Cause and Effect: Oswald's Motive

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi All,

A recent link posted here by John Deagle led me to try and put the
assassination plus Oswald's motive for it in simple terms. Here it is:

SCENARIO 1: Walker Shooting

http://www.pet880.com/images/19630308_Atlanta_Journal_1.JPG

This is what happened next:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=359407&imageOnly=true

Here is the bullet recovered after that attack:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a9/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg

SCENARIO 2: Kennedy Shooting

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0053a.htm

This is what happened next:

http://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres15.jpg

Here are bullets recovered after that attack:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/59/Photo_naraevid_CE399-2.jpg

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/12/Photo_naraevid_CE569-2.jpg

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/21/Photo_naraevid_CE567-1.jpg

Is anyone else starting to see a pattern here?

If you were a public figure advocating harm to Lee Harvey Oswald's avowed
hero, Fidel Castro, or his regime, you risked Oswald coming after you with
lethal force.

Regards,

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

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

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

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Robert Harris]

This is from Dick Russell's book, "The Man Who Knew Too
Much". It is by far, the best explanation I have ever heard
for the Walker shooting:

(quoting)

On the evening of April 8, Robert Alan Surrey, a printing
salesman and associate of General Walker, says he "saw two
men around the house peeking in windows" as he drove up.
Spotting a dark colored new Ford sedan without license plates
on the street into which Walker's back alley ran, surrey
waited until the men returned to the car and then briefly
tailed them. When the car doubled back, Surrey, believing he
had been spotted, abandoned the trail. He reported the
incident late that night to Walker; the general says he
called the police.

The shooting incident came two nights later. At about 9 PM,
while Walker was sitting at a desk in his study, a bullet
came whizzing through the window, passed near his head, and
embedded in a wall, showering Walker with plaster.

Although the testimony of a teenage neighbor boy, Walter
Coleman, was glossed over by the Warren Commission, the
teenager said he observed three men outside Walker's house.
Two of them sped away down an alley in a white or beige older
model Ford... Coleman saw the third man put something on the
floorboard of a 1958 Chevy in the adjacent church parking
lot, then hastily leave the scene...

The Walker Shooting Revisited

Bradford J. Angers, a former Army security agent and private
investigator, today continues to manufacture electronic
surveillance equipment in semi-retirement in Dallas. For a
brief time in 1963 he had been in the employ of H. L. Hunt,
until the oilman demanded that Angers pack for Washington and
go to work on his Lifeline radio project. Angers refused, and
walked out of the office.

Then, several weeks after the assassination, Angers says he
got a surprise phone call from Hunt."He said,'Brad, I'm
sending a guy over to you, I want you to put him to work.' It
was like an ultimatum." Angers agreed to do so.

When I spoke to Angers on a tip in the spring of l992, he
refused to identify publicly the person whom Hunt asked him
to hire. But it quickly became obvious to me who it was.

Angers recalled the young man as being "a frail fellow, very
meticulous. He patterned himself after Joseph Goebbels. He
and I used to talk about how Goebbels used syllogistic logic
to build the Nazi empire."

Angers landed him a job in Austin, assisting Lady Bird
Johnson's radio station in an advertising campaign. Then,
suddenly, the FBI showed up at Anger's door."They said,'how
much do you know about this guy that you just put to work for
the president's wife?'" I said "Well, I know he's a helluva
smart guy." Then they told me about CUSA and the
black-bordered ad. I had never associated this fellow with
the ad. So I tried calling the fellow up, but he'd
disappeared. Finally his housekeeper called me and said to
come over; that he needed medical care and some money. I went
to his apartment in Austin. His face was all bandaged up. He
had his arms in splints, and his wife had her leg in a cast.
They said they'd had a little accident near Denton County.

"I gave them some money and then called this old sheriff up
in Denton. He said there had been no major accidents there in
several weeks. But one of their squad cars did pick up a man
and woman who'd been beaten up and thrown out of a car. The
sheriff said they gave phony ID, but he gave me a
description. So I went back to this fellow and asked him what
was up, and he let me tape-record our conversation. He told
me that he and his wife had been picked up by the Secret
Service. They were told if they even mentioned any
relationship with the Kennedy assassination, or the Hunts,
they`d be dead."

"Before the assassination, this guy's brother had gotten
close to General Walker. Eventually he became his chauffeur.
It was part of their infiltrating Walker's organization, and
it went back to a power struggle in Germany when this fellow
had been in the Army there and starting forming his own
little group. Apparently this fellow couldn't stand Walker.
Neither could his brother. "Somehow that spring of '63, the
brother had made Friends with Oswald, who was also trying to
get close to Walker. But this fellow I knew had never met
Oswald, l don"t think, until his brother introduced them that
night in April. The three of them got drunk together. They
got in a car and the brother said,"Somebody ought to shoot
that no-good son of a bitch Walker." And this fellow
said,"I've got news for you, I got him kicked out of the
goddamned Army in Germany." Then Oswald said, "I've got a
rifle, let's go hit the son of a bitch."

"The three of them drove down St. Johns Avenue, and stopped
the car close to a little stone bridge that went over Tuttle
Creek. The brother and Oswald went down the creek, and Oswald
laid down on the embankment looking at Walker's house.
Remember the great big window Walker had in the front?"Walker
was a nut, he would turn up a lamp and just pace back and
forth reading in the room. They saw his shadow against the
back wall and Oswald pumped off a shot. It hit the wall
instead. Then they jumped in the car and took off"

Angers's story has never before been made public. The young
man he is describing could only be Larrie Schmidt. This would
mean that Schmidt, who was in touch with Charles and the Hunt
family, would have been perfectly positioned to pass the word
along about Oswald. Schmidt and/or his brother might even
have been acting under instructions in the first place to
involve Oswald in the Walker incident. If this account is
true and Angers is sure it is-the implications are staggering.

In the summer of 1992 I recontacted General Walker, now
eighty-two, at his Dallas home. He well remembered Larrie
Schmidt and his brother Bob."Larrie had been in a logistics
command under General [James] Gavin down in Munich. The
Schmidts" objective here in Dallas was to take over a ready-
made organization. They started out moving in on Frank
McGee's National Indignation Convention. Then Young Americans
for Freedom became a good cover for them. Finally, they
wanted to take over my organization."

Walker could not remember just when he took Bob Schmidt onto
his personal staff, but it was probably before he hit the
road with preacher Hargis early in 1963. It was Walker's
aide-de-camp, Robert Surrey, who first brought the Schmidt
brothers around."I had six to eight people working for me at
the time. and Bob ran a lot of errands," Walker recalled. "I
had a station wagon, people coming into the airport, all my
publications had to be printed across town. Larrie would hang
around, just being a nuisance. Finally l ran him out of my
house and told him never to set foot in it again. The dead
giveaway was when one day he appeared on the front page of
the Dallas Times Herald as a Dallas businessman. I thought he
was overdoing it, he didn't seem to have much objective
except making a power play. People don't realize how vicious
it was; people were sabotaging within the organizations you
see, even on the conservative side."

Finally l asked this question: Did Walker think it was
conceivable that the Schmidt brothers could have gotten
together with Oswald to shoot at him? His reply stunned me.
"I've been told that they were," Walker said."Several people
investigated the shooting as best they could, and raised that
possibility. They were plenty capable of working with Oswald,
sure. I think it's rather natural to suspect they were
helping him one way or another."

[David Von Pein]

Good post, Tim. Thanks.

Related link....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-892.html

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

And reportedly JFK's Miami speech included key passages that were put
there as signals to a Cuban official who met with the CIA and offered to
kill Castro that the plan was approved by the highest figures in the US
government, i.e., the President.

The Cuban official (Rolando Cubela) was more than likely a double agent
who was working for Castro.

If the above is true, Castro must have been paying attention to all of
this. After his threat in September against JFK what was he going to do?

I don't see any direct or indirect connection between Oswald and Castro
and the above. But it is odd.

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris

Yet a other tall tale spawned from the imaginings of the "It's all a vast
conspiracy! I hear them whispering from my toaster" cult. Vampire stories
are more exciting, and they have a better chance of being true.

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:50:40 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> A recent link posted here by John Deagle led me to try and put the
> assassination plus Oswald's motive for it in simple terms. Here it is:
>
> SCENARIO 1: Walker Shooting
>
> http://www.pet880.com/images/19630308_Atlanta_Journal_1.JPG

The Walker shooting had nothing to do with Oswald or his MC rifle. The
bullet that was fired at Walker was STEEL jacketed as per the police
report, and Walker himself who had seen the bullet wrote them and told
them to withdraw the bullet that was shown because it wasn't the right
one. They ignored him and kept showing the wrong bullet. Here's his
letter:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf

>
> This is what happened next:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=359407&imageOnly=true
>
> Here is the bullet recovered after that attack:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a9/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg
>

See above for the real story of why this is NOT the bullet in question.

