
> Do LNer's preclude Oswald's voluntarily being set up? If so, when did
> this momentous occassion occur?
>
>
>> I'm
>> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
>> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
>> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>
> Clearly, Lee voluntarily did that, And my reply is:
>
> So what?
>
> I bought gas in my car today. Who was I planninmg to assasinate?
> Visiting your wife is not evidence of an assassination plan.
>
> It seems this is another case of LNer's experiencing a "Homer Simpson"
> moment.
>

Not the brightest bulbs. Remember, these are the guys who said that
Oswald taking off his wedding ring is absolute proof of his planning to
kill President Kennedy. What they never want to talk about his motive,
because it might suggest conspiracy.

[bigdog]

On Oct 1, 9:28 am, clarkwilk...@charter.net wrote:
> On Sep 28, 7:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's a question that I don't recall ever being asked by anyone in
> > the past:
>
> An indication you have a short memory,
>
>
>
> > If Lee Harvey Oswald as being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> > murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case),
>
> Do LNer's preclude Oswald's voluntarily being set up?  If so, when did
> this momentous occassion occur?
>

Why of course. The old cooperative patsy ploy. I can imagine Oswald at the
planning meeting. "OK, let me see if I have this straight. You guys are
going to kill JFK. You want me to bring my rifle in so you can plant it at
the scene of the crime, and then I need to stay out of sight until it's
over so you guys can pin the blame on me. Hmmmm!!! OK, sounds good to me."

> > I'm
> > wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> > unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> > Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>
> Clearly, Lee voluntarily did that,  And my reply is:
>
> So what?
>

You think it was just a coincidence that he broke his routine by going to
Irving on Thursday and returned to work the next day with a long brown
paper bag, and a long brown paper bag was found next to the sniper's nest
with Oswald's palm print on it? Nothing suspiscious about that.

> I bought gas in my car today.  Who was I planninmg to assasinate?
> Visiting your wife is not evidence of an assassination plan.
>
> It seems this is another case of LNer's experiencing a "Homer Simpson"
> moment.
>
>
>
> > Did the conspirators somehow put Oswald under some kind of a spell,
> > and then they told him to go to Irving on Thursday and tell a lie
> > about wanting to retrieve curtain rods?
>
> Duh!  Another "Homer Simpson" moment.  Show there's a rifle in the
> paperbag he took to work the next morning.
>
> You can't do it.  It's impossible.  No LNer ever has.
>

You're right. It's impossible. One would have to be able to add 2 + 2
to figure that out.

> Correctly claiming it doesn't contain "curtain rods" is not evidence
> it contained a rifle.  It has been demonstrated conclusively on this
> site that there is no more evidence the bag contained a disassembled
> rifle than it contained the disassembled Russian battleship Marat,
> with a crew of 800 men.
>

I guess the fibers in the bag that matched the blanket his wife said he
kept the rifle wrapped in don't count. But let's play it your way. The bag
didn't contain a rifle. But Oswald's rifle was found on the floor the
shooter was seen. That means he would have to have brought the rifle in
some other time, but it's still his rifle that was found near the scene of
the crime. With his palm print on it. And fibers matching the shirt he was
wearing on it. And his fingerprints were all over the scene of the crime.
And immediately after the crime, he fled the scene. And about 45 minutes
after the crime he murdered a cop. And about a half hour later he tried to
kill another cop. But that's no reason to think he shot JFK.

>
>
> > And there surely isn't a CTer on the planet who will try and say that
> > Lee Oswald really DIDN'T go to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier on
> > Nov. 21st....is there?
>
> Which only proves that, given 48 years to do so, an LNer can get a
> fact right,
>

Maybe in another 48 years, one of you guys will come up with a theory
that makes an ounce of sense. But I doubt it.

>
>
> > So, we know for a fact that Oswald did make an unusual trip on Nov. 21
> > to Ruth Paine's home, which is the location where we also know that
> > Oswald's rifle was being stored in the Paine garage.
>
> There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence the rifle was in the Paine's garage on
> November 21.  This is an outright proven LN fantasy.  If you have such
> proof, POST IT.  Otherwise, stand in line behind all the other LNer's
> who had their dog "eat their evidence."

According to his wife he kept his rifle wrapped in a blanket in that
garage. The rifle was not there following the assassination. It was found
at the scene of the crime. It is not necessary to prove the rifle was in
the garage in the blanket on November 21. It is a ridiculous red herring
argument that we need to account for the rifle's whereabouts every minute
from November 21 onward. It is the kind of lame argument a defense
attorney would make to a jury when he is defending a client who he knows
is guilty as hell. That's understandable. That's his job and he has an
ethical responsibility to fight for his client. What is the CT's excuse?
Why do they play such silly games. Like the defense attorney, you want to
create doubt about Oswald's guilt. You seem to have no interest in knowing
the truth. The truth is not what you want to believe.

>
> Never mind.  You can't.  You're an LNer and therefore you have no
> evidence.
>

On the contrary, the LNs have all the hard evidence. The CTs are left
with smoke and mirrors.

>
>
> > And unless you are a CTer who is buried a mile deep in conspiracy
> > nonsense, then another fact becomes crystal clear -- Oswald LIED to
> > Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".
>
> Doh!  Another "Homer Simpson" moment!  The only thing that becomes
> "crystal clear" is that LHO lied to Frazier.  There's STILL no rifle
> in the paperbag.  If there is, PROVE IT.
>

Again, we don't need to prove the rifle was in the bag. We just need to
prove that Oswald's rifle was at the scene of the crime. The bag is simply
the most probable way the rifle could have gotten into the building. If it
didn't enter the building in that paper bag, it simply means it was
brought into the building by another means.

> You can't because there isn't.  There is NO RIFLE in the paperbag,
> disassembled, miniatururized, or CUT IN HALF.  It's am LN FANTASY.
>

The case against Oswald would be airtight even if he had thrown that paper
bag into the trash can and no one discovered it. The case against Oswald
does not depend on that rifle being in the bag.

> If it's not a fantasy, PROVE IT'S NOT.
>
> Never mind.  You can't.  You're an LNer and therefore you have no
> evidence.
>

A few months ago, I challenged the CTs to present evidence that anybody
other than Oswald was involved in the crime. Perhaps you missed it. Your
cohorts efforts were pretty pathetic. Perhaps you can help them out. Tell
us what evidence you have that anybody else was involved. Oh wait. I
forgot. You are a CT. You can dream up imaginary conspirators in total
absence of evidence but then turn around and demand that every aspect of
the case against Oswald must be 100% airtight. A rather strange approach
for people who claim to be in search of the truth.

> You destroy your own case before you even begin.
>

The case was presented 47 years ago and the efforts of the CTs to tear
it down has been like throwing spitballs at a tank.

>
>
> > Now, via the scenario of Lee Oswald being a totally innocent "patsy"
> > regarding everything that happened in Dallas the following day on Nov.
> > 22, I'm just wondering how the conspiracy theorists can provide a
> > reasonable and logical (and believable) answer to the questions of:
>
> > 1.) How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
> > 11/21/63?
>
> How did those amazing plotters get him to go to Irving on 11/9/63?  If
> there is no connection between the 11/09/63 trip, how can you claim an
> 11/21/63 trip connection?
>
> Never mind.  You can't.  You're an LNer and therefore you have no
> evidence.
>
>
>
> > 2.) And how did those very efficient plotters get Oswald to tell the
> > lie about the curtain rods?
>
> Here's a suggestion.  Read your own post.  You already covered this -
> And failed.  The bag didn't contain curtainrods.  The burden of proof
> is on YOU to prove it contained a rifle.
>

No it isn't. We need to prove Oswald's rifle was used to kill JFK.
That has been done in spades. Proving how it got in the building is
not necessary.

> Never mind.  You can't.  You're an LNer and therefore you have no
> evidence.
>
> > (Because all reasonable people know that
> > LHO's "curtain rod" tale was, indeed, a lie....mainly due to the fact
> > that NO CURTAIN RODS were ever found in the Book Depository;
>
> So it took you 48 years to figure this out?  Do I have to wait another
> 48 years before you get something else right?  Because some of us
> aren't willing to wait/live that long.
>

But we are supposed to wait another 48 years for a plausible
alternative to the WCR to be presented.

> > plus the
> > fact that if there HAD been any curtain rods at all, Oswald would have
> > said so to the police; but, instead, he denies he ever mentioned
> > curtain rods to Buell Frazier.)
>
> WOW!  You are an intellectual GIANT!  And it only took you 48 years to
> think of this?  How could the rest of us NOT see this?  My God!  We
> must be as stupid as - as what - as LNer's!
>

If I were to respond to this, the moderators would probably kick back
this post and I would have done all this writing for nothing.

>
>
> > 3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy
> > get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on
> > Nov. 22nd? (Which is a package which, as I just mentioned, we know for
> > a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)
>
> Demonstrate you know for a FACT that it contained a rifle.  It's
> already been demonstrated on this very site, repeatedly, that it could
> just as easily contain the Russian battleship Marat (or even the
> Bismark) with a crew of 800 men.
>
> So how did you get from it not containing curtain rods to its
> containing a rifle?
>
> Never mind.  You can't.  You're an LNer and therefore you have no
> evidence.
>

I think we've been around this block enough times..

>
>
> > Those three questions are very important questions to answer in a
> > reasonable manner if you're a conspiracist who truly thinks Oswald was
> > just an unwitting patsy in the assassination of the President.
>
> And what if he was willing?
>

If he was a willing patsy, he would be the stupidest man that ever
lived.

> Or is this yet another "Homer Simpson" moment for the LN population?
> What else can we sell them?  The Brooklyn Bridge?  Oh!  I know!  "Case
> Closed" by Gerald Posner.  Don't have a copy?  Just look up FICTION in
> your local library.
>
>
>
> > Because unless Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF up as a patsy, it's
> > rather difficult to find any logical or reasonable answers to those
> > three questions I just posed that would lead to a conclusion that Lee
> > Oswald was completely innocent in the events of Nov. 22.
>
> You set the criteria.  Having made an IMPOSSIBLE CASE for which you
> can't PROVE a SINGLE POINT in your favor ("Never mind.  You can't.
> You're an LNer and therefore you have no evidence.") you then list the
> ONLY REMAINING ALTERNATIVE.
>
> The best way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own
> evidence.  :)
>
> Unless you can dig yourself out of the hole you dug yourself (which
> you can't), then you must accept the argument that you, yourself,
> reached as the obvious conclusion  ("Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF
> up as a patsy").  Because UNLESS you have some evidence to the
> contrary (And you can't.  You're an LNer and therefore you have no
> evidence.) then that is ONLY conclusion that fits the evidence.
>

Still waiting for evidence that anybody other than Oswald was involved.

> It's your logic.  Disprove yourself.
>
> Never mind.  You can't.  You're an LNer and therefore you have no
> evidence.
>

Do you think you can make a false statement true by repeating it 20
times in the same post?

> >Particularly
> > when those three questions are evaluated and assessed in conjunction
> > with all of the OTHER things that incriminate Oswald in JFK's murder,
> > e.g., the guns, the shells, the paper bag on the sixth floor, LHO's
> > prints being all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located,
> > etc.
>
> And this disproves your claim that "Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF
> up as a patsy" exactly HOW?
>
> Or did your dog eat your evidence?
>
> That happens to ALL LNer's around here.  You guy's need to learn to
> feed your dogs so that you can actually POST some EVIDENCE.
>

You need to understand what constitutes evidence.