> SCENARIO 2: Kennedy Shooting
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0053a.htm
>

A newspaper article doesn't offer any proof. At best it might be a
motive for the right person. Which Oswald wasn't.

> This is what happened next:
>
> http://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres15.jpg
>

We're all aware that there was a murder, and it didn't happen "next",
it happened months later than the Walker shooting.

> Here are bullets recovered after that attack:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/59/Photo_naraevid_CE399-2.jpg
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/12/Photo_naraevid_CE569-2.jpg
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/21/Photo_naraevid_CE567-1.jpg
>

The first photo is of a test bullet that CE399 originally was. the
following WC photo shows it far left:

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

In the above photo you see the CE399 bullet next to CE572, a test
bullet. The 2 bullets have a slight bend in the middle, and a slight
flattening in the middle, and also they both have a bit of material
missing from the tail end. The CE399 is a test bullet generated the very
next day during FBI testing, at which the FBI bullet custodian was present
when they fired about 60 bullets to test the MC rifle.

The original bullet in custody from the day of the murder that was
found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland hospital was replaced by the
custodian. when there was a problem with the CE399 bullet in custody, it
was passed around to 4 men that had handled the bullet the day of the
murder, and they all refused to identify it. One of them even said that
the CE399 bullet was the wrong shape from the original bullet...more proof
of a replacement.

> Is anyone else starting to see a pattern here?
>

Yep, the pattern is that you're pushing together a bunch of unrelated
newspaper articles and a few mistaken items of evidence and try to make
them into a 'lone nut' killing, which is ridiculous.

> If you were a public figure advocating harm to Lee Harvey Oswald's avowed
> hero, Fidel Castro, or his regime, you risked Oswald coming after you with
> lethal force.
>

Naah! Oswald showed himself to be a very non-violent person during his
stay in Dallas. He never bought ammunition for his rifle, and he never
practiced with it. And he never fired it out of the 5th floor window.

Regards, Chris

[mainframetech]

What a shame! A somewhat knowledgeable person reduced to ad hominem
attacks on others. No research, no reading, no learning, just opinion and
emotion, the 2 things that make a war, but never a peace.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/15/2015 9:44 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:50:40 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> A recent link posted here by John Deagle led me to try and put the
>> assassination plus Oswald's motive for it in simple terms. Here it is:
>>
>> SCENARIO 1: Walker Shooting
>>
>> http://www.pet880.com/images/19630308_Atlanta_Journal_1.JPG
>
>
> The Walker shooting had nothing to do with Oswald or his MC rifle. The
> bullet that was fired at Walker was STEEL jacketed as per the police
> report, and Walker himself who had seen the bullet wrote them and told
> them to withdraw the bullet that was shown because it wasn't the right
> one. They ignored him and kept showing the wrong bullet. Here's his
> letter:
>
> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf
>

This is precious. You cite Walker's letter as absolute proof and then
call him a liar. Walker says it was a lead bullet, not a steel bullet.

Jeez, you just not trying hard enough to get into Ralph's club.
Why don't you claim that Walker shot at himself?

[Anthony Marsh]

^n^

> conspiracy! I hear them whispering from my toaster" cult. Vampire stories
> are more exciting, and they have a better chance of being true.
>

Just curious. Which Vampire stories do you think are true?
Only Vlad Tepes?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Bob, this could only be described as pure speculation on the part of
Russell, without a single speck of credible evidence to back it up.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi DVP,

Thanks mate! I think you make some strong points in your blog piece re
this.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Chris, your reply is such a mish mash of muddled thinking and already
debunked ideas as to be barely worthy of a response.

Are you sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was ever even in Dallas? That is if he
ever existed at all, Chris.

Astounded Regards,

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you refuse to read the documents?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm

[rayne...@gmail.com]

The motive is simple: to start WWIII.

The Russians could blame the USA & Cubans, The USA could blame the
Russians & Cubans, The Cubans could blame the USA & Russians.

As it turned out, neither the Russians nor the Cubans blamed each other.

Why didn't WWIII start? US government at that time was too chicken to take
on USSR.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/17/2015 11:28 AM, rayne...@gmail.com wrote:
> The motive is simple: to start WWIII.
>

Well, that's not exactly what they had in mind. It was to plant the fear
that a serious investigation would lead to WWIII. All the Cuban exiles
wanted was to force the US to invade Cuba for them. The US already had
plans for an invasion in December.

I know it's hard for you to believe, but there were some people in the US
who thought that the US could get away with invading Cuba and not sparking
WWIII. LBJ feared it would spark WWIII. Curtis LeMay didn't care if it did
and was prepared to nuke Cuba off the map. That's not what the Cuban
Exiles wanted. They didn't want to take over a destroyed and radioactive
Cuba. Bad for tourism and gambling. They wanted the US Marines to go in
quick and mop up.

> The Russians could blame the USA & Cubans, The USA could blame the
> Russians & Cubans, The Cubans could blame the USA & Russians.
>
> As it turned out, neither the Russians nor the Cubans blamed each other.
>

Well, in fact no one but the Cuban exiles were saying that Castro did
it. Some in the CIA suspected the Soviets on their own.

> Why didn't WWIII start? US government at that time was too chicken to take
> on USSR.
>

LBJ didn't have the stomach for it. His advisors said we'd lose 40 million
Americans on the first day. That's a big voting block and there was an
election coming up the next year.

Remember that he refused to run for reelection because he was fed up
with the Vietnam War.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Some Cuban exiles. On their own. Without approval from the CIA.

Underline that: _Without_ approval from the CIA.

And the Soviets were planting/promoting stories that the right wing was
behind it.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is simply not true. Didn't you read my article or are you afraid
to? Alvarado was not a Cuban Exile. He was a Nicaraguan intelligence
agent. He was a supporter of the Cuban Exiles.
The two newspaper editors were not Cuban Exiles.
They were rightwingers who supported the Cuban Exiles.
They got the story from Frank Sturgis, who was a CIA agent.

> Some Cuban exiles. On their own. Without approval from the CIA.
>

I never said it was approved by the DCI.

> Underline that: _Without_ approval from the CIA.
>

You still don't understand what rogue operations are.

> And the Soviets were planting/promoting stories that the right wing was
> behind it.
>

Yes, immediately, within hours. Not before.
Krock was promoting the story BEFORE the assassination that if there was
a coup, the CIA would be behind it.

>

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:50:40 PM UTC-5, tims...@gmail.com wrote:

> Is anyone else starting to see a pattern here?

From everything we've come to learn about Oswald, much of it through
Marina, he had no personal animosity toward President Kennedy. Oswald had
a problem with the REPRESENTATIVES (philosophically speaking) of
capitalism.

It is interesting to discuss Oswald's motives - but it really isn't
relevant to solving the assassination. The evidence speaks for itself.
Oswald was guilty. To conclude otherwise requires one to reject a ton of
evidence. It simply is not rational to believe Oswald did not fire shots
from the 6th floor sniper's nest.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:11:23 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Why do you refuse to read the documents?
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm

The above link says, "Lyndon Johnson told several key people of the report
from Hoover that Oswald had been paid by the Cubans to shoot President
Kennedy."

Does such a report by Hoover exist? I didn't see a link to it. Maybe I
missed it.

One thing we know for a fact is that Hoover's command of the details of
the assassination was very poor. He told Johnson many things about the
assassination (supported by recorded telephone conversations) that were
categorically wrong. Also, we know that Hoover was much more interested in
chasing down communists who may have infiltrated the U.S. government than
he was in chasing down members of organized crime, a philosophical
difference he had with Robert Kennedy from the very beginning. Hoover
thought the greatest threat to the U.S. was communism. Robert Kennedy
thought that organized crime was the bigger problem. As the Attorney
General, Robert Kennedy had the authority to re-direct the FBI's efforts
less on ferreting out communists and more on wire-tapping organized crime
figures. It was not an accident that the prosecution of organized crime
figures was up 700% under the Kennedy administration.

So, I could see some motivation by Hoover to frame the assassination in a
self-serving way that vindicates his long-held belief that communism was
the greater threat to the country; his snarky way of saying, "I told them
so! They should have listened to me."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:11:23 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Why do you refuse to read the documents?
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm

Oh, I see there WERE some links at the bottom of the above link. I didn't
notice them. I apologize. Yes, it appears Hoover relayed some information
in this regard about the Cubans but it does not appear very definitive.
For instance, he says to J. Lee Rankin, "The FBI has been furnished four
letters written from Cuba indicating or alleging that the assassination of
President Kennedy was undertaken by Oswald under the direction of a Cuban
agent, signed by Pedro Charles and addressed to Oswald..."

The letter mentions Pedro Charles meeting Oswald in Miami. I don't know
for certain - but I have never heard that Oswald was ever in Miami.

The letter is almost comical in that it says, "Don't forget to do all I
told you to the very letter and leave nothing that could lead to your
trail and when you receive my letter destroy them as always." It reeks of
being contrived!

Yeah, write a letter, send it through the regular postal service, mention
your name and tell the person to destroy the letter to increase the
suspicion and sinister nature of its intent. That's precious!

This reminds me of the famous "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter that Oswald
supposedly wrote that ended up being a complete fabrication.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[BOZ]

Th Francis Ford Coppola film starring Gary Oldman was based on a true
story.

[mainframetech]

Personally I'm glad they didn't start WW3. I lived in NYC at the time
and didn't really want to be obliterated into atoms.

Everyone had enough nuclear devices to dirty up the whole planet!

Chris

[mainframetech]

Sorry you're unable to follow what's there. It's not all mine. So since
you were unable to figure out what was said, you're not going to comment,
right?

I guess you're not into proof from the official records showing that
the Walker bullet was replaced, and the one shown was NOT the right one.
What's shown was the one that Walker demanded be withdrawn because it was
NOT the bullet he had seen when the shooting occurred. They ignored him,
since they really anted proof that Oswald was violent.

If you have any other needs in this area, let me know, and possibly I
can give you chapter and verse in a tidy sequence so you can follow it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made the
statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that he would
kill the one he loved.

In 1963 Marina was under pressure to answer as the FBI and others
wanted her to, and it was made known by Robert that she might be shipped
back to Russia. That would color many of her statements back in 1963-4.

Here's some of her testimony:

"Mr. RANKIN. Did you see anyone from the Immigration Service during this
period of time?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember the name. I think he is the chairman of that
office. At least he was a representative of that office.
Mr. RANKIN. By "that office" you mean the one at Dallas?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was told that he had especially come from New York, it
seems to me.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you?
Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not committed
any crime against this Government, then I had every right to live in this
country. This was a type of introduction before the questioning by the FBI.
He even said that it would be better for me if I were to help them.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for you?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this country.
I understood it that way.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you understand that you were being threatened with
deportation if you didn't answer these questions?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I did not understand it that way.
You see, it was presented in such a delicate form, but there was a clear
implication that it would be better if I were to help."

The sound is that she was warned, but in nice terms, that she should
help the FBI and it would go better for her.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I was specifically referring to the CIA exiles and their motives NOT
everybody who was spreading rumors/claims about Castro's involvement.

The Cuban exiles/anti-Castro groups that were spreading stories/claims
about Castro's involvement were not acting on behalf of the CIA. They were
disseminating these charges without CIA approval.

I am aware that other nationalities were spreading rumors. One said he was
Cuban officials give Oswald money while he, Oswald, was at the Cuban
embassy.

All sorts of people were making claims about who was behind the
assassination.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/19/2015 12:00 AM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:11:23 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Why do you refuse to read the documents?
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm
>
> Oh, I see there WERE some links at the bottom of the above link. I didn't
> notice them. I apologize. Yes, it appears Hoover relayed some information
> in this regard about the Cubans but it does not appear very definitive.
> For instance, he says to J. Lee Rankin, "The FBI has been furnished four
> letters written from Cuba indicating or alleging that the assassination of
> President Kennedy was undertaken by Oswald under the direction of a Cuban
> agent, signed by Pedro Charles and addressed to Oswald..."
>
> The letter mentions Pedro Charles meeting Oswald in Miami. I don't know
> for certain - but I have never heard that Oswald was ever in Miami.
>

Don't you think that makes it clear that it's a hoax? And Hoover
couldn't see that immediately?

> The letter is almost comical in that it says, "Don't forget to do all I
> told you to the very letter and leave nothing that could lead to your
> trail and when you receive my letter destroy them as always." It reeks of
> being contrived!
>

Ya think? And Hoover thought they were real.

> Yeah, write a letter, send it through the regular postal service, mention
> your name and tell the person to destroy the letter to increase the
> suspicion and sinister nature of its intent. That's precious!
>

It SOUNDS like something a spy would say, at least to fans of crime
novels. I suggest that it was written by a famous author of crime novels.

> This reminds me of the famous "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter that Oswald
> supposedly wrote that ended up being a complete fabrication.
>

Yeah, by whom?

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/18/2015 11:58 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:11:23 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Why do you refuse to read the documents?
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm
>
> The above link says, "Lyndon Johnson told several key people of the report
> from Hoover that Oswald had been paid by the Cubans to shoot President
> Kennedy."
>
> Does such a report by Hoover exist? I didn't see a link to it. Maybe I
> missed it.

This is exactly why I read the messages in reverse chronological order.

>
> One thing we know for a fact is that Hoover's command of the details of
> the assassination was very poor. He told Johnson many things about the
> assassination (supported by recorded telephone conversations) that were
> categorically wrong. Also, we know that Hoover was much more interested in
> chasing down communists who may have infiltrated the U.S. government than
> he was in chasing down members of organized crime, a philosophical
> difference he had with Robert Kennedy from the very beginning. Hoover
> thought the greatest threat to the U.S. was communism. Robert Kennedy
> thought that organized crime was the bigger problem. As the Attorney
> General, Robert Kennedy had the authority to re-direct the FBI's efforts
> less on ferreting out communists and more on wire-tapping organized crime
> figures. It was not an accident that the prosecution of organized crime
> figures was up 700% under the Kennedy administration.
>
> So, I could see some motivation by Hoover to frame the assassination in a
> self-serving way that vindicates his long-held belief that communism was
> the greater threat to the country; his snarky way of saying, "I told them
> so! They should have listened to me."
>

I think you overrate Hoover. He was a moron. He thought the Pedro
Charles letters were genuine.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 11:56:32 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

BINGO!!!

[mainframetech]

Actually, it's very relevant to speak of Oswald's motives or lack of
them. Without motives, he would not commit a murder. His actions leading
up to the murder show that he had no interest in shooting anything with
the MC rifle.

He refused to buy ammunition when it was offered, and he didn't bother
to practice with the rifle either. Not the actions of a shooter of
presidents.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

We've offered motives here numerous times and you dismissed it as a mind
reading exercise.

When did he "refuse" to buy ammunition? I just ordered ink from Office
Depot. I didn't buy paper with my purchase. I will purchase it elsewhere.
Did I refuse to buy paper?

I guess when I buy bread at the grocery store, and only bread, I am
refusing to buy steaks?

[Anthony Marsh]

Not officially. But they were controlled by a CIA officer.

> I am aware that other nationalities were spreading rumors. One said he was
> Cuban officials give Oswald money while he, Oswald, was at the Cuban
> embassy.
>

Alvarado was a friend and supporter of the Cuban Exiles.

[mainframetech]

Your story doesn't really simulate the situation. In the case of Oswald
and Klein's, they offered him ammunition in the very advertisement that
offered the rifle. He went for the rifle, but refused the ammunition.
This was all under his assumed name of Hidell, making it easier for him to
buy the ammo.

In the case of you buying steaks, you're right there and can choose,
you're not sending in a request for something. You're also not held back
by having no car or license for driving. When you have to go to the
effort of buying through the mail, it's a pain, and would be easier to buy
the ammo right along on the same order, but it was refused when offered.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

You know quite well that the CIA had all sorts of problems controlling
these groups. They often had their own agendas and used the US government
as much as the US was using them.

This is what irks me about Morley's claims on this issue. He says CIA
money was used to spread stories about Oswald's connections/support with
Castro. True, but there is no evidence that the use was approved by the
CIA in general or by their controlling agents, Joannides in particular.

Sturgis wasn't working for the CIA at that time. In fact, from everything
I've read he never worked for them.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made the
> statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that he would
> kill the one he loved.

I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't stop him
from nearly decapitating her.

[mainframetech]

In his deranged mind he had a reason, that she was seeing another man,
when he had promised disaster for her if when she left him. I can't think
of a similar element in the life of Oswald. JFK hadn't done him
wrong...:)

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

This is silly.

I just ordered ink online from Office Depot. The page with the ink offered
all sorts of items, including discounted paper, with my purchase.

Did I REFUSE to buy the paper because I only wanted the ink? Of course
not.

If someone only wants one item that might mean they don't need any other
items because they either have them or they can find it elsewhere.

Did you ever think that the reason Oswald didn't order ammo was because he
either had some or he knew where he could acquire it more cheaply?