>
>
> > In short -- Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on November 21, 1963, are extremely
> > powerful evidence that indicate Lee Harvey Oswald was anything BUT an
> > innocent patsy when it comes to the assassination of President
> > Kennedy.
>
> WOW!  I'm stunned!  It only took you 48 years to figure this out!  Now
> ALL you have to do is PROVE Oswald acted alone.
>
> Never mind.  You can't.  You're an LNer and therefore you have no
> evidence.
>
> I'd offer to lend you a shovel to dig your way out of the hole you dig
> yourself but I'd like to have it back within the next 48 years.
>

ALL the hard evidence is on the side of the LNs and we are sitting on a
mountain of it. Meanwhile, you guys have been trying in vain for 48 years
to find evidence that anybody else was involved, but have failed
miserably.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2011 9:26 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:46 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/28/2011 9:44 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Oswald was part of the conspiracy. He was located in the TSBD. It is
>> possible that he even fired the rifle.
>
> You think?
>
>> However the actual assassins were
>> located in possibly two completely different buildings. The only shooter
>> that day who fired more than one shot was Oswald. The other assassins each
>> fired one shot only.
>>
> And since there were zero other assassins, 0 X 1 = 0.
>
>> If only Oswald was firing the president would have survuved.
>
> Oh really. It takes more than one shooter to kill somebody?
>

In some assassinations it does. It's called the insurance shooter. Such
as Princip. You didn't see the photo of the insurance shooter in the
square for the attempt on the Pope.

>> It was
>> assassins at the two other locations firing two shots almost
>> simultaneously when they reached the grassy knoll that struck the
>> president in the head and killed him.
>>
> Funny that only fragments from Oswald's gun were found.
>

You can't prove that. You can't prove which ammo the lead core fragments
came from. No jacketed fragments were found in the head. It's that
curious?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2011 9:23 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sep 30, 7:57 pm, markusp<markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 8:25 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, if the intent was to frame Oswald, how did the conspirators
>>> control Oswald from having an ironclad alibi?
>>
>> They likely already had that assurance when Oswald was recruited for
>> low-level intelligence missions. Certainly a covert intelligence
>> operation will not groom an operative that they suspect may possess an
>> independent streak and establish alibis. First, the note to Mr. Hunt
>> was confirmed to be in Oswald's writing. Perhaps Oswald was troubled
>> by his role. That note's existence (former existence) can be most
>> logically interpreted that Oswald held suspicions about his role.
>> Other explanations for that note are difficult to accept. Second, if
>> Oswald (or any other operative) were to engage in the preliminary
>> events leading up to the murder, such as ordering a rifle through an
>> alias, attend local rifle ranges and cause a ruckus, then he would
>> have an awfully difficult time proclaiming innocence for pulling the
>> trigger, yet explain other evidence that is certainly incriminating.
>>
> Really. You think these conspirators were planning the assassination
> the previous spring before any presidential trip was planned. Do you
> think they knew that come fall, Oswald would be working in a building
> overlooking a motorcade route that hadn't been selected yet for a
> presidential trip that wasn't even planned. What amazing foresight
> these guys had.
>

How would they know where Oswald would be living then? Still in New
Orleans or did they order Oswald back to Dallas? FYI the planning for
9/11 took 7 years.
There are probably some kooks who have a theory that they were planning
the JFK assassination even before Oswald was born. Hence the Two Oswald
Theory.

Is there any law against buying a Coke?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he doesn't have to know that he is being used. Like when one criminal
says, "Here, hold my gun for me I gotta tie my shoelaces." Maybe if you
had actually done some research and found some real life cases of people
being framed for a crime you could see how a perfectly innnocent person
can be framed. Look at the Charles Stuart case. As typical for Boston
police just pick a black man at random and torture his friends until they
inform on him.

> If you think *that*, that on November 22, 1963, he was following

No, since I never said anything like that, why do you assume I think
that? Your only tactic is to misrepresent what I have said.

> orders from some figures in the shadows, then how could you entertain
> the (otherwise quite plausible, and what I think happened) notion that
> Oswald was hoping Marina would agree to come back to him that last
> night in Irving?
> But of course any notion of what Oswald was up to that day is always
> someone else's theory, in your telling.
> You won't commit to any theory about that (lest it be criticized).
>

It was Oswald's theory that the reason why they picked him up was because
he had lived in Russia, to blame it on the Communists. To start WWIII just
for jiggles.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> This means that you don't have to confront the flagrant contradiction
>>>>> that would be evident here if Oswald were supposed to be part of the
>>>>> conspiracy you believe in and yet was thinking about backing out of it
>>>>> at the last minute. He surely would not have continued in that path if
>>>>> he had been able to start rebuilding a life with Marina.
>>
>>>> I don't have any theory about Oswald backing out of the conspiracy.
>>
>>> Right. Again: you don't have any clear theory about Oswald's involvement
>>> or non-involvement with any conspiracy, so you can accept the notion that
>>> he was giving Marina one last chance to restart their life together the
>>> night before the assassination without considering that a man involved in
>>> a conspiracy of this sort would have a hard time changing direction at
>>> that point or considering out he might have done it. Like, he could have
>>> called in sick or something? Ha ha.
>>
>> Why would he call in sick?
>> I did not say that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy.
>>
>
> Of course not.
> And you have not said that he wasn't.
> You'd never pin yourself down like that.
>

Because I have not seen any evidence of that.

> Oswald has an infinitely mutable position in your "theory."
> You've never decided how you think he fits in.
>

Never will until ALL the evidence is released.

> Yet you seem pretty darn sure Richard Helms and Frank Bender were part
> of what went down.

That is my working theory and I keep looking for more confirmation of it.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Oct 1, 12:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 10/1/2011 9:28 AM, clarkwilk...@charter.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 7:44 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>  wrote:
> >> Here's a question that I don't recall ever being asked by anyone in
> >> the past:
>
> > An indication you have a short memory,
>
> >> If Lee Harvey Oswald as being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> >> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case),
>
> > Do LNer's preclude Oswald's voluntarily being set up?  If so, when did
> > this momentous occassion occur?
>
> >> I'm
> >> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> >> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> >> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>
> > Clearly, Lee voluntarily did that,  And my reply is:
>
> > So what?
>
> > I bought gas in my car today.  Who was I planninmg to assasinate?
> > Visiting your wife is not evidence of an assassination plan.
>
> > It seems this is another case of LNer's experiencing a "Homer Simpson"
> > moment.
>
> Not the brightest bulbs. Remember, these are the guys who said that
> Oswald taking off his wedding ring is absolute proof of his planning to
> kill President Kennedy. What they never want to talk about his motive,
> because it might suggest conspiracy.
>

What was Oswald's motive, Tony?
What role did he play, exactly, in the events in Dealey Plaza on
November 23, 1963?

/sm

[Jason Burke]

On 10/1/2011 6:23 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sep 30, 7:57 pm, markusp<markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 8:25 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, if the intent was to frame Oswald, how did the conspirators
>>> control Oswald from having an ironclad alibi?
>>
>> They likely already had that assurance when Oswald was recruited for
>> low-level intelligence missions. Certainly a covert intelligence
>> operation will not groom an operative that they suspect may possess an
>> independent streak and establish alibis. First, the note to Mr. Hunt
>> was confirmed to be in Oswald's writing. Perhaps Oswald was troubled
>> by his role. That note's existence (former existence) can be most
>> logically interpreted that Oswald held suspicions about his role.
>> Other explanations for that note are difficult to accept. Second, if
>> Oswald (or any other operative) were to engage in the preliminary
>> events leading up to the murder, such as ordering a rifle through an
>> alias, attend local rifle ranges and cause a ruckus, then he would
>> have an awfully difficult time proclaiming innocence for pulling the
>> trigger, yet explain other evidence that is certainly incriminating.
>>
> Really. You think these conspirators were planning the assassination
> the previous spring before any presidential trip was planned. Do you
> think they knew that come fall, Oswald would be working in a building
> overlooking a motorcade route that hadn't been selected yet for a
> presidential trip that wasn't even planned. What amazing foresight
> these guys had.

But of course. Show me a CT who doesn't believe in The Great And
Powerful Oz.

Gee. If you're a CT you just KNOW that the entire Dallas Police Force
was in on it. Oh, and the CIA. Not to mention the FBI. And let's not
forget the Mafia. And the Anti-Castro folk (or was that the Pro-Castro
folk?)

[bigdog]

> folk?)- Hide quoted text -
>

As I observed a few weeks ago, they would have needed to rent the Cotton
Bowl for the planning session to have room for all the people involved in
the conspiracy.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Hmm. This is what you said (in this very same thread):

"One theory is that he did not know he was being set up as the patsy
by the conspirators. Just
following orders. Be at a certain corner at a certain time and await
further orders."

Of course you won't *commit* yourself to this theory, when push comes
to shove.
All I did just now was shove.

SO maybe, in Marshland, Oswald's actions were just coincidentally,
down to the last detail, exactly what your conspirators required.
Meanwhile, you speculate about things for which there is *no* evidence
(a tie to Richard Helms, the conveniently mysterious Mr. Bender...),
the amazing delayed-reaction exploding bullet... because no one can
find any solid ground to stand on to contradict you there. How does
one contradict mirages, fever dreams, hallucinations?

"None are so blind...," as the man says.

> > Oswald has an infinitely mutable position in your "theory."
> > You've never decided how you think he fits in.
>
> Never will until ALL the evidence is released.
>

Whatever files or "evidence" has yet to be released has to be
consistent with what we already know to be a fact.
That's a given.

> > Yet you seem pretty darn sure Richard Helms and Frank Bender were part
> > of what went down.
>
> That is my working theory and I keep looking for more confirmation of it.
>

Clearly, you must be spending many hours every week following all the
available leads on *those* two angles.
Ha ha.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

That's your goal in life, to harass.

> SO maybe, in Marshland, Oswald's actions were just coincidentally,
> down to the last detail, exactly what your conspirators required.

If he was under surveillance and being manipulated he could do exactly
what they wanted him to do without knowing. The CIA has a special category
called "unwitting collaborator." Some shmuck thinks he is smuggling
cigarettes when he is actually smuggling heroin for the CIA. One of the
local Mob guys thought he was smuggling weapons to the IRA, not knowing
until he boarded the boat that it was a drug shipment from the CIA. He
tipped off the DEA which made the mistake of telling the FBI and the FBI
tipped off the local boss who killed him. The local boss was working for
the FBI.

> Meanwhile, you speculate about things for which there is *no* evidence
> (a tie to Richard Helms, the conveniently mysterious Mr. Bender...),

Why is Bender mysterious? Just because you never heard of him before? Why
don't you try to claim he never existed?

> the amazing delayed-reaction exploding bullet... because no one can

I never said delayed reaction.

That is delusional thinking.

>>> Yet you seem pretty darn sure Richard Helms and Frank Bender were part
>>> of what went down.
>>
>> That is my working theory and I keep looking for more confirmation of it.
>>
>
> Clearly, you must be spending many hours every week following all the
> available leads on *those* two angles.
> Ha ha.
> /sm

As I said before I stumbled onto the theory while researching something
else. And often find documents I wasn't looking for. It's called
serendipity. You should try it some time.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did they have to do that for the Castro plots? No. Just one room at the
Fountainbleu Hotel.

[Anthony Marsh]

His motive was to go to work.

> What role did he play, exactly, in the events in Dealey Plaza on
> November 23, 1963?
>

We don't know because so much evidence has been covered up.
And I think Oswald had nothing to do with November 23, 1963 because he
was in jail at the time.

> /sm

[Anthony Marsh]

They don't count. They would have been thrown out of court.
Contamination of evidence.

> didn't contain a rifle. But Oswald's rifle was found on the floor the
> shooter was seen. That means he would have to have brought the rifle in

Someone else can take his rifle in.