One more: did those hijackers who really weren't on the planes on 9/11 get
their luggage? And any frequent flyer miles too?

Okay, that was two but I'm sure you can handle it.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Yeah, he loved JFK so much that he was glued to the TV trying to find out
what happened to him. Something about getting shot?

And when he was arrested he so loved JFK that he did everything he could
to help the police find out what happened. Totally cooperative.

Yes, Lee loved Jack.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/22/2015 11:34 AM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:58:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>
>>> More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made the
>>> statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that he would
>>> kill the one he loved.
>>
>> I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't stop him
>> from nearly decapitating her.
>
> Yeah, he loved JFK so much that he was glued to the TV trying to find out
> what happened to him. Something about getting shot?
>

As far as I know they didn't have a TV in the TSBD or on the bus or in
the cab.

He did ask a secretary what happened.

> And when he was arrested he so loved JFK that he did everything he could
> to help the police find out what happened. Totally cooperative.
>

Well, he couldn't do much under those conditions and then they killed him.

> Yes, Lee loved Jack.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Did you refuse the paper when they told you it comes free with the ink?
Would you refuse a free lunch? Of course, because you are rich.

>
> If someone only wants one item that might mean they don't need any other
> items because they either have them or they can find it elsewhere.
>
> Did you ever think that the reason Oswald didn't order ammo was because he
> either had some or he knew where he could acquire it more cheaply?
>

Had some? Before he even knew which rifle to buy?
Maybe he got some from Alba.
Maybe he found some in the dumpster. Gee, this is a fun new game you
invented.

> One more: did those hijackers who really weren't on the planes on 9/11 get
> their luggage? And any frequent flyer miles too?
>

Did they have any luggage? Wouldn't it be suspicious for 25 burly
foreign men to board without luggage?
How many times do you board without luggage?

[Anthony Marsh]

Almost right. Joannides was controlling some of the Cuban Exiles
involved at the time. The CIA refuses to obey the law and release the
Joannides files. They know the public won't believe them when they say
they were innocent.

> Sturgis wasn't working for the CIA at that time. In fact, from everything
> I've read he never worked for them.
>

Ridiculous. Helms admitted that Sturgis was a contract agent. It makes
you look guilty when you deny things that the CIA has already admitted.

[bigdog]

In his deranged mind Oswald had a reason for killing JFK. Sorry if he
didn't tell you what it was.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Chris, I have to say that I found this part of your original response
rather amusing:

QUOTE ON:

> SCENARIO 2: Kennedy Shooting
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0053a.htm
>

A newspaper article doesn't offer any proof. At best it might be a
motive for the right person. Which Oswald wasn't.


> This is what happened next:
>
> http://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres15.jpg
>


We're all aware that there was a murder, and it didn't happen "next",
it happened months later than the Walker shooting.

QUOTE OFF

You are unable to work out that the KENNEDY VIRTUALLY INVITES CUBAN COUP
story is from the Tuesday of the week that Kennedy was assassinated? And
that the assassination story later in the week follows it?

I don't think anyone will be going to you for chapter and verse in a tidy
sequence so that they can follow it, Chris. You simply don't know what
you're talking about.

Corrective Regards,

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

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

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

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I'll just take this one: the secretary recounted her encounter with
Oswald. She said she told him, "The president was shot but maybe they
missed."

He, according to her, mumbled something in return and they passed each
other by.

He didn't say, "My god, that's awful" or "Really, that's terrible." He
didn't act nonplussed or surprised.

So all Oswald knew was that maybe JFK was shot, maybe not. Maybe he's
dead, maybe not. Maybe they caught the shooter, maybe not.

After this encounter he shows no interest in finding out what happened.

Explain that away, Mr. Defense Counsel Lane, er, Marsh.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Yeah. Y'know, just because you have nothing to say doesn't mean you have
to share it with everyone.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Where did Helms acknowledge this?

Was he (Sturgis) working for them in 1963?

[claviger]

Oswald was a loser on a downward spiral. The Cubans didn't want anything
to do with him and neither did Marina. He felt belittled and humiliated.
To get respect he had to do something really big. His decision was to
make his bones as a Marxist hitman. LHO wanted the world to take notice
he was a man to be reckoned with, by doing something neither the Mob, nor
Castro, nor the KGB could do, take down the President. When children want
attention they will take what they can get. If not positive attention,
then negative will do. LHO was a childish person with a Walter Mitty
complex who felt ignored and undervalued.

To LHO life was unfair. Why should a handsome guy from a wealthy family
and a beautiful wife be admired and enjoy the adulation of the US public
while LHO who came from poverty suffer rejection and disrespect? He
responded with the only skill he learned in the USMC, how to shoot a good
rifle and hit targets up to 300 yards away. He chose to do it with a
cheap military surplus rifle to add insult to injury.

Still a chance LHO really wanted to shoot ex-Secretary of the Navy, John B
Connally because of his discharge status and at the same time scare the
hell out of the rich boy President, but screwed up and shot the wrong guy.

Maybe he didn't care which one he shot. To kill two Capitalist pigs with
one bullet would be the ultimate revenge and make him a Marxist hero
around the world.

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 April 2015 13:56:32 UTC+10, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:50:40 PM UTC-5, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Is anyone else starting to see a pattern here?
>
> From everything we've come to learn about Oswald, much of it through
> Marina, he had no personal animosity toward President Kennedy. Oswald had
> a problem with the REPRESENTATIVES (philosophically speaking) of
> capitalism.
>
> It is interesting to discuss Oswald's motives - but it really isn't
> relevant to solving the assassination. The evidence speaks for itself.
> Oswald was guilty. To conclude otherwise requires one to reject a ton of
> evidence. It simply is not rational to believe Oswald did not fire shots
> from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
>

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

Hi David,

I think that is a pretty sound conclusion. Vincent Bugliosi used it in ON
TRIAL: LHO where he classed Kennedy as the quintessential representative
of all that Oswald opposed/despised.

As to motive, I think it's worth looking at. The assassination was a
simple crime and this was an attempt to put it in simple terms. If you
messed with Oswald's hero, Castro, you were in trouble.

Of course, opportunity played a large part and he certainly had the means
as those expended bullets attest.

[mainframetech]

Oswald always played like he was cool, and was never surprised at
anything. He played it that way that day, and did so when brought to the
police and questioned.

Oswald relied on his mental abilities, and not on any physical prowess,
of which he had little.

Chris

[mainframetech]

A shame I didn't bother to check newspaper dates. But it means
nothing to the JFK shooting. Unless LBJ had a good reason to cause the
conspiracy due to the news, which I doubt.

All the evidence points to Oswald not wanting to shoot anyone, and only
wanting the rifle to impress someone he wanted to get in with. They can't
even show that any bullets form the MC rifle ever hit or hurt anyone!

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ah! A chink appears in the baloney story of the WC! Oswald had no
reason to kill JFK! But the LN kooks won't stop blaming him, since they
were told by the WC lawyers that their 'theory' says Oswald did it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You forget that Oswald left the TSBD early. He had brought in a rifle
which he had hidden possibly on the 6th floor for later sale or trade or
whatever. He had encountered officer Baker who put a gun in his gut until
Roy Truly identified him as an employee. Other employees mentioned to him
that JFK had been shot, and he put 2 and 2 together and knew they were
looking for the shooter in the TSBD. He figured out that he had been set
up, and he may have even known who had done it to him, and he got out of
there as fast as he could at his first opportunity.

He was running just as if he was guilty, but he may have saved his own
life, since the conspirators probably had his death in mind to happen
right in the TSBD. Failing to get him there, the DPD got him, but not the
ones who would have shot him dead, and so the conspirators had to order
someone to step in and get rid of Oswald before he told what little he
knew.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You've offered a possible scenario, but forgot that there are other
possibilities in your version vs. the Oswald problem. For your situation,
you didn't need paper, so didn't buy it. And for Oswald, he didn't need
ammunition because he wanted the rifle for something else and not for
shooting someone, so he didn't buy any ammo.

You've suggested that Oswald didn't buy ammunition because he had
already bought some elsewhere, or would soon buy some elsewhere. But the
possibility has to be considered that he didn't want ammunition because he
wanted the rifle for something else, and didn't need ammo. The FBI
thought about Oswald buying ammo elsewhere, and they looked long and hard
for where he might buy some. They found 2 places that handled that kind
of ammo, and they checked both and found they hadn't sold any ammo of that
type to Oswald. So back to square one.