[Jason Burke]

But, uh, there weren't 50,000 people involved in the Castro plot, now,
were there?

[Jason Burke]

On 10/1/2011 6:55 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

But your goal in life is to fantasize. So what?

[Sandy McCroskey]

It's not harassment to ask the logical questions that follow from your
assertions.
But if you're feeling harassed, it's just because sometbody's onto
you.

> > SO maybe, in Marshland, Oswald's actions were just coincidentally,
> > down to the last detail, exactly what your conspirators required.
>
> If he was under surveillance and being manipulated he could do exactly
> what they wanted him to do without knowing. The CIA has a special category
> called "unwitting collaborator." Some shmuck thinks he is smuggling
> cigarettes when he is actually smuggling heroin for the CIA. One of the
> local Mob guys thought he was smuggling weapons to the IRA, not knowing
> until he boarded the boat that it was a drug shipment from the CIA. He
> tipped off the DEA which made the mistake of telling the FBI and the FBI
> tipped off the local boss who killed him. The local boss was working for
> the FBI.
>

Everybody knows about cases like that, and we've also heard you speculate
that Oswald was asked to bring in his rifle. (This doesn't fit the facts,
though, because if he brought in his rifle under such circumstances, there
would have been no reason for him to be *secretive* about it.)

But there's a whole lot more to account for, and you can't draw any
plausible, concrete picture to explain it. For example, what do you
imagine that Oswald was told that kept him from watching the motorcade
with the rest of the crew? Was his shooting Tippitt part of his
("non-conspiratorial," as you insist) instructions?

> > Meanwhile, you speculate about things for which there is *no* evidence
> > (a tie to Richard Helms, the conveniently mysterious Mr. Bender...),
>
> Why is Bender mysterious? Just because you never heard of him before? Why
> don't you try to claim he never existed?
>

I was being sarcastic about your melodramatic fantasy.

> > the amazing delayed-reaction exploding bullet... because no one can
>
> I never said delayed reaction.
>

I'm referring, of course, to your "shock wave" explanation for the
backward motion not starting until Z-frame 314.

Facts aren't going to retroactively change.

> >>> Yet you seem pretty darn sure Richard Helms and Frank Bender were part
> >>> of what went down.
>
> >> That is my working theory and I keep looking for more confirmation of it.
>
> > Clearly, you must be spending many hours every week following all the
> > available leads on *those* two angles.
> > Ha ha.
> > /sm
>
> As I said before I stumbled onto the theory while researching something
> else. And often find documents I wasn't looking for. It's called
> serendipity. You should try it some time.

And yet you haven't been lucky enough to find anything real connecting
either Richard Helms or Frank Bender to Dallas on November 22, 1963.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

That's why he took off his ring? And how does any of this "suggest
conspiracy"?
(Ever see that SNL skit, "Mr. Short-Term Memory"? That's what it's
like talking to you.)
In any case, I don't believe that anyone says Oswald's leaving his
ring at home is "absolute proof" of anything; it could be only one
more piece of circumstantial evidence.

>
> > What role did he play, exactly, in the events in Dealey Plaza on
> > November 23, 1963?
>
> We don't know because so much evidence has been covered up.
> And I think Oswald had nothing to do with November 23, 1963 because he
> was in jail at the time.
>

Ha ha. Typo.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Oh, really? You honestly think that Oswald really believed that line
he fed the reporters?
I suppose you think he had amnesia, too, and conveniently forgot that
he had just shot a cop.

And you're not, or at least you weren't a few months ago, one of those
CTs who go so far as to deny that Oswald shot Tippitt.
For example, here you are on July 6 of this year, in the thread "Why
did Oswald.........":
"I never said anything about Oswald going to meet with a handler. He
only
ducked into the theater because the shoe salesman was watching him and
he heard the sirens. He had just shot a cop."

And yet you think it was Oswald's sincerely held "theory" that he was
hauled in just because he once lived in the USSR for a while?
You're making about as much sense as usual, Marsh.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm not the one saying that his taking off his ring proves intent. You
guys are. You guys are always afraid of motive because it might lead to
conspiracy.

You want to talk about his leaving behind his ring INSTEAD of talking
about motive. You say motive is not necessary because he was crazy.

> (Ever see that SNL skit, "Mr. Short-Term Memory"? That's what it's
> like talking to you.)

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You can't understand
anything.

> In any case, I don't believe that anyone says Oswald's leaving his
> ring at home is "absolute proof" of anything; it could be only one
> more piece of circumstantial evidence.
>

Yes, some WC defenders do.

>
>>
>>> What role did he play, exactly, in the events in Dealey Plaza on
>>> November 23, 1963?
>>
>> We don't know because so much evidence has been covered up.
>> And I think Oswald had nothing to do with November 23, 1963 because he
>> was in jail at the time.
>>
>
> Ha ha. Typo.
>

I thought you said that no one ever makes typos. Must be a conspiracy.

> /sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

His motivations were personal and psychological but that still gives
him a "motive."

> > (Ever see that SNL skit, "Mr. Short-Term Memory"? That's what it's
> > like talking to you.)
>
> Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You can't understand
> anything.
>

It's not possible to understand nonsense, only to recognize it.

> > In any case, I don't believe that anyone says Oswald's leaving his
> > ring at home is "absolute proof" of anything; it could be only one
> > more piece of circumstantial evidence.
>
> Yes, some WC defenders do.
>

According to you.
Which carries zero weight with me... for reasons that will be obvious
to anyone *but* you.

>
>
> >>> What role did he play, exactly, in the events in Dealey Plaza on
> >>> November 23, 1963?
>
> >> We don't know because so much evidence has been covered up.
> >> And I think Oswald had nothing to do with November 23, 1963 because he
> >> was in jail at the time.
>
> > Ha ha. Typo.
>
> I thought you said that no one ever makes typos. Must be a conspiracy.
>

I've never aaid anything remotely resembling that.
Typical Marsh.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, he was reacting to the reporters asking him if he had shot the
President.

> I suppose you think he had amnesia, too, and conveniently forgot that
> he had just shot a cop.
>

Which reporter asked him if he has shot a cop?
He felt as if he was being set up.

> And you're not, or at least you weren't a few months ago, one of those
> CTs who go so far as to deny that Oswald shot Tippitt.

We, jeez, how far did you look back? Did you look in the Wayback
Machine? Did you look on FidoNet? Did you look on CompuServe. Prodigy.
Can you ever find any message where I denied that Oswald shot Tippit?

> For example, here you are on July 6 of this year, in the thread "Why
> did Oswald.........":
> "I never said anything about Oswald going to meet with a handler. He
> only
> ducked into the theater because the shoe salesman was watching him and
> he heard the sirens. He had just shot a cop."
>
> And yet you think it was Oswald's sincerely held "theory" that he was
> hauled in just because he once lived in the USSR for a while?
> You're making about as much sense as usual, Marsh.
>

He was responding to the question from the reporters about the shooting of
the President.

Can you play for me the recording of when a reporter asked him about
Tippit? Oh wait a minute, you're not a researcher you're a WC defender.
Too much like heavy lifting.

> /sm

[bigdog]

On Oct 2, 5:45 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> His motivations were personal and psychological but that still gives
> him a "motive."
>

The CTs think Oswald's outrage was understandable. All he did was kill a
cop and they wanted to hang a presidential assassination on him. The
bastards!!! I guess that's what he meant by being made the patsy.

[Anthony Marsh]

Simplistic. You are begging the question. Assuming what you can't prove.
The Tippit killing and the JFK assassination do not have to be linked.

[Anthony Marsh]

Insanity is not a motive.
That's why you call him a lone NUT.
It would damage your cause to call him a contract killer.

>
>>> (Ever see that SNL skit, "Mr. Short-Term Memory"? That's what it's
>>> like talking to you.)
>>
>> Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You can't understand
>> anything.
>>
>
> It's not possible to understand nonsense, only to recognize it.
>
>
>>> In any case, I don't believe that anyone says Oswald's leaving his
>>> ring at home is "absolute proof" of anything; it could be only one
>>> more piece of circumstantial evidence.
>>
>> Yes, some WC defenders do.
>>
>
> According to you.

Read the damn messages.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Very good, so you remember.

> > I suppose you think he had amnesia, too, and conveniently forgot that
> > he had just shot a cop.
>
> Which reporter asked him if he has shot a cop?

He maintained that he didn't shoot *anybody.*

> He felt as if he was being set up.
>
> > And you're not, or at least you weren't a few months ago, one of those
> > CTs who go so far as to deny that Oswald shot Tippitt.
>
> We, jeez, how far did you look back? Did you look in the Wayback
> Machine? Did you look on FidoNet? Did you look on CompuServe. Prodigy.
> Can you ever find any message where I denied that Oswald shot Tippit?
>
> > For example, here you are on July 6 of this year, in the thread "Why
> > did Oswald.........":
> > "I never said anything about Oswald going to meet with a handler. He
> > only
> > ducked into the theater because the shoe salesman was watching him and
> > he heard the sirens. He had just shot a cop."
>
> > And yet you think it was Oswald's sincerely held "theory" that he was
> > hauled in just because he once lived in the USSR for a while?
> > You're making about as much sense as usual, Marsh.
>
> He was responding to the question from the reporters about the shooting of
> the President.
>
> Can you play for me the recording of when a reporter asked him about
> Tippit? Oh wait a minute, you're not a researcher you're a WC defender.
> Too much like heavy lifting.
>
>

How wrong you are.
This is a link I posted to that on December 10 of last year, in the
thread "Oswalds Motivation and Escape Plan":

<quote on>
Sandy McCroskey
Dec 10 2010, 12:00 am
- Show quoted text -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUTnzfmCJY4
Listen closely.
/sm
</quote off>

I just checked, the link still works.
So you can refresh your memory.
Hope this helps!
/sandy

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The Tippit killing and the JFK assassination do not have to be
linked." <<<

Yeah. In the CTer fantasy world, it was just a coincidence that the person
who murdered Tippit 45 minutes after JFK was shot just happened to be an
employee of the building from where the shots that killed JFK came from.

And, to CTers, it's also a coincidence that the person who murdered Tippit
just happened to be inside the building from where JFK was shot at the
exact same time Kennedy was being shot.

And a third amazing co-inky is that the rifle that was proven to be the
weapon that killed JFK was owned by the exact same person who just
happened to murder Officer Tippit 45 minutes after JFK was murdered.

Yeah, Tony, who in their right mind would ever even BEGIN to think those
two crimes were related?

[Sandy McCroskey]

The word can accurately typify some people's motives.

> That's why you call him a lone NUT.
> It would damage your cause to call him a contract killer.
>

It would also be a fantastical lie.

>>
>>>> (Ever see that SNL skit, "Mr. Short-Term Memory"? That's what it's
>>>> like talking to you.)
>>>
>>> Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You can't understand
>>> anything.
>>>
>>
>> It's not possible to understand nonsense, only to recognize it.
>>
>>
>>>> In any case, I don't believe that anyone says Oswald's leaving his
>>>> ring at home is "absolute proof" of anything; it could be only one
>>>> more piece of circumstantial evidence.
>>>
>>> Yes, some WC defenders do.
>>>
>>
>> According to you.
>
> Read the damn messages.
>

Have been reading them for some time now, never saw any remark remotely
like that.
And any assertion coming from you about what others have said is
suspect, as I know from personal experience.

/sm

[markusp]

On Oct 1, 11:45 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Oswald could have been one of several patsies they prepared. Remember
> how after the Wallace assassination attempt Colson sent E. Howard Hunt
> to plant Leftist literature in Bremmer's apartment.
> The old tricks are the best tricks.

They're likely referred to as "operatives" until they achieve the
designation of "patsy", and that's no promotion whatsoever. I agree
strongly with your "old tricks are the best tricks". I'd use a more
general example though, such as creating a false situation for national
security in order to dupe Congress into authorizing war. Gulf of Tonkin
then, and most recently, yellowcake uranium from Niger to Iraq.

~Mark

[scott zimmer]

I know there is no evidence of this but I think it is a reasonable and

logical (and believable) answer to the questions

1 If Oswald was a patsy and if he did take a rifle that day it is
possible that someone approached Oswald prior to the assassination
wanting to buy his rifle. Maybe give him twice its value or even
more. Said they needed it to go hunting that weekend with friends so
really needed it the following day or the deal was off. Would pick it
up in the afternoon from the TSBD after the president had been through
dallas. He needed the money he was broke (this explains if he was
expecting money that day from the sale of the rifle him thinking he
could afford to leave Marina $165 that morning). So Oswald went out
to Irving to collect it that Thursday. hemade the paper bag that
Thursday to do that. Why Frazier never saw the bag he made being taken
out to Irving is for someone else to explain. Prior to 1963 you
would not necessarily associate a rifle and the assassination of a
president so that would not have even crossed his mind and he had seen
a couple of other rifles in the building a few days before with Truly
and others at work.

2. Him and Frazier were not close friends. Frazier didnt even know his
last name prior to that day It was none of Fraziers business what was
in the package and even then probably. not something you wanted to
broadcast so Oswald just gave him bs about curtain rods to brush him
off.. . Can you honestly say everytime someone has asked you a
question you didnt think they had any right to know about you havent
fobbed them off wth something totally BS. If you are some one who can
honestly say no to that question you would be in the minority

3 answered by 1 and 2


Of course if that happened the question is why didnt Oswald tell the
police that.? Maybe he was keeping it to himself till he had a lawyer
present. I mean he would have been wasting his time witht the cops
that day they wouldnt have believed him.

On Sep 29, 10:44 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's a question that I don't recall ever being asked by anyone in
> the past:
>

> If Lee Harvey Oswald as being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's

> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm

> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>

> Did the conspirators somehow put Oswald under some kind of a spell,
> and then they told him to go to Irving on Thursday and tell a lie
> about wanting to retrieve curtain rods?
>

> And there surely isn't a CTer on the planet who will try and say that
> Lee Oswald really DIDN'T go to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier on
> Nov. 21st....is there?
>

> So, we know for a fact that Oswald did make an unusual trip on Nov. 21
> to Ruth Paine's home, which is the location where we also know that
> Oswald's rifle was being stored in the Paine garage.
>

> And unless you are a CTer who is buried a mile deep in conspiracy
> nonsense, then another fact becomes crystal clear -- Oswald LIED to
> Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".
>

> Now, via the scenario of Lee Oswald being a totally innocent "patsy"
> regarding everything that happened in Dallas the following day on Nov.
> 22, I'm just wondering how the conspiracy theorists can provide a
> reasonable and logical (and believable) answer to the questions of:
>

> 1.) How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
> 11/21/63?

>
> 2.) And how did those very efficient plotters get Oswald to tell the

> lie about the curtain rods? (Because all reasonable people know that

> LHO's "curtain rod" tale was, indeed, a lie....mainly due to the fact

> that NO CURTAIN RODS were ever found in the Book Depository; plus the

> fact that if there HAD been any curtain rods at all, Oswald would have
> said so to the police; but, instead, he denies he ever mentioned
> curtain rods to Buell Frazier.)
>

> 3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy
> get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on
> Nov. 22nd? (Which is a package which, as I just mentioned, we know for
> a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)
>

> Those three questions are very important questions to answer in a
> reasonable manner if you're a conspiracist who truly thinks Oswald was
> just an unwitting patsy in the assassination of the President.
>

> Because unless Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF up as a patsy, it's
> rather difficult to find any logical or reasonable answers to those
> three questions I just posed that would lead to a conclusion that Lee

> Oswald was completely innocent in the events of Nov. 22. Particularly

> when those three questions are evaluated and assessed in conjunction
> with all of the OTHER things that incriminate Oswald in JFK's murder,
> e.g., the guns, the shells, the paper bag on the sixth floor, LHO's
> prints being all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located,
> etc.
>

> In short -- Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on November 21, 1963, are extremely
> powerful evidence that indicate Lee Harvey Oswald was anything BUT an
> innocent patsy when it comes to the assassination of President
> Kennedy.
>

> David Von Pein
> September 28, 2011
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

[Sandy McCroskey]

You say "*the* recording of when a reporter asked him about Tippit,"
which wording implies such a recording exists. I don't know about that,
but your question is a red herring. In my haste to be done with you, I
thought you were referring to the "I am a patsy" recording.

You are right that the "patsy" comment came out when Oswald was being
pelted with the question of whether he had shot the president and nobody
in that clip asks him about Tippitt. Of course, we know that he also
maintained while in custody that he didn't shoot anybody that day.

Here's Oswald part of Oswald's interrogation by John Fritz, from
Fritz’s handwritten notes of November 22, 1963, as recounted by Vincent
Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History."

<quote on>
"Where did you go when you left work?" the homicide captain asks.
"I went over to my room on Beckley," Oswald says, "changed my
trousers, got my pistol, and went to the movies."
"Why did you take your pistol?" Fritz asks.
"I felt like it," Oswald says snidely.
"You felt like it."
"You know how boys are when they have a gun," Oswald smirks, "They
just carry it."
"Did you shoot Officer Tippit?"
"No, I didn't," Oswald says. "The only law I violated was when I hit the
officer in the show; and he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it.
That is the only law I violated. That is the only thing I have done wrong."
</quote off>

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Anthony Marsh wrote:

>
> Can you play for me the recording of when a reporter asked him about
> Tippit? Oh wait a minute, you're not a researcher you're a WC defender.
> Too much like heavy lifting.
>

Ten hours after his arrest, Oswald still professes not to know anything
about Officer Tippit's death, let alone JFK's. "I really don't know
what, what this situation is about, nobody has told me anything, except
that I'm accused of, of murdering a policeman."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqNWsR87WCY&feature=related
Someone has commented, "Does this man sound guilty to anyone?"
Guilty as sin!
/sm

[John Blubaugh]

I don't believe in coincidences. But many nutters do. They use that
line a lot and they have been critical of me for taking a dim view of
coincidences. But this works two ways..... Do you think it was just a
coincidence that Tippit apparently showed up at LHO's apartment and
then he seems to have had a run in with him just a little later? I
have always viewed Tippit as a very questionable figure in all of the
events.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post Hoc Fallacy. It wouldn't be the first time that the cops quickly
arrested the wrong man. In the case of criminals who shoot cops who
simply stopped them for a broken tail light, their underlying crime may
have gone back several days or even months, but they think the cop is
arresting them for something they did long ago. Same with Oswald. He was
paranoid that the cops were out to get him. He had tried to assassinate
General Walker. Maybe it took the DPD that long to figure out what type
of rifle fired that bullet.

[Anthony Marsh]

And maybe he thought his shots didn't hit anybody. Just as he missed
Walker. If someone asked him if he had shot Walker he could truthfully
deny it. People asked him if he shot President Kennedy, not it he shot
AT President Kennedy.
I notice that you couldn't answer my question.

[bigdog]

So what's your point :)?

Just because the same guy owned both murder weapons, and his palm
print and shirt fibers were on one of the murder weapons and he was
arrested with the other murder weapon isn't any reason to believe the
two crimes are related.

Oswald was not only a cooperative patsy but also the unluckiest SOB to
ever come down the pike. Imagine all that evidence all pointing to him
when he was just a guy minding his own business.

[Sandy McCroskey]

"Truthfully"?
That's your idea of "truthfully"?
I see!

He would in that case essentially have been telling a lie by telling
only part of the truth.

> People asked him if he shot President Kennedy, not it he shot
> AT President Kennedy.

Ha ha. That's a pretty amusing dodge, Marsh.
Very, very funny.

> I notice that you couldn't answer my question.
>

Oh, my!
I don't suppose you realize it, but your question was screamingly
silly and utterly irrelevant.
Do *you* know the answer to "which reporter asked him if he had shot a
cop?"
Which reporter, by *name*?
If any? The reporters were all rather focused on the death of the
president.

Asked about it or not, he volunteered the information that he was
accused of murdering a cop, while acting like he didn't know anything
about the death of the police officer he was accused of shooting—
which, as you know and have admitted to knowing, he *did* shoot.
He was lying, plain and simple.

Yet you choose to take his "patsy" comment out of context and make a
conspiracy theory out of it.
Amazing.
/sm

[bigdog]

> events.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

There is no evidence Tippit showed up at Oswald's apartment. You made
that up.

[bigdog]

Yes, it is possible to fill in some of the blanks with a plausible
theory for which there is no supporting evidence but you still have
things to explain. If Oswald was just an innocent dupe who was tricked
into bringing his rifle to work answer the following.

1. How did the plotters manage to keep Oswald out of sight while they
were doing the killing?

2. Why were fresh fibers from his shirt on the butt plate of the
rifle?

3. Why did he leave work immediately after the assassination?

4. Why did he go to his rooming house to fetch his revolver?

5. Why did he kill the first cop who stopped him?

6. Why did he try to kill the next cop who approached him?

It's not hard to invent a theoretical story that fits part of the
evidence. The problem is coming up with a story that fits ALL of the
evidence. Only the WC has been able to do that despite 47 years of
trying by other folks. Why not just accept the one story that makes
complete sense instead of trying to conjure up an alternate reality?

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Oct 3, 9:42 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 3, 4:16 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> "The Tippit killing and the JFK assassination do not have to be
>
> > linked." <<<
>
> > Yeah. In the CTer fantasy world, it was just a coincidence that the person
> > who murdered Tippit 45 minutes after JFK was shot just happened to be an
> > employee of the building from where the shots that killed JFK came from.
>
> > And, to CTers, it's also a coincidence that the person who murdered Tippit
> > just happened to be inside the building from where JFK was shot at the
> > exact same time Kennedy was being shot.
>
> > And a third amazing co-inky is that the rifle that was proven to be the
> > weapon that killed JFK was owned by the exact same person who just
> > happened to murder Officer Tippit 45 minutes after JFK was murdered.
>
> > Yeah, Tony, who in their right mind would ever even BEGIN to think those
> > two crimes were related?
>
> I don't believe in coincidences.

Then you have yet to come to terms with the Enlightenment, probability
theory, statistical analysis... you know, all that *science* jazz.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Just like Dreyfus. Oh, I forgot, you think no person has even been
framed from anything.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't think it was Tippit's car which pulled up in front of the
rooming house. Not easy to see the number.

[Anthony Marsh]

I was asking if you have proof that a reporter asked him if he shot
Tippit the way reporters asked him if he shot the President. Obviously
you don't.
And you have no way to look for it. So you speculate.

> Here's Oswald part of Oswald's interrogation by John Fritz, from Fritz’s
> handwritten notes of November 22, 1963, as recounted by Vincent Bugliosi
> in "Reclaiming History."
>
> <quote on>
> "Where did you go when you left work?" the homicide captain asks.
> "I went over to my room on Beckley," Oswald says, "changed my
> trousers, got my pistol, and went to the movies."
> "Why did you take your pistol?" Fritz asks.
> "I felt like it," Oswald says snidely.
> "You felt like it."
> "You know how boys are when they have a gun," Oswald smirks, "They
> just carry it."
> "Did you shoot Officer Tippit?"
> "No, I didn't," Oswald says. "The only law I violated was when I hit the
> officer in the show; and he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it.
> That is the only law I violated. That is the only thing I have done wrong."
> </quote off>
>
> /sm
>

Nice. I was asking you if a REPORTER asked him when they brought him
into the police station. Try to focus.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/3/2011 9:34 PM, markusp wrote:
> On Oct 1, 11:45 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Oswald could have been one of several patsies they prepared. Remember
>> how after the Wallace assassination attempt Colson sent E. Howard Hunt
>> to plant Leftist literature in Bremmer's apartment.
>> The old tricks are the best tricks.
>
> They're likely referred to as "operatives" until they achieve the

They are not operatives is they are used unwittingly.