I believe that Oswald bought the rifle to use to impress someone he
wanted to get in with that he was a rough, tough guy ready for action.
To back up my belief, the first thing Oswald did when he received the
rifle was to have his photo taken with both of his guns and some commie
literature, showing what a rebel he was. After he got his photo, he
rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in the garage and forgot it.

Someone at his work (TSBD) gave him a reason to bring in the rifle the
day of the murder, which he did. Maybe to sell it, or to show it or trade
it. He didn't know he was getting set up.


As to the so-called hijackers of the planes on 9/11, the odd thing is
that a number of guys with the exact same names and past history turned up
in foreign countries complaining that they were being set up because they
were not only still alive, but were never near a plane that day and had
nothing to do with the fall of the 3 towers. Of course, instead of
investigating them and why they would say what they did, the US Government
ignored them hoping I guess they would go away.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I am pointing out your lack of common sense.

[Anthony Marsh]

That would be very out of character for a loner. His fellow workers said
he never conversed with them. He considered them capitalists.

> After this encounter he shows no interest in finding out what happened.
>

You ASSuME.

> Explain that away, Mr. Defense Counsel Lane, er, Marsh.
>
>

If you think I'm actually Mark Lane you really are nuts. Most of the
morons here can traceroute my messages back to Massachusetts. They get
the city wrong, but it ain't Manhattan.

[Jason Burke]

Not to mention ALL the evidence, eh, Chris?

[Jason Burke]

>>> the ammo right along on the same order, but it was refused when offered..

Stick to one wild fantasy at a time, Chris.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:24:14 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 April 2015 13:56:32 UTC+10, David Emerling wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:50:40 PM UTC-5, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Is anyone else starting to see a pattern here?
> >
> > From everything we've come to learn about Oswald, much of it through
> > Marina, he had no personal animosity toward President Kennedy. Oswald had
> > a problem with the REPRESENTATIVES (philosophically speaking) of
> > capitalism.
> >
> > It is interesting to discuss Oswald's motives - but it really isn't
> > relevant to solving the assassination. The evidence speaks for itself.
> > Oswald was guilty. To conclude otherwise requires one to reject a ton of
> > evidence. It simply is not rational to believe Oswald did not fire shots
> > from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
> >
> > David Emerling
> > Memphis, TN
>
> Hi David,
>
> I think that is a pretty sound conclusion. Vincent Bugliosi used it in ON
> TRIAL: LHO where he classed Kennedy as the quintessential representative
> of all that Oswald opposed/despised.
>

Yup.

Kennedy was rich. Oswald was not.

Kennedy was good looking. Oswald was not.

Kennedy was well liked. Oswald was not.

Kennedy was famous. Oswald was not.

Kennedy was powerful. Oswald was insignificant.

Within 48 hours, they were both dead. Oswald's Carcano proved to be the
great equalizer.

> As to motive, I think it's worth looking at. The assassination was a
> simple crime and this was an attempt to put it in simple terms. If you
> messed with Oswald's hero, Castro, you were in trouble.
>

It's fun to speculate, but we'll never know for sure why Oswald did what
he did. If we did know, it might not even make sense to us.

> Of course, opportunity played a large part and he certainly had the means
> as those expended bullets attest.
>

I doubt the thought of killing JFK ever entered Oswald's head until he
looked at the newpaper and saw JFK was going to ride right past his
workplace in a slow moving open top car. It was a once in a lifetime
opportunity for Oswald to become somebody significant. He succeeded.

[bigdog]

Just because we don't know what Oswald's reason was doesn't mean he didn't
have a reason.

We won't stop blaming Oswald because the WC provided us with convincing
evidence of his guilt. The only mystery is why do some refuse to be
convinced in the face of such compelling evidence.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

You think it's reasonable that Oswald, a politically engaged person, would
leave the building within three minutes of the shooting and show no
interest in what actually happened afterwards. There is nothing, in your
view, extraordinary about that behavior.

Then you claim I am the one lacking common sense?

It's always surprising what one can find on the internet.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

No, I don't think you're Mark Lane. That was sarcasm.

As to his co-workers: No, he considered them fools for defending the
capitalist system that he loathed. He viewed the American people with
contempt.

After the encounter, according to everyone who came across him, he never
talked about or mentioned the shooting. Or showed any interest in it.

That's not an assumption on my part, that's what they said.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:40:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:58:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made the
> > > > statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that he would
> > > > kill the one he loved.
> > >
> > > I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't stop him
> > > from nearly decapitating her.
> >
> > Yeah, he loved JFK so much that he was glued to the TV trying to find out
> > what happened to him. Something about getting shot?
> >
> > And when he was arrested he so loved JFK that he did everything he could
> > to help the police find out what happened. Totally cooperative.
> >
> > Yes, Lee loved Jack.
>
>
> You forget that Oswald left the TSBD early. He had brought in a rifle
> which he had hidden possibly on the 6th floor for later sale or trade or
> whatever.

How do you know he brought it in to sell or trade. Oh, that's right. You
just made that part up.

> He had encountered officer Baker who put a gun in his gut until
> Roy Truly identified him as an employee.

Baker drew the gun but never put it in Oswald's gut. Why do you have to
embellish everything.

> Other employees mentioned to him
> that JFK had been shot, and he put 2 and 2 together and knew they were
> looking for the shooter in the TSBD.

How do you know he didn't already know JFK had been shot?

> He figured out that he had been set
> up, and he may have even known who had done it to him, and he got out of
> there as fast as he could at his first opportunity.
>

He told you all of this?

> He was running just as if he was guilty,

Gee, I wonder why?

> but he may have saved his own
> life, since the conspirators probably had his death in mind to happen
> right in the TSBD. Failing to get him there, the DPD got him, but not the
> ones who would have shot him dead, and so the conspirators had to order
> someone to step in and get rid of Oswald before he told what little he
> knew.

Your script needs a little polishing.

[Anthony Marsh]

In the trial.
Learn how to Google Helms Sturgis CIA contract agent.

> Was he (Sturgis) working for them in 1963?
>
>

Another CIA document that was declassified in 1993 makes it clear that
Fiorini/Sturgis was a paid operative of the agency. The document dated 9th
February, 1975, has the subject heading: "Telephone Call from John Dean".
The memo is signed JRS and is for the attention of General Vernon Walters,
Deputy Director of the CIA at that time. The memo includes the following:
"I discussed these matters with Bill Colby, who indicated that Sturgis has
not been on the payroll for a number of years and that whatever his
allegations about the Chilean Embassy, the Agency has no connection at
all."


(2) FBI memorandum to J. Edgar Hoover and William Sullivan from SAC, New
York about an interview with Alexander Irwin Rorke (22nd June 1962)

Alexander Irwin Rorke, Jr., who has been closely associated with
Frank Fiorini for the past two years, was interviewed on 6/22/62
concerning instant matter...

Rorke advised that on the last leaflet-dropping flight over Cuba,
he was with Fiorini and that one of the two planes they used were lost,
and the pilots of this lost plane were identified as Bob Swannee of
Mississippi and Bob Thompson of Melbourne, Florida. Rorke stated that
this leaflet-dropping operation was entirely supported by the CIA.

In connection with the flights over Cuba, Rorke stated that Fiorini
does not pilot the planes and acts for the most part as a co-pilot. The
planes are rented in the United States and flown to bases outside the
United States such as the Bahamas. In making the contract for the rental
of the planes, usually someone other than Fiorini signs the contract,
although Fiorini is in contact with local CIA agents in Miami relative
to the details of the flight. Rorke stated that Fiorini has instructions
that on these flights, if he is arrested or stopped, he is to notify the
officers that they should telephone a number which is the number of the
CIA office in the Miami area. Fiorini has also been informed, according
to Rorke, that if anyone arrests him, CIA will get him out. Rorke
identified the CIA contact in Miami as one ?Barker?. Rorke stated that
he did not know whether this was an assumed name or the individual?s
real name.

Rorke advised that he could not understand why the Bureau was
interested now in the activities of Fiorini as all of Fiorini?s actions
are fully known to CIA in Miami and there should be a record of his
activities on file with CIA in Washington, D.C. Rorke stated he knows
for a fact that Fiorini has not done anything on his own and that
whatever he has done in the past he has done on instructions from CIA?

Rorke advised that he originally made contact with CIA regarding
Fiorini and recommended the use by CIA of Fiorini and his group. Rorke
identified Commander Anderson of the United States Navy, who is assigned
to CIA overt office in New York, as his original contact. He further
advised that additional contacts had been made in Washington, D. C. and
activities of Fiorini and his group had been discussed through
intermediaries with Colonel King and Deke James of CIA headquarters,
Washington, D.C?.

Rorke advised that in the event Fiorini would be arrested for his
anti-Castro activities, he, Rorke, having good connections with a
well-known newspaper chain, will make plenty of trouble for those involved.