> designation of "patsy", and that's no promotion whatsoever. I agree
> strongly with your "old tricks are the best tricks". I'd use a more
> general example though, such as creating a false situation for national
> security in order to dupe Congress into authorizing war. Gulf of Tonkin
> then, and most recently, yellowcake uranium from Niger to Iraq.
>
> ~Mark
>

BTW I saw an interesting parallel that I had forgotten about. In the new
Ken Burns show Prohibition he documented the history of the temperance
movement and part of it was fomenting hatred of Germans. With Germany
sinking US ships the US was still not ready to enter WWI, but was ramping
up the public anger over Germany. I noticed a cute reference to people
renaming sauerkraut to something Liberty Cabbage just the way rightwingers
renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries in the hysteria after 9/11 when
France refused to cooperate with the US invasion. And sadly there were
cases of people killing dachshunds. And little kids being organized to
tear up and throw away German books and toys. The temperance league tied
the hysteria to German beer and that helped turn the tide against liquor.
The beer manufacturers thought they were safe when they turned on the hard
liquor manufacturers.

The US government had a department of propaganda which organized the war
hysteria.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's what everyone in Washington thought.

>>>
>>>>> (Ever see that SNL skit, "Mr. Short-Term Memory"? That's what it's
>>>>> like talking to you.)
>>>>
>>>> Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You can't understand
>>>> anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not possible to understand nonsense, only to recognize it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> In any case, I don't believe that anyone says Oswald's leaving his
>>>>> ring at home is "absolute proof" of anything; it could be only one
>>>>> more piece of circumstantial evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, some WC defenders do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to you.
>>
>> Read the damn messages.
>>
>
> Have been reading them for some time now, never saw any remark remotely
> like that.
> And any assertion coming from you about what others have said is
> suspect, as I know from personal experience.
>
> /sm

Do I need to tell you every day to learn how to use Google Groups?

[Sandy McCroskey]

>> Here's Oswald part of Oswald's interrogation by John Fritz, from Fritz?s

>> handwritten notes of November 22, 1963, as recounted by Vincent Bugliosi
>> in "Reclaiming History."
>>
>> <quote on>
>> "Where did you go when you left work?" the homicide captain asks.
>> "I went over to my room on Beckley," Oswald says, "changed my
>> trousers, got my pistol, and went to the movies."
>> "Why did you take your pistol?" Fritz asks.
>> "I felt like it," Oswald says snidely.
>> "You felt like it."
>> "You know how boys are when they have a gun," Oswald smirks, "They
>> just carry it."
>> "Did you shoot Officer Tippit?"
>> "No, I didn't," Oswald says. "The only law I violated was when I hit the
>> officer in the show; and he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it.
>> That is the only law I violated. That is the only thing I have done
>> wrong."
>> </quote off>
>>
>> /sm
>>
>
> Nice. I was asking you if a REPORTER asked him when they brought him
> into the police station. Try to focus.
>

You're the one who's nodding off.
I already acknowledged that I don't know of a record of any reporter
asking him that. If you do, congratulations on storing another bit of
utterly irrelevant trivia. Which you brought up only as a distraction.

The point, which you'll dance all day to avoid, is that Oswald
repeatedly lied about why he found himself in the custody of the Dallas
police that afternoon.

/sm

[markusp]

On Oct 4, 12:56 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> BTW I saw an interesting parallel that I had forgotten about. In the new
> Ken Burns show Prohibition he documented the history of the temperance
> movement and part of it was fomenting hatred of Germans. With Germany
> sinking US ships the US was still not ready to enter WWI, but was ramping
> up the public anger over Germany. I noticed a cute reference to people
> renaming sauerkraut to something Liberty Cabbage just the way rightwingers
> renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries in the hysteria after 9/11 when
> France refused to cooperate with the US invasion. And sadly there were
> cases of people killing dachshunds. And little kids being organized to
> tear up and throw away German books and toys. The temperance league tied
> the hysteria to German beer and that helped turn the tide against liquor.
> The beer manufacturers thought they were safe when they turned on the hard
> liquor manufacturers.

I watched that great program also. Ken Burns has a clever way of using
still images set in motion. I didn't know the show was on, until I scanned
PBS and saw a still image in motion, and knew immediately it was Burns.
Then I heard Peter Coyote's golden voice.

One thing I notice was that there apparently was never a lack of
politicians, police, or feds that would not take bribes. The female
historian said it best when she gave the example of the Sheriff in Podunk,
USA. Prohibition was enacted, and this sheriff in a small town had a big
speak easy, frequented by the mayor, councilpersons, police chief,
businessmen, etc. If he busted 'em, good bye sheriff's job in the next
election. It may not have been so much ease of corruption, as it was the
"Tragedy of the Commons".

A parallel that can be easily drawn from then to now is that back then,
virtually all human resources available to law enforcement would have been
needed merely police the liquor that was being bootlegged. Other crimes
went unpunished, or uninvestigated. Are we seeing the same thing now with
marijuana? Are too many people shamelessly capitalizing on essentially a
victimless habit, and justifying all sorts of police actions, task forces,
etc.?

~Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/4/2011 9:41 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On Oct 3, 9:42 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 4:16 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "The Tippit killing and the JFK assassination do not have to be
>>
>>> linked."<<<
>>
>>> Yeah. In the CTer fantasy world, it was just a coincidence that the person
>>> who murdered Tippit 45 minutes after JFK was shot just happened to be an
>>> employee of the building from where the shots that killed JFK came from.
>>
>>> And, to CTers, it's also a coincidence that the person who murdered Tippit
>>> just happened to be inside the building from where JFK was shot at the
>>> exact same time Kennedy was being shot.
>>
>>> And a third amazing co-inky is that the rifle that was proven to be the
>>> weapon that killed JFK was owned by the exact same person who just
>>> happened to murder Officer Tippit 45 minutes after JFK was murdered.
>>
>>> Yeah, Tony, who in their right mind would ever even BEGIN to think those
>>> two crimes were related?
>>
>> I don't believe in coincidences.
>
>
> Then you have yet to come to terms with the Enlightenment, probability
> theory, statistical analysis... you know, all that *science* jazz.
>

And you are still stuck in the past with your beloved WC.
If you are interested in statistical analysis then you should study the
acoustical evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't know they were fresh. They could have been left over from
target practice.

> 3. Why did he leave work immediately after the assassination?
>

Because there would be no more work done that day. If another person
also left work would you call him or her the assassin just to be fair?
Do you think Givens was also an assassin?

> 4. Why did he go to his rooming house to fetch his revolver?
>

To change clothes. He was probably paranoid and wanted the revolver for
protection.
Don't you believe the KGB story that he took his revolver into the
Soviet Embassy in Mexico and showed it off, explaining that he always
carried it around because the authorities were out to get him?

> 5. Why did he kill the first cop who stopped him?
>

Because the cop questioned him.

> 6. Why did he try to kill the next cop who approached him?
>

Because the cop was trying to arrest him.

> It's not hard to invent a theoretical story that fits part of the
> evidence. The problem is coming up with a story that fits ALL of the
> evidence. Only the WC has been able to do that despite 47 years of
> trying by other folks. Why not just accept the one story that makes
> complete sense instead of trying to conjure up an alternate reality?
>

No, you just dump unrelated things into the mix.
It was obvious that Dreyfus was guilty. All the evidence fit.
And he was a Jew. Anyone who defends a Jew must be unpatriotic.
Makes perfect sense.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/4/2011 9:41 AM, bigdog wrote:

> There is no evidence Tippit showed up at Oswald's apartment. You made
> that up.
>

It's a misunderstanding.

[Anthony Marsh]

Close, but in both cases who says the crimes are victimless? The habits
create victims. Broken families, addiction, accidents. The fact that it is
a crime creates criminals.

But even if it is legalized in one place it still produces crimes in other
places.

Taxing tobacco creates smuggling. Not regulating drugs inspires tampering
and poisonous shortcuts.

Have you ever thought about the dangers of second hand smoke on very small
children? Bus drivers are forbidden from ever smoking in their buses
because the smoke lingers in the air and gets into the soft cushioning and
is a health hazard to the children riding the bus. I am a fan of old TV
shows which they show on some of the newly created local TV stations now
that the bandwidth of HD allows them to broadcast 4 channels on one
signal.

http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/tv/Dragnet/89335/1796820016/The-Big-High/videos

The Big High was an episode of the American television series Dragnet. It
aired on the NBC network on November 2, 1967, the program's second
season[1]. It starred Jack Webb (who also produced and directed the
episode) Harry Morgan, Tim Donnelly, Ed Prentiss, Merry Anders, Brenda
Scott, Kent McCord and James Oliver. It is sometimes called "Grass Kills"
and is considered comparable to Reefer Madness in terms of exaggerating
the marijuana threat. [edit] Plot summary

Los Angeles police officers Joe Friday(Webb) and Bill Gannon (Morgan) are
visited one day by one Charles Porter (Prentiss), a wealthy man who's very
concerned about the welfare of his only grandchild, Robin Shipley.
Porter's concern rises from the fact that his daughter Jean Shipley
(Scott) and her husband, computer programmer Paul (Donnelly) admit to
using marijuana.

Friday and Gannon pay a call on the Shipleys at their posh home in the San
Fernando Valley. Though Jean refuses a search of the home, she admits that
she does in fact smoke marijuana as does Paul, who comes in mid-interview,
looking upset. The Shipleys resent the intrusion of Porter and the police,
but as there is nothing to arrest them for, Friday and Gannon leave a
little frustrated.

Friday and Gannon approach policewoman Dorothy Miller (Anders) who
specialises in cases of child abuse. Though Miller is sympathetic, she is
loaded down with some very serious cases (including a child who was beaten
with a garden shovel) and since there is no evidence the Shipleys are
abusing Robin, there is nothing she or the others can do.

Time passes and Friday and Gannon get a break. One Fred Ludden (Oliver) is
arrested for possession and the two detectives get him to admit he got the
marijuana for free from the Shipleys. In short order, the police raid the
Shipley home, where a pot party is still in progress. The Shipleys, both
high, seem more annoyed than anything else at first, even when Gannon
retrieves a bag of reefer, about 1 ounce. But when Gannon notices Robin is
missing from her playpen, Paul Shipley can't remember where she is, Jean
tries to remember, but is having trouble - then runs fearfully to the
bathroom. When she gets there she and the detectives see the bathtub is
overflowing, Robin still in there, drowned. Jean and Paul, both
heartbroken, break down crying. Gannon has to leave the room to throw up,
leaving Friday, still holding the bag of grass, to walk towards the
camera, his face out of shot. As the familiar Dragnet theme plays,
Friday's hand tightens around the bag in rage.