For the information of the Bureau, the newspaper chain, will make
plenty of trouble for those involved.


Helms also told Senate
Watergate Committee STURGIS had worked for the CIA. Gonzalez had not worked
for CIA. Willing to testify under oath. Willing to name names of CIA
officials in contact with him. (Uses 'Hey' frequently in conversation. Talks
with no Cuban accent.)"

When Richard Helms appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee on
February 7, 1973, in connection with his appointment as Ambassador to Iran,
the following exchange took place: "The Chairman: 'Was FRANK STURGIS an
employee?'" Richard Helms: "Never, I am sure of that." In 1984, during the
second HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT libel trial, Richard Helms said in a deposition
that "to the best of my recollection" STURGIS once was "an agent, an outside
agent, a contract agent, of the Agency. He was not a staff member of the
Agency." [HSCA Staff Rep: The Evolution and Implications of the
CIA-Sponsored Ass. Conspiracies Against Fidel Castro 3.79 Miami Herald
1.31.85]

As I said before, when you deny things that Helms admitted it makes you
look guilty.

[mainframetech]

Oh jeez! Write book.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/24/2015 11:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:39:37 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 7:41:31 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:30:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made the
>>>>>> statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that he would
>>>>>> kill the one he loved.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't stop him
>>>>> from nearly decapitating her.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In his deranged mind he had a reason, that she was seeing another man,
>>>> when he had promised disaster for her if when she left him. I can't think
>>>> of a similar element in the life of Oswald. JFK hadn't done him
>>>> wrong...:)
>>>>
>>>
>>> In his deranged mind Oswald had a reason for killing JFK. Sorry if he
>>> didn't tell you what it was.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah! A chink appears in the baloney story of the WC! Oswald had no
>> reason to kill JFK! But the LN kooks won't stop blaming him, since they
>> were told by the WC lawyers that their 'theory' says Oswald did it.
>>
>
> Just because we don't know what Oswald's reason was doesn't mean he didn't
> have a reason.
>

You don't want to know. The moment you speculate about motive you open
the door to conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

When? What day, what time?
Why didn't he take his handgun into work.
Maybe the limo would stop right in front of the TSBD and he's just waltz
out and pop off 6 shots. And you wouldn't find anything suspicious about
that.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 11:07:38 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:40:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:58:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made the
> > > > > statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that he would
> > > > > kill the one he loved.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't stop him
> > > > from nearly decapitating her.
> > >
> > > Yeah, he loved JFK so much that he was glued to the TV trying to find out
> > > what happened to him. Something about getting shot?
> > >
> > > And when he was arrested he so loved JFK that he did everything he could
> > > to help the police find out what happened. Totally cooperative.
> > >
> > > Yes, Lee loved Jack.
> >
> >
> > You forget that Oswald left the TSBD early. He had brought in a rifle
> > which he had hidden possibly on the 6th floor for later sale or trade or
> > whatever.
>
> How do you know he brought it in to sell or trade. Oh, that's right. You
> just made that part up.
>

So now you're accusing me of lying? WRONG, as usual. I said "or
whatever" above. Check it out and stop being wrong so often.

> > He had encountered officer Baker who put a gun in his gut until
> > Roy Truly identified him as an employee.
>
> Baker drew the gun but never put it in Oswald's gut. Why do you have to
> embellish everything.
>

Here's the sworn testimony of Marion Baker, the cop:
"Mr. BELIN - How close was your gun to him if it wasn't the face
whatever part of the body it was?
Mr. BAKER - About as far from me to you.
Mr. BELIN - That would be about how far?
Mr. BAKER - Approximately 3 feet."


So if the gun was pointing at Oswald from 3 feet away, do you think it
was pointing at his head, or maybe his belly? I think the belly is the
natural point.

> > Other employees mentioned to him
> > that JFK had been shot, and he put 2 and 2 together and knew they were
> > looking for the shooter in the TSBD.
>
> How do you know he didn't already know JFK had been shot?
>

Because he wasn't the one who did the shooting out the window, and even
if he was, the bullets never hit or hurt anyone from the window.

> > He figured out that he had been set
> > up, and he may have even known who had done it to him, and he got out of
> > there as fast as he could at his first opportunity.
> >
>
> He told you all of this?
>

No need, since we know that's what happened. Think it through!

> > He was running just as if he was guilty,
>
> Gee, I wonder why?
>

Because he figured he had been set up, and wanted to get to the person
that either caused it, or could get him out if it.

> > but he may have saved his own
> > life, since the conspirators probably had his death in mind to happen
> > right in the TSBD. Failing to get him there, the DPD got him, but not the
> > ones who would have shot him dead, and so the conspirators had to order
> > someone to step in and get rid of Oswald before he told what little he
> > knew.
>
> Your script needs a little polishing.

Naah. Ready for prime time. Not like the theories of the WC lawyers.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! The only mystery is that some people keep believing in the WC
as if it were a religion, when 2 of its theories have been proven false!

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You forgot that Marina said that Oswald liked JFK earlier in her
statements. And later when she became a citizen, she said not only that
Oswald was innocent, but that he "loved" JFK. So he went out and murdered
him? Naah!

> > As to motive, I think it's worth looking at. The assassination was a
> > simple crime and this was an attempt to put it in simple terms. If you
> > messed with Oswald's hero, Castro, you were in trouble.
> >
>
> It's fun to speculate, but we'll never know for sure why Oswald did what
> he did. If we did know, it might not even make sense to us.
>

Typical suggestion. Just avoid trying to find out why JFK was murdered,
and just keep blaming Oswald. Never mind that he really didn't have any
solid reason to do the murder.

> > Of course, opportunity played a large part and he certainly had the means
> > as those expended bullets attest.
> >
>
> I doubt the thought of killing JFK ever entered Oswald's head until he
> looked at the newpaper and saw JFK was going to ride right past his
> workplace in a slow moving open top car. It was a once in a lifetime
> opportunity for Oswald to become somebody significant. He succeeded.

Now we have an opinion, but nothing substantial to hang a hat on.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I see plenty of evidence that shows that we have a conspiracy on our
hands, and I've presented that evidence here. I can lead folks to water,
what they do wit hit is their problem.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The only wild fantasies were the so-called theories of the WC lawyers.
Which by now have been shown to be invalid. And if you doubt that, why
don't I hear any arguments about it? Not just wisecracks, but intelligent
comments?

Chris

[bigdog]

Another in a long line of silly assertions. I could easily come up with
dozens of possible motives none of which involved a conspiracy. We can't
ever know what Oswald's reason for killing JFK was because he never
provided us with any such evidence. He never admitted to doing the crime
so of course he wouldn't tell anyone why. He didn't leave behind a
manifesto to tell us why he did what he did. Maybe he was saving it for
his trial and would have used the trial as a forum for his radical beliefs
or maybe he would have stonewalled his way through and continued to deny
his guilt. We'll never know that thanks to Jack Ruby.

[bigdog]

Why do you continue to pose silly questions?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I stand corrected.

Based on those links, it does not look like he was a CIA agent but instead
hired by them for contract work.

That is not the same thing.

But I was wrong and he did work for them.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 11:15:39 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 11:07:38 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:40:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:58:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made the
> > > > > > statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that he would
> > > > > > kill the one he loved.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't stop him
> > > > > from nearly decapitating her.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, he loved JFK so much that he was glued to the TV trying to find out
> > > > what happened to him. Something about getting shot?
> > > >
> > > > And when he was arrested he so loved JFK that he did everything he could
> > > > to help the police find out what happened. Totally cooperative.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Lee loved Jack.
> > >
> > >
> > > You forget that Oswald left the TSBD early. He had brought in a rifle
> > > which he had hidden possibly on the 6th floor for later sale or trade or
> > > whatever.
> >
> > How do you know he brought it in to sell or trade. Oh, that's right. You
> > just made that part up.
> >
>
>
> So now you're accusing me of lying? WRONG, as usual. I said "or
> whatever" above. Check it out and stop being wrong so often.
>

Whatever would include shooting the President.

>
>
> > > He had encountered officer Baker who put a gun in his gut until
> > > Roy Truly identified him as an employee.
> >
> > Baker drew the gun but never put it in Oswald's gut. Why do you have to
> > embellish everything.
> >
>
>
> Here's the sworn testimony of Marion Baker, the cop:
> "Mr. BELIN - How close was your gun to him if it wasn't the face
> whatever part of the body it was?
> Mr. BAKER - About as far from me to you.
> Mr. BELIN - That would be about how far?
> Mr. BAKER - Approximately 3 feet."
>
>
> So if the gun was pointing at Oswald from 3 feet away, do you think it
> was pointing at his head, or maybe his belly? I think the belly is the
> natural point.
>

You said he put it in his gut. 3 feet away is not in his gut. And from
Baker's description the gun could have been pointed anywhere. His training
would have taught him to point it at center of mass which would be
Oswald's chest.