In the end, Paul Shipley is found guilty on a charge of involuntary
manslaughter and is placed on probation. Jean Shipley, apparently driven
mad by her grief, is not charged but sent to a mental institution.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Oct 4, 8:37 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 9:41 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 9:42 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> On Oct 3, 4:16 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "The Tippit killing and the JFK assassination do not have to be
>
> >>> linked."<<<
>
> >>> Yeah. In the CTer fantasy world, it was just a coincidence that the person
> >>> who murdered Tippit 45 minutes after JFK was shot just happened to be an
> >>> employee of the building from where the shots that killed JFK came from.
>
> >>> And, to CTers, it's also a coincidence that the person who murdered Tippit
> >>> just happened to be inside the building from where JFK was shot at the
> >>> exact same time Kennedy was being shot.
>
> >>> And a third amazing co-inky is that the rifle that was proven to be the
> >>> weapon that killed JFK was owned by the exact same person who just
> >>> happened to murder Officer Tippit 45 minutes after JFK was murdered.
>
> >>> Yeah, Tony, who in their right mind would ever even BEGIN to think those
> >>> two crimes were related?
>
> >> I don't believe in coincidences.
>
> > Then you have yet to come to terms with the Enlightenment, probability
> > theory, statistical analysis... you know, all that *science* jazz.
>
> And you are still stuck in the past with your beloved WC.
> If you are interested in statistical analysis then you should study the
> acoustical evidence.
>

Its calculations are based on faulty assumptions. First, it has been
established that the recording was made about a minute after the
assassination; but I'm confident that anyone who had the time could
demonstrate the fallaciousness of the probability calculations, even
leaving that inconvenient fact aside.

First it needs to be recognized that the only reason certain virtually
identical "impulse patterns" were rejected as "matches" was because
they did not fit the timing in the Z-film and/or other preconceptions.
And this is within a fairly short period of time; with many "impulse
patterns" to pick from, it's not surprising that some could be picked
that seemed to match what is seen in the Z film.

The "acoustic evidence" as finally presented has still been
interpreted differently by different people. The fuzziness of the data
increases the more you know about it.

With a great will to believe, though, one finds a pattern that fits
one's prior interpretation. But you might as well be reading tea
leaves.

And there is no meaningful comparison with the work done by BB&N on
the audio recording at Kent State. I don't know of any other instance
where the technique used to analyze the Dictabelt recording has been
used anywhere since. (But if you do, by all means, let's hear about
it.)

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

They found out different.
Though you still don't know any better.

>>>>
>>>>>> (Ever see that SNL skit, "Mr. Short-Term Memory"? That's what it's
>>>>>> like talking to you.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You can't understand
>>>>> anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not possible to understand nonsense, only to recognize it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, I don't believe that anyone says Oswald's leaving his
>>>>>> ring at home is "absolute proof" of anything; it could be only one
>>>>>> more piece of circumstantial evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, some WC defenders do.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to you.
>>>
>>> Read the damn messages.
>>>
>>
>> Have been reading them for some time now, never saw any remark remotely
>> like that.
>> And any assertion coming from you about what others have said is
>> suspect, as I know from personal experience.
>>
>> /sm
>
>
> Do I need to tell you every day to learn how to use Google Groups?
>
>

Do I need to tell you every day how to distinguish what I am saying, now
from what you imagine you remember hearing others say, which has no
bearing on any worthwhile argument now anyway?

/sandy

[bigdog]

I've always been amused by the proponents of the validity of the
accoustical evidence. They think the guys were rock solid in their
finding that a shot was fired from the GK but absolutely wrong that it
was a missed shot. In other words, those guys were good, but they
weren't that good. And of course, these CT layman think their analysis
of the data should trump their own experts.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Oct 5, 9:40 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:

Correction: I meant to say "as *shots*". Virtually identical impulse
patterns were rejected as "shots" because they weren't "matches."
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't? I am the guy who documented the evidence which proved that they
were all hoaxes. What did YOU do? Absolutely nothing.
As I explained before it was the reason why LBJ ordered the cover-up.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, it has not been established. They lied.

> assassination; but I'm confident that anyone who had the time could
> demonstrate the fallaciousness of the probability calculations, even
> leaving that inconvenient fact aside.
>

In other words you fail.

> First it needs to be recognized that the only reason certain virtually
> identical "impulse patterns" were rejected as "matches" was because
> they did not fit the timing in the Z-film and/or other preconceptions.

You know nothing about the design of the tests. The tests were designed to
be loose enough to be able to find matches to the shots on the tape. By
being designed to be loose they expected that about half the results would
be false alarms. But they found 15 matches which were significant enough
to be considered. So if only about half of those were really shots then
they could have as many as 7 real shots. But some of the false alarms were
almost identical to the other nearby matches. So the difference would be
just one shot with the muzzle in the plane of the window and the next with
the rifle drawn back two feet. Same shots, same location. Other matches
would be adjacent microphones so that the real location of the cycle might
be halfway in between the two microphones. Only in a couple of cases would
they have matches at the same time from two different firing locations.
Then they did have to choose which was the better match. After BBN
narrowed it down to 5 real shots, the HSCA made the political decision
about which one hit which thing. It came down to a choice of lining up the
shots with either of the last two shots being the head shot at Z-313. I
think they made the wrong choice in saying that it was the shot from the
TSBD. I think it was the grassy knoll shot.

> And this is within a fairly short period of time; with many "impulse
> patterns" to pick from, it's not surprising that some could be picked
> that seemed to match what is seen in the Z film.
>

You think it's a coincidence that the acoustical evidence found exactly
three shots fired from the sniper's nest all within 9 seconds?

> The "acoustic evidence" as finally presented has still been
> interpreted differently by different people. The fuzziness of the data
> increases the more you know about it.
>

You know nothing about the data.

> With a great will to believe, though, one finds a pattern that fits
> one's prior interpretation. But you might as well be reading tea
> leaves.
>

The patterns were found mathematically.

> And there is no meaningful comparison with the work done by BB&N on
> the audio recording at Kent State. I don't know of any other instance
> where the technique used to analyze the Dictabelt recording has been
> used anywhere since. (But if you do, by all means, let's hear about
> it.)
>

Oh please. BBN did both. Conditions of each were different. Same science.
That science had been around for many years. It was used to identify enemy
artillery locations from the echoes. It is used every day today in cities
to instantly identify where gunshots are fired.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Oct 3, 9:36 pm, scott zimmer <dvdsr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know there is no evidence of this but I think it is a reasonable and
> logical (and believable) answer to the questions

Ok, I commend your attempt to make sense of the assassination from the
Anybody but Oswald school of thought, but there are a few problems
with the theory you advance.
Hopefully you can close the gaps with something that makes sense.
As you note, there's no evidence that supports any of your conjecture,
but let's ignore that for now.
Right now, we're just looking for a theory that fits the known
evidence that shows Oswald is not guilty.

>
> 1 If Oswald was a patsy and if he did take a rifle that day it is
> possible that someone approached Oswald prior to the assassination
> wanting to buy his rifle. Maybe give him twice its value or even
> more.  Said they needed it to go hunting that weekend with friends so
> really needed it the following day or the deal was off. Would pick it
> up in the afternoon from the TSBD after the president had been through
> dallas. He needed the money he was broke (this explains if he was
> expecting money that day from the sale of the rifle  him thinking he
> could afford to leave Marina $165 that morning).  

Oswald always doled out money to Marina a little at a time -
regardless of how much he had. He never before gave her a large lump
sum, regardless of how flush he was. So you need another theory to
explain why this day was so out of the ordinary. Was he not planning
to come home ever again, perhaps? If he was, why not surprise her with
a nice dinner out, or some flowers, or a new washing machine? Instead,
he just leaves almost all the money he has in the world to Marina that
morning, with no explanation?
Please re-try. What was different about this time that he would act so
out of character that morning?

>So Oswald went out
> to Irving to collect it that Thursday. hemade the paper bag that
> Thursday to do that. Why Frazier never saw the bag he made being taken
> out to Irving is for someone else to explain.

Not a big deal. He folded it upon itself numerous times and stuffed in
his pants or jacket pocket.
Only conspiracy-minded people think Frazier needed to have seen it on
the trip to Irving or that means Oswald never took it there.
Something that small and easily concealable is only an issue to the
Anybody-but-Oswald crowd.

>   Prior to 1963 you
> would not necessarily associate a rifle and the assassination of a
> president so that would not have even crossed his mind and he had seen
> a couple of other rifles in the building a few days before with Truly
> and others at work.

It was the week prior. And none of the fragments of bullets recovered
from the assassination were traceable to any weapon except Oswald's.
So not an issue, except to the A-B-O crowd.

>
> 2. Him and Frazier were not close friends. Frazier didnt even know his
> last name prior to that day It was none of Fraziers business what was
> in the package and even then probably. not something you wanted to
> broadcast so Oswald just gave him bs about curtain rods to brush him
> off.. . Can you honestly say everytime someone has asked you a
> question you didnt think they had any right to know about you  havent
> fobbed them off wth something totally BS.  If you are some one who can
> honestly say no to that question you would be in the minority

Ok, not unreasonable. But remember that in custody, Oswald told the
cops
1. he never brought any long paper bag to work, and
2. never told Frazier a curtain rod story, and
3. Never owned a rifle.

You are claiming Oswald lied in custody about all three - making
himself look more guilty - when there was a perfectly innocent
explanation to explain himself.

Why not tell the truth and be done with it instead of lying and making
yourself look guilty?

Innocent people, when accused of a crime, do not lie about their
involvement and make themselves look more guilty. But your theory has
Oswald acting this way.

Care to expand upon this theory to explain why Oswald lied to the cops
in custody about the rifle, the paper bag, and the purpose for the
trip to Irving?

And you're not explaining all the evidence against Oswald. Like the
bullet fragments found in the limo traceable to *his* rifle, to the
exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
So if he was to sell it, did he sell it before lunch (and if so,
where's the money he got for selling it?), or was he planning to sell
it after the President went by, and decided to use it one final time
before cashing out?

Since he only had about $10 on him after the shooting, he either sold
it very cheaply, or not at all. And if that's the case, then the
argument for leaving the money behind for Marina goes pfffft.

And if he sold it, why didn't he tell the cops that when they first
questioned him about the rifle in custody???

Instead, he claimed he didn't own a rifle at all, and then when
confronted with photos of himself with a rifle, said the photos were
forged - compounding the problem!
At no time did he say, "hey, I sold that rifle this morning to _______
(insert name here) and he gave me $__ (insert price here) for it."
Any idea why he didn't tell the cops that in custody? I have a theory
that explains why - it did not happen that way and Oswald was not as
creative as you.
Care to shoot holes in my theory?

So your theory to get Oswald off, while a good first attempt, still
needs some work.

Please get back to us when you have closed some of these loopholes.

>
> 3 answered by 1 and 2
>
> Of course if that happened the question is why didnt Oswald tell the
> police that.? Maybe he was keeping it to himself till he had a lawyer
> present. I mean he would have been wasting his time witht the cops
> that day they wouldnt have believed him.

And if he told the lawyer that in the presence of the cops, what would
that accomplish?
Do you really think the lawyer or the cops would believe it, unless
Oswald named names and showed them the money for the sale of the
rifle?

If you talk to the cops (or any reasonable person, like me) and offer
reasonable explanations, they will listen.
But if you claim all the evidence against you is forged, they know
you're just as guilty as sin and won't.
Nearly 50 years later, Oswald's defenders are stuck in the same mode
as Oswald - denying the evidence against him is legitimate, claiming
it's all forged, and forced to argue for scenarios that they have to
admit have no evidence to support them.

In other words, it's not that easy to come up a theory that explains
the evidence as well as the Oswald-Did-It theory. But don't let that
stop you.

All the best,
Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

Further proof that you don't know what you are talking about. You just
keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
Matches were rejected as shots because they did not fit into the HSCA's
biases.
You have to remember that at the time they found the shots the HSCA was
getting ready to endorse the WC. Blakey was shocked when Barger told him
about the fourth shot. It became known as Blakey's Problem.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is one thing I cover in my critique of the Ramsey Panel. That BBN
and W&A did not go as far as they should have. For example for one test
they underestimate the probability by using the wrong test. They said
95% probability whereas the correct test says 99.9% probability. They
also did not use the correct probability table so they understated the
actual probability.

[Sandy McCroskey]

You cherry-pick another impulse pattern as a shot because you think
you can make it match your own bias.

> You have to remember that at the time they found the shots the HSCA was
> getting ready to endorse the WC. Blakey was shocked when Barger told him
> about the fourth shot. It became known as Blakey's Problem.
>
>

Blakey continued to suspect that the mob did it, even after the HSCA
report came out.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Excuse me, I thought you were contrasting the "lone nut" view with its
opposite, which you uphold, and for all I know you leave open the
possibility that Oswald was a contract killer, since you can't seem to
decide what part exactly he played in the assassination. It certainly
would be strange for you to insinuate that LNs secretly think Oswald was a
contract killer, which is the only other possible interpretation I can
come up with for your remark.

> What did YOU do? Absolutely nothing.
> As I explained before it was the reason why LBJ ordered the cover-up.
>

You told us your *theory*. Which I don't find plausible.
/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Ha ha. Of course they were loosely designed. That's what I'm saying!

> By
> being designed to be loose they expected that about half the results would
> be false alarms.

They were all false alarms, but they cherry-picked the ones that fit
their preconceptions.

> But they found 15 matches which were significant enough
> to be considered.

Fifteen! If their method of determining which impulse pattern was a
gunshot was sufficient on its own, that would be fifteen shots.
But of course it wasn't.

> So if only about half of those were really shots then
> they could have as many as 7 real shots.

But under those criteria, it's a coin toss as to which are "real"

shots.

> But some of the false alarms were
> almost identical to the other nearby matches. So the difference would be
> just one shot with the muzzle in the plane of the window and the next with
> the rifle drawn back two feet. Same shots, same location. Other matches
> would be adjacent microphones so that the real location of the cycle might
> be halfway in between the two microphones. Only in a couple of cases would
> they have matches at the same time from two different firing locations.
> Then they did have to choose which was the better match. After BBN
> narrowed it down to 5 real shots, the HSCA made the political decision
> about which one hit which thing. It came down to a choice of lining up the
> shots with either of the last two shots being the head shot at Z-313.

The only one we have a fairly exact time for. Just *before* Z-313.

> I
> think they made the wrong choice in saying that it was the shot from the
> TSBD. I think it was the grassy knoll shot.
>

Yes, we know. Of course you do.

> > And this is within a fairly short period of time; with many "impulse
> > patterns" to pick from, it's not surprising that some could be picked
> > that seemed to match what is seen in the Z film.
>
> You think it's a coincidence that the acoustical evidence found exactly
> three shots fired from the sniper's nest all within 9 seconds?
>

They had to "find" something that looked like that to continue to believe
that the recording was made during the assassination. It's not strange
that they found what they were looking for, if you consider that they were
studying rather a Rorschach blot of data.

There is a lot of approximation in the calculations that you conveniently
forget about. For example, we don't know the exact split- second at which
the first two shots were fired (unlike the last).

And I'll note that to save your own scenario, you had to change some of
BB&N's conditions, such as the distance from the microphone at which a
"match" can be claimed.

> > The "acoustic evidence" as finally presented has still been
> > interpreted differently by different people. The fuzziness of the data
> > increases the more you know about it.
>
> You know nothing about the data.
>
> > With a great will to believe, though, one finds a pattern that fits
> > one's prior interpretation. But you might as well be reading tea
> > leaves.
>
> The patterns were found mathematically.
>

For all the mathematical tour de force, Barger himself said that the
results would be proven wrong if it were shown that the recording was
not made during the assassination.
He didn't say that the odds were wildly against that because of their
impeccable calculations.
No, he basically said, Oops, well, we'll see then...

> > And there is no meaningful comparison with the work done by BB&N on
> > the audio recording at Kent State. I don't know of any other instance
> > where the technique used to analyze the Dictabelt recording has been
> > used anywhere since. (But if you do, by all means, let's hear about
> > it.)
>
> Oh please. BBN did both. Conditions of each were different. Same science.

Not at all. The Kent State recordings contained audible gunfire.

> That science had been around for many years. It was used to identify enemy
> artillery locations from the echoes. It is used every day today in cities
> to instantly identify where gunshots are fired.
>

They don't determine *whether* gunshots have been fired.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Blakey was predisposed to blame the Mafia. He wrote the RICO law. And
the CIA were his buddies so he didn't suspect them. Once they had a
conspiracy they had to name conspirators, just like here.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/5/2011 10:59 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Oct 3, 9:36 pm, scott zimmer<dvdsr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know there is no evidence of this but I think it is a reasonable and
>> logical (and believable) answer to the questions
>
> Ok, I commend your attempt to make sense of the assassination from the
> Anybody but Oswald school of thought, but there are a few problems
> with the theory you advance.
> Hopefully you can close the gaps with something that makes sense.
> As you note, there's no evidence that supports any of your conjecture,
> but let's ignore that for now.
> Right now, we're just looking for a theory that fits the known
> evidence that shows Oswald is not guilty.
>
>>
>> 1 If Oswald was a patsy and if he did take a rifle that day it is
>> possible that someone approached Oswald prior to the assassination
>> wanting to buy his rifle. Maybe give him twice its value or even
>> more. Said they needed it to go hunting that weekend with friends so
>> really needed it the following day or the deal was off. Would pick it
>> up in the afternoon from the TSBD after the president had been through
>> dallas. He needed the money he was broke (this explains if he was
>> expecting money that day from the sale of the rifle him thinking he
>> could afford to leave Marina $165 that morning).
>
> Oswald always doled out money to Marina a little at a time -
> regardless of how much he had. He never before gave her a large lump

As usual you ignore evidence of innocence to frame your suspect.
Marina asked him to buy her a washing machine and he said yes. So that
$179 was for the washing machine. His parting present.

> sum, regardless of how flush he was. So you need another theory to
> explain why this day was so out of the ordinary. Was he not planning
> to come home ever again, perhaps? If he was, why not surprise her with

Because he was formally separating from here, giving up on any hope for
reconciliation. That's why he left his wedding ring on the dresser.

> a nice dinner out, or some flowers, or a new washing machine? Instead,
> he just leaves almost all the money he has in the world to Marina that
> morning, with no explanation?
> Please re-try. What was different about this time that he would act so
> out of character that morning?
>

No sex.

>
>
>> So Oswald went out
>> to Irving to collect it that Thursday. hemade the paper bag that
>> Thursday to do that. Why Frazier never saw the bag he made being taken
>> out to Irving is for someone else to explain.
>
> Not a big deal. He folded it upon itself numerous times and stuffed in
> his pants or jacket pocket.

I'd like to see you demonstrate that in person so that Frazier would not
notice it and ask him about it. Why did Frazier ask him about the
package in the back seat?
When Oswald told him it was curtain rods that made perfect sense to
Frazier. Didn't look like a TV set.

> Only conspiracy-minded people think Frazier needed to have seen it on
> the trip to Irving or that means Oswald never took it there.
> Something that small and easily concealable is only an issue to the
> Anybody-but-Oswald crowd.
>

You talk big, but you can't demonstrate it.
Take a refrigerator box and fold it up small enough to fit in your shirt
pocket and claim no one would notice it.

>> Prior to 1963 you
>> would not necessarily associate a rifle and the assassination of a
>> president so that would not have even crossed his mind and he had seen
>> a couple of other rifles in the building a few days before with Truly
>> and others at work.
>
> It was the week prior. And none of the fragments of bullets recovered
> from the assassination were traceable to any weapon except Oswald's.
> So not an issue, except to the A-B-O crowd.
>

They could not trace the lead core fragments to Oswald's rifle. Only the
ones with jackets.

>
>>
>> 2. Him and Frazier were not close friends. Frazier didnt even know his
>> last name prior to that day It was none of Fraziers business what was
>> in the package and even then probably. not something you wanted to
>> broadcast so Oswald just gave him bs about curtain rods to brush him
>> off.. . Can you honestly say everytime someone has asked you a
>> question you didnt think they had any right to know about you havent
>> fobbed them off wth something totally BS. If you are some one who can
>> honestly say no to that question you would be in the minority
>
> Ok, not unreasonable. But remember that in custody, Oswald told the
> cops
> 1. he never brought any long paper bag to work, and
> 2. never told Frazier a curtain rod story, and
> 3. Never owned a rifle.
>

You don't know that for a fact. All we have are police lies. The police
are allowed to lie during interrogations.

> You are claiming Oswald lied in custody about all three - making
> himself look more guilty - when there was a perfectly innocent
> explanation to explain himself.
>

Or we could be claiming that the police lied about all three.
To make Oswald look guilty. To shore up a weak case.

> Why not tell the truth and be done with it instead of lying and making
> yourself look guilty?
>

The moment Oswald admits he owned a rifle he makes himself guilty in the
Walker shooting.

> Innocent people, when accused of a crime, do not lie about their
> involvement and make themselves look more guilty. But your theory has
> Oswald acting this way.
>

Of course they do. You know nothing about the process. And you assume
that he lied and then try to use that against him, yet you won't admit
that the police lied.

> Care to expand upon this theory to explain why Oswald lied to the cops
> in custody about the rifle, the paper bag, and the purpose for the
> trip to Irving?
>

Is this your first time here, Newbie, and you've never read any of the
previous 10,000 messages about this?

> And you're not explaining all the evidence against Oswald. Like the
> bullet fragments found in the limo traceable to *his* rifle, to the
> exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Yes, we did. His rifle was fired that day. That does not mean he fired it.

> So if he was to sell it, did he sell it before lunch (and if so,
> where's the money he got for selling it?), or was he planning to sell
> it after the President went by, and decided to use it one final time
> before cashing out?
>

Maybe the guy couldn't get there until lunch because he was also working.
Maybe that $13 in his wallet came from selling his rifle.

> Since he only had about $10 on him after the shooting, he either sold
> it very cheaply, or not at all. And if that's the case, then the
> argument for leaving the money behind for Marina goes pfffft.
>

Yeah, in the real world people sometimes sell things for less than they
paid for them. I bought a second hand car for $500 because I had the
cash in my hand. It probably cost $10,000 new. Do you think they would
be able to sell the $10,000 car for $20,000 after 10 years? Ever hear of
a concept called depreciation?

> And if he sold it, why didn't he tell the cops that when they first
> questioned him about the rifle in custody???
>

Then he would have to admit that he owned the rifle. He really did shoot
at Walker.

> Instead, he claimed he didn't own a rifle at all, and then when
> confronted with photos of himself with a rifle, said the photos were
> forged - compounding the problem!
> At no time did he say, "hey, I sold that rifle this morning to _______
> (insert name here) and he gave me $__ (insert price here) for it."

Then he'd be convicting himself of attempted murder for the shot on
Walker. Why do you think he used an alias to buy the rifle. So that it
would be Hidell they were looking for, not him.

> Any idea why he didn't tell the cops that in custody? I have a theory
> that explains why - it did not happen that way and Oswald was not as
> creative as you.
> Care to shoot holes in my theory?
>

What theory?

> So your theory to get Oswald off, while a good first attempt, still
> needs some work.
>
> Please get back to us when you have closed some of these loopholes.
>
>>
>> 3 answered by 1 and 2
>>
>> Of course if that happened the question is why didnt Oswald tell the
>> police that.? Maybe he was keeping it to himself till he had a lawyer
>> present. I mean he would have been wasting his time witht the cops
>> that day they wouldnt have believed him.
>
> And if he told the lawyer that in the presence of the cops, what would
> that accomplish?