>
>
>
> > > Other employees mentioned to him
> > > that JFK had been shot, and he put 2 and 2 together and knew they were
> > > looking for the shooter in the TSBD.
> >
> > How do you know he didn't already know JFK had been shot?
> >
>
>
> Because he wasn't the one who did the shooting out the window, and even
> if he was, the bullets never hit or hurt anyone from the window.
>

Back to your silly assumption which defy reason, logic, and most
important, the hard evidence.

>
>
> > > He figured out that he had been set
> > > up, and he may have even known who had done it to him, and he got out of
> > > there as fast as he could at his first opportunity.
> > >
> >
> > He told you all of this?
> >
>
>
> No need, since we know that's what happened. Think it through!
>

Even if that were true which it certainly is not, that doesn't mean Oswald
would have figured that out. You are just piling up the assumptions.

>
>
> > > He was running just as if he was guilty,
> >
> > Gee, I wonder why?
> >
>
>
> Because he figured he had been set up, and wanted to get to the person
> that either caused it, or could get him out if it.
>

Keep assuming.

>
>
> > > but he may have saved his own
> > > life, since the conspirators probably had his death in mind to happen
> > > right in the TSBD. Failing to get him there, the DPD got him, but not the
> > > ones who would have shot him dead, and so the conspirators had to order
> > > someone to step in and get rid of Oswald before he told what little he
> > > knew.
> >
> > Your script needs a little polishing.
>
>
> Naah. Ready for prime time. Not like the theories of the WC lawyers.
>

Good luck trying to sell it. Self publishing would be your best bet.
Groden might be able to give you pointers on that.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> Typical suggestion. Just avoid trying to find out why JFK was murdered,
> and just keep blaming Oswald. Never mind that he really didn't have any
> solid reason to do the murder.
>

I don't need to know why in order to know who. Proving motive is not a
neccesity. Aaron Hernandez just got convicted of murder one without the
prosecutor even hinting at his motive.

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't say CIA agent. When my father was an NSA officer he worked WITH
the CIA every day. But he did not work FOR them and he was not a CIA
agent. Do you understand what a JOINT operation is?

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you continue to evade all my questions?
Because you're afraid that you might accidentally give an honest answer.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/25/2015 11:34 AM, bigdog wrote:

No, you are not allowed to speculate. LBJ said, "Speculation must be cut
off." What are you, a terrorist?

> ever know what Oswald's reason for killing JFK was because he never
> provided us with any such evidence. He never admitted to doing the crime
> so of course he wouldn't tell anyone why. He didn't leave behind a
> manifesto to tell us why he did what he did. Maybe he was saving it for

Maybe he did and they covered it up.

> his trial and would have used the trial as a forum for his radical beliefs
> or maybe he would have stonewalled his way through and continued to deny
> his guilt. We'll never know that thanks to Jack Ruby.

That's why you like him.

>

[mainframetech]

Well of course you don't need a reason. Did the WC lawyers need a
reason to come up with a batch of theories to convince the public with?
It worked on you, right?

Chris

[mainframetech]

It also includes being in the lunchroom and having nothing to do with
firing out the window.

> >
> >
> > > > He had encountered officer Baker who put a gun in his gut until
> > > > Roy Truly identified him as an employee.
> > >
> > > Baker drew the gun but never put it in Oswald's gut. Why do you have to
> > > embellish everything.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Here's the sworn testimony of Marion Baker, the cop:
> > "Mr. BELIN - How close was your gun to him if it wasn't the face
> > whatever part of the body it was?
> > Mr. BAKER - About as far from me to you.
> > Mr. BELIN - That would be about how far?
> > Mr. BAKER - Approximately 3 feet."
> >
> >
> > So if the gun was pointing at Oswald from 3 feet away, do you think it
> > was pointing at his head, or maybe his belly? I think the belly is the
> > natural point.
> >
>
> You said he put it in his gut. 3 feet away is not in his gut. And from
> Baker's description the gun could have been pointed anywhere. His training
> would have taught him to point it at center of mass which would be
> Oswald's chest.
>

WRONG! But then you'll be as picky as necessary when you get desperate
to be right.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > Other employees mentioned to him
> > > > that JFK had been shot, and he put 2 and 2 together and knew they were
> > > > looking for the shooter in the TSBD.
> > >
> > > How do you know he didn't already know JFK had been shot?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Because he wasn't the one who did the shooting out the window, and even
> > if he was, the bullets never hit or hurt anyone from the window.
> >
>
> Back to your silly assumption which defy reason, logic, and most
> important, the hard evidence.
>

WRONG! You have no such "hard evidence". None at all. He was in the
TSBD is all you can prove. No one saw him at any window, and he had no
reason to bother firing the rifle at anything. The bullets form the MC
rifle never hit or hurt anyone, so no evidence there either.

> >
> >
> > > > He figured out that he had been set
> > > > up, and he may have even known who had done it to him, and he got out of
> > > > there as fast as he could at his first opportunity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He told you all of this?
> > >
> >
> >
> > No need, since we know that's what happened. Think it through!
> >
>
> Even if that were true which it certainly is not, that doesn't mean Oswald
> would have figured that out. You are just piling up the assumptions.
>

WRONG. I'm piling on the common sense and logic. Try it some time.
Now that you've said that he DID NOT leave the TSBD at first opportunity,
what DID he do in your guessing game?

> >
> >
> > > > He was running just as if he was guilty,
> > >
> > > Gee, I wonder why?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Because he figured he had been set up, and wanted to get to the person
> > that either caused it, or could get him out if it.
> >
>
> Keep assuming.
>

No assumption, since he was innocent of shooting out the window.

> >
> >
> > > > but he may have saved his own
> > > > life, since the conspirators probably had his death in mind to happen
> > > > right in the TSBD. Failing to get him there, the DPD got him, but not the
> > > > ones who would have shot him dead, and so the conspirators had to order
> > > > someone to step in and get rid of Oswald before he told what little he
> > > > knew.
> > >
> > > Your script needs a little polishing.
> >
> >
> > Naah. Ready for prime time. Not like the theories of the WC lawyers.
> >
>
> Good luck trying to sell it. Self publishing would be your best bet.
> Groden might be able to give you pointers on that.

It's not time for that yet. I'm still vetting the real scenario that
was stated in the official records, and using it on you to see what kind
of wild complaints I'll get from the public. Didn't I tell you I had uses
for you?

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You can't know what Oswald's reason was for murder, since he
wasn't guilty of it. You have yet to prove that Oswald was even at the
window where the rifle was fired from. And beyond that, you haven't shown
that any bullet from the MC rifle has ever hit or hurt anyone!

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. They did hint at it. And argument in a bar.
Reason enough.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Another drive by post by you.

I didn't say you said he was an agent. That was my comment.

[bigdog]

Asks the Artful Dodger.

> Because you're afraid that you might accidentally give an honest answer.

One of us has taken a strong position and stated it clearly and the other
one is named Anthony Marsh.

[bigdog]

So your theory is the people trying to frame Oswald covered up his
confession.

> > his trial and would have used the trial as a forum for his radical beliefs
> > or maybe he would have stonewalled his way through and continued to deny
> > his guilt. We'll never know that thanks to Jack Ruby.
>
> That's why you like him.
>

He was a goofball but he did the country a favor. Oswald might still be
sitting in a Texas penetentiary thumbing his nose at us. He would have
gotten the death penalty but there is a very good chance he might have
delayed his execution until SCOTUS vacated all existing death penalty
statutes.