Why would a suspect tell a lawyer something incriminating in front of
the cops. But of course the police routinely bug suspects talking to
their lawyers. Oops, I forgot, the DPD were so poor that they didn't own
a tape recorder. Yeah, that's it.

> Do you really think the lawyer or the cops would believe it, unless
> Oswald named names and showed them the money for the sale of the
> rifle?
>

Is the buyer supposed to give the seller a receipt? Is that how you
think it works? When I go into a store and buy something I have to give
the clerk a receipt so they can prove they sold it to me?

> If you talk to the cops (or any reasonable person, like me) and offer
> reasonable explanations, they will listen.

No, you are not a reasonable person. You are a biased person.

> But if you claim all the evidence against you is forged, they know
> you're just as guilty as sin and won't.

Drefyus.

> Nearly 50 years later, Oswald's defenders are stuck in the same mode
> as Oswald - denying the evidence against him is legitimate, claiming
> it's all forged, and forced to argue for scenarios that they have to
> admit have no evidence to support them.
>

No, we've learned a little more about evidence since then. Just as
Amanda Knox was obviously guilty because they had her DNA on the knife.
Then we learned that the police lied and they did not have her DNA on
the knife. Case over.

> In other words, it's not that easy to come up a theory that explains
> the evidence as well as the Oswald-Did-It theory. But don't let that
> stop you.
>

That's your method, always seek the most simplistic explanation.
That's why you still think the Earth is flat. That's the simplest
explanation.

> All the best,
> Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

They HAD to be loosely designed because there were so many unknowns.

>> By
>> being designed to be loose they expected that about half the results would
>> be false alarms.
>
> They were all false alarms, but they cherry-picked the ones that fit
> their preconceptions.
>

No, some must be actual shots. And the further tests after this
screening test proved exactly where the grassy knoll shot was fired from.

>> But they found 15 matches which were significant enough
>> to be considered.
>
> Fifteen! If their method of determining which impulse pattern was a
> gunshot was sufficient on its own, that would be fifteen shots.
> But of course it wasn't.
>

No, again you show your ignorance. You can't have two shots at exactly the
same time from the same location. No person on this planet can fire two
weapons so simultaneously. Even a weapon which fires all four bullets at
exactly the same time will produce slightly different times. They expected
to reject about half the matches as false alarms.

>> So if only about half of those were really shots then
>> they could have as many as 7 real shots.
>
> But under those criteria, it's a coin toss as to which are "real"
> shots.
>

No, no coin toss. Careful reexamination. 50-50 is a coin toss. That's why
they brought in W&A to examine the grassy knoll shot which was a 50-50
probability. Their unique analysis changed that to 99.9%. But of course
that isn't good enough for a hard ass like you. You demand 100%.

>> But some of the false alarms were
>> almost identical to the other nearby matches. So the difference would be
>> just one shot with the muzzle in the plane of the window and the next with
>> the rifle drawn back two feet. Same shots, same location. Other matches
>> would be adjacent microphones so that the real location of the cycle might
>> be halfway in between the two microphones. Only in a couple of cases would
>> they have matches at the same time from two different firing locations.
>> Then they did have to choose which was the better match. After BBN
>> narrowed it down to 5 real shots, the HSCA made the political decision
>> about which one hit which thing. It came down to a choice of lining up the
>> shots with either of the last two shots being the head shot at Z-313.
>
> The only one we have a fairly exact time for. Just *before* Z-313.
>

What does that mean?

>> I
>> think they made the wrong choice in saying that it was the shot from the
>> TSBD. I think it was the grassy knoll shot.
>>
>
> Yes, we know. Of course you do.
>
>>> And this is within a fairly short period of time; with many "impulse
>>> patterns" to pick from, it's not surprising that some could be picked
>>> that seemed to match what is seen in the Z film.
>>
>> You think it's a coincidence that the acoustical evidence found exactly
>> three shots fired from the sniper's nest all within 9 seconds?
>>
>
> They had to "find" something that looked like that to continue to believe
> that the recording was made during the assassination. It's not strange
> that they found what they were looking for, if you consider that they were
> studying rather a Rorschach blot of data.
>

Blakey wanted to sweep this whole thing under the rug, but he realized
that he couldn't get away with it the way the WC did so he hired the best
acoustical experts in the world to put it to rest. He was shocked when
Barger called him and told him about the fourth shot. He was happy with
three shots from the sniper's nest.

> There is a lot of approximation in the calculations that you conveniently
> forget about. For example, we don't know the exact split- second at which
> the first two shots were fired (unlike the last).
>

There is still uncertainty because of the unknown variables. The DOJ
could resolve it by making a digital recording from the dictabelt, but
they refuse to do it. In violation of the FOIA.
We don't know for sure which correction factor to use for channel 1.
I use 1.043. Don Thomas uses 1.05.

> And I'll note that to save your own scenario, you had to change some of
> BB&N's conditions, such as the distance from the microphone at which a
> "match" can be claimed.
>

I have no idea what you think you mean by that, but everything you say
is always wrong.
There is no ideal distance. But what I did point out was that the
measurements BBN released for the location of the cycle were wrong
because the HSCA map was wrong.

>
>
>
>>> The "acoustic evidence" as finally presented has still been
>>> interpreted differently by different people. The fuzziness of the data
>>> increases the more you know about it.
>>
>> You know nothing about the data.
>>
>>> With a great will to believe, though, one finds a pattern that fits
>>> one's prior interpretation. But you might as well be reading tea
>>> leaves.
>>
>> The patterns were found mathematically.
>>
>
>
> For all the mathematical tour de force, Barger himself said that the
> results would be proven wrong if it were shown that the recording was
> not made during the assassination.

Obviously.

> He didn't say that the odds were wildly against that because of their
> impeccable calculations.
> No, he basically said, Oops, well, we'll see then...
>
>

If the cycle could not be there at the right time then it could not
record the shots. But it does not have to be McLain's cycle. It is
extremely unlikely that it could be anyone else's cycle.

>
>>> And there is no meaningful comparison with the work done by BB&N on
>>> the audio recording at Kent State. I don't know of any other instance
>>> where the technique used to analyze the Dictabelt recording has been
>>> used anywhere since. (But if you do, by all means, let's hear about
>>> it.)
>>
>> Oh please. BBN did both. Conditions of each were different. Same science.
>
> Not at all. The Kent State recordings contained audible gunfire.
>

Oh please. That had to be proven. That is what BBN was hired to prove.

>> That science had been around for many years. It was used to identify enemy
>> artillery locations from the echoes. It is used every day today in cities
>> to instantly identify where gunshots are fired.
>>
>
> They don't determine *whether* gunshots have been fired.
> /sm
>

Then how do they know the sound is not thunder instead of an artillery
gun? Same with the Boomerang machine.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. I am contrasting the fact that I am a researcher who actually finds
evidence with you who are not a researcher and can't find anything, even
my Web site.

I do not leave open the possibility that Oswald was a contract killer.

I KNOW that all the links to Castro were hoaxes. The Cuban embassy
officials kicked him out because they thought he was an agent provocateur.
Not strange that I have stated as a fact many many times that many WC
defenders secretly think that Oswald was working for Castro. I am not
making excuses for them. I am making fun of them. All their posturing and
hypocrisy.

>
>> What did YOU do? Absolutely nothing.
>> As I explained before it was the reason why LBJ ordered the cover-up.
>>
>
> You told us your *theory*. Which I don't find plausible.
> /sm

Not MY theory. I explained what Hoover and LBJ's theory was.
They were in charge of the cover-up, not I.

[Sandy McCroskey]

In other words, your comment that I "call [Oswald] a lone NUT" because
it "would damage your cause to call him a contract killer" was utterly
meaningless.

And again, you assert as fact your *theory* that LBJ "ordered the
cover-up."
/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

I meant a match with the location of McLain's as seen in the
photographic record.
You also thought maybe it didn't have to be McLain's cycle...
(Well, it wasn't a cycle in the plaza at all!)

> There is no ideal distance. But what I did point out was that the
> measurements BBN released for the location of the cycle were wrong
> because the HSCA map was wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> The "acoustic evidence" as finally presented has still been
> >>> interpreted differently by different people. The fuzziness of the data
> >>> increases the more you know about it.
>
> >> You know nothing about the data.
>
> >>> With a great will to believe, though, one finds a pattern that fits
> >>> one's prior interpretation. But you might as well be reading tea
> >>> leaves.
>
> >> The patterns were found mathematically.
>
> > For all the mathematical tour de force, Barger himself said that the
> > results would be proven wrong if it were shown that the recording was
> > not made during the assassination.
>
> Obviously.
>

And that has been done.

> > He didn't say that the odds were wildly against that because of their
> > impeccable calculations.
> > No, he basically said, Oops, well, we'll see then...
>
> If the cycle could not be there at the right time then it could not
> record the shots. But it does not have to be McLain's cycle. It is
> extremely unlikely that it could be anyone else's cycle.
>

Anyone else's in the plaza. And it wasn't.

>
>
> >>> And there is no meaningful comparison with the work done by BB&N on
> >>> the audio recording at Kent State. I don't know of any other instance
> >>> where the technique used to analyze the Dictabelt recording has been
> >>> used anywhere since. (But if you do, by all means, let's hear about
> >>> it.)
>
> >> Oh please. BBN did both. Conditions of each were different. Same science.
>
> > Not at all. The Kent State recordings contained audible gunfire.
>

Actually, the recording was enhanced to bring out the verbal firing
orders of the National Guard commander.

> Oh please. That had to be proven. That is what BBN was hired to prove.
>

There was no question about shoots having been fired at Kent State, and on
the tape they were audible to the "naked ear." From the 1982 National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics:
"The WA analysis is ingenious but it is novel in some aspects and both the
BRSW and the WA echo techniques for gunshot location had not been applied
previously by either group to a situation with as high a level of noise
and distortion as this one."

For anyone out there who is still wondering about the "acoustical
evidence," this report, which can be found on David Reitz's website,
at http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html, should be highly
illuminating.
You might also want to check out the IBM study from later that year
and other things linked on this page: http://www.jfk-online.com/acousticarc.html.

Now, Anthony Marsh has of course written a "rebuttal" of the opinions of
the scientists that sat on these respective panels, which batch of
know-nothings, as Marsh would have it, includes a number of Nobel Prize
winners(and whose work was also vetted by other peers). Do I think Marsh
is waaaaaay out of his league? The question answers itself.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

I proved on my Web site that LBJ ordered the cover-up.
No just you, but most WC defenders call Oswald a lone nut to avoid
discussing motive.

[Sandy McCroskey]

"Proved" to *your* satisfaction.

> No just you, but most WC defenders call Oswald a lone nut to avoid
> discussing motive.

I'm not avoiding anything, and that's a brazen statement, coming from
you, who can't say yet role Oswald played in the assassination.
It would also be a presumptuous statement, coming from anybody else.
I find the apparent psychological motivations a sufficient
explanation. Even when writing a novel that put Oswald into the midst
of a conspiracy, Don DeLillo painted so convincing a portrait of
Oswald's inner life, drawing extensively on the assassin's "Historical
Diary," that the other gunmen converging on the plaza seemed
superfluous and their involvement contrived. This novelistic failure
is also typical of the less professional efforts of conspiracy
fantasists.

The "motive" for the assassination you have concocted is utterly
unsubstantiated. If I talked about it all day, that's all I could say.
/sm