[bigdog]

A silly assumption for which there is zero evidence. There is ample
evidence he shot the President.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > He had encountered officer Baker who put a gun in his gut until
> > > > > Roy Truly identified him as an employee.
> > > >
> > > > Baker drew the gun but never put it in Oswald's gut. Why do you have to
> > > > embellish everything.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's the sworn testimony of Marion Baker, the cop:
> > > "Mr. BELIN - How close was your gun to him if it wasn't the face
> > > whatever part of the body it was?
> > > Mr. BAKER - About as far from me to you.
> > > Mr. BELIN - That would be about how far?
> > > Mr. BAKER - Approximately 3 feet."
> > >
> > >
> > > So if the gun was pointing at Oswald from 3 feet away, do you think it
> > > was pointing at his head, or maybe his belly? I think the belly is the
> > > natural point.
> > >
> >
> > You said he put it in his gut. 3 feet away is not in his gut. And from
> > Baker's description the gun could have been pointed anywhere. His training
> > would have taught him to point it at center of mass which would be
> > Oswald's chest.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! But then you'll be as picky as necessary when you get desperate
> to be right.
>

It's hardly beind picky to point out how you over dramatized the situation
by claiming Baker put his gun in Oswald's gut.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Other employees mentioned to him
> > > > > that JFK had been shot, and he put 2 and 2 together and knew they were
> > > > > looking for the shooter in the TSBD.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know he didn't already know JFK had been shot?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Because he wasn't the one who did the shooting out the window, and even
> > > if he was, the bullets never hit or hurt anyone from the window.
> > >
> >
> > Back to your silly assumption which defy reason, logic, and most
> > important, the hard evidence.
> >
>
> WRONG! You have no such "hard evidence". None at all. He was in the
> TSBD is all you can prove. No one saw him at any window,

Several people saw him and one identified him.

> and he had no
> reason to bother firing the rifle at anything.

You can't think of a reason he didn't fire the rifle. I don't know why he
did it either nor do I need to. I only need to know that he did it.

> The bullets form the MC
> rifle never hit or hurt anyone, so no evidence there either.
>

More of your ridiculous assumptions. I guess if you had your way, anyone
who murders someone with bullets powerful enough to pass completely
through the victim's body would get away with it because it couldn't be
proven those were the bullets that went through the victim's body. One
more lame attempt to introduce a burden of proof that is not needed in any
other murder case.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > He figured out that he had been set
> > > > > up, and he may have even known who had done it to him, and he got out of
> > > > > there as fast as he could at his first opportunity.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > He told you all of this?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No need, since we know that's what happened. Think it through!
> > >
> >
> > Even if that were true which it certainly is not, that doesn't mean Oswald
> > would have figured that out. You are just piling up the assumptions.
> >
>
>
> WRONG. I'm piling on the common sense and logic.

Two things that are total strangers to you.

> Try it some time.
> Now that you've said that he DID NOT leave the TSBD at first opportunity,
> what DID he do in your guessing game?
>

I don't have to guess. After shooting JFK he went down the stairs, ducked
into the lunchroom when Truly and Baker were coming up the stairs but was
spotted by Baker who detained him until Truly vouched for him. Then he
went passed Mrs. Reed's desk on his way out the front door where a newsman
ran into him and asked where a phone was. He then headed east on Elm St.
and boarded Cecil McWatter's bus. There is evidence for all of that.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > He was running just as if he was guilty,
> > > >
> > > > Gee, I wonder why?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Because he figured he had been set up, and wanted to get to the person
> > > that either caused it, or could get him out if it.
> > >
> >
> > Keep assuming.
> >
>
>
> No assumption, since he was innocent of shooting out the window.
>

One bad assumption leads to another.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > but he may have saved his own
> > > > > life, since the conspirators probably had his death in mind to happen
> > > > > right in the TSBD. Failing to get him there, the DPD got him, but not the
> > > > > ones who would have shot him dead, and so the conspirators had to order
> > > > > someone to step in and get rid of Oswald before he told what little he
> > > > > knew.
> > > >
> > > > Your script needs a little polishing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Naah. Ready for prime time. Not like the theories of the WC lawyers.
> > >
> >
> > Good luck trying to sell it. Self publishing would be your best bet.
> > Groden might be able to give you pointers on that.
>
>
> It's not time for that yet. I'm still vetting the real scenario that
> was stated in the official records, and using it on you to see what kind
> of wild complaints I'll get from the public. Didn't I tell you I had uses
> for you?
>

What I have given you is just a sample of what you would get if you ever
did manage to publish your ridiculous story. Stick to this forum. There
will be a lot fewer people laughing at you this way.

[bigdog]

Only reasonable people are capable of reasonable doubts and no reasonable
person who has seen the evidence has any reasonable doubt of Oswald's
guilty.

[mainframetech]

As any intelligent person would say: Nonsense!

Chris

[mainframetech]

Now we have your opinion. But the proof leaves something to be desired.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > He had encountered officer Baker who put a gun in his gut until
> > > > > > Roy Truly identified him as an employee.
> > > > >
> > > > > Baker drew the gun but never put it in Oswald's gut. Why do you have to
> > > > > embellish everything.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's the sworn testimony of Marion Baker, the cop:
> > > > "Mr. BELIN - How close was your gun to him if it wasn't the face
> > > > whatever part of the body it was?
> > > > Mr. BAKER - About as far from me to you.
> > > > Mr. BELIN - That would be about how far?
> > > > Mr. BAKER - Approximately 3 feet."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So if the gun was pointing at Oswald from 3 feet away, do you think it
> > > > was pointing at his head, or maybe his belly? I think the belly is the
> > > > natural point.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You said he put it in his gut. 3 feet away is not in his gut. And from
> > > Baker's description the gun could have been pointed anywhere. His training
> > > would have taught him to point it at center of mass which would be
> > > Oswald's chest.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! But then you'll be as picky as necessary when you get desperate
> > to be right.
> >
>
> It's hardly beind picky to point out how you over dramatized the situation
> by claiming Baker put his gun in Oswald's gut.
>

If I were there and Baker pulled his gun on me, I would think of it as
being pretty dramatic.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Other employees mentioned to him
> > > > > > that JFK had been shot, and he put 2 and 2 together and knew they were
> > > > > > looking for the shooter in the TSBD.
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you know he didn't already know JFK had been shot?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because he wasn't the one who did the shooting out the window, and even
> > > > if he was, the bullets never hit or hurt anyone from the window.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Back to your silly assumption which defy reason, logic, and most
> > > important, the hard evidence.
> > >
> >
> > WRONG! You have no such "hard evidence". None at all. He was in the
> > TSBD is all you can prove. No one saw him at any window,
>
> Several people saw him and one identified him.
>

WRONG! No one saw him. The one person that said he saw him (Brennan)
was discredited. No one else said they saw Oswald at any window. Stop
pulling the wool down over the eyes of folks.

> > and he had no
> > reason to bother firing the rifle at anything.
>
> You can't think of a reason he didn't fire the rifle. I don't know why he
> did it either nor do I need to. I only need to know that he did it.
>

WRONG! Of course I can think of a reason why he didn't fire the rifle.
First, he wasn't at the window, second, he had no inclination to fire the
rifle at anything, since we know he never practiced with it, and chose not
to buy ammunition. He didn't care about the rifle, rolling it up in a
blanket and tossing it in the garage. If he had wanted to shoot something
then he might have tried the rifle and then he would have found out that
it had problems, like a misaligned scope, a double-pull trigger, and a
sticky bolt. All of which made for no rapid firing and aiming at the same
time.




> > The bullets from the MC

> > rifle never hit or hurt anyone, so no evidence there either.
> >
>
> More of your ridiculous assumptions. I guess if you had your way, anyone
> who murders someone with bullets powerful enough to pass completely
> through the victim's body would get away with it because it couldn't be
> proven those were the bullets that went through the victim's body. One
> more lame attempt to introduce a burden of proof that is not needed in any
> other murder case.
>

WERONG! Saying it was needed in NO OTHER CASE, is your contention, so
prove it. However, in a trial, whatever is needed that suits the
situation is what appears at that trial. Use your head. In any trial
that may have come up against Oswald you can be sure that whether he
intended to shoot anyone or not would be spoken about. The fact that he
refused ammunition when it was offered is proof that he didn't choose to
shoot the rifle, and would be used in court. The key here is that there
will never be a court case with Oswald. There is only the detective
efforts of many people looking at whether Oswald did the murder or not,
and if not, then who.

> > > > > > He figured out that he had been set
> > > > > > up, and he may have even known who had done it to him, and he got out of
> > > > > > there as fast as he could at his first opportunity.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He told you all of this?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No need, since we know that's what happened. Think it through!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Even if that were true which it certainly is not, that doesn't mean Oswald
> > > would have figured that out. You are just piling up the assumptions.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG. I'm piling on the common sense and logic.
>
> Two things that are total strangers to you.
>

Not in my line of work. Perhaps yours.

> > Try it some time.
> > Now that you've said that he DID NOT leave the TSBD at first opportunity,
> > what DID he do in your guessing game?
> >
>
> I don't have to guess. After shooting JFK he went down the stairs, ducked
> into the lunchroom when Truly and Baker were coming up the stairs but was
> spotted by Baker who detained him until Truly vouched for him. Then he
> went passed Mrs. Reed's desk on his way out the front door where a newsman
> ran into him and asked where a phone was. He then headed east on Elm St.
> and boarded Cecil McWatter's bus. There is evidence for all of that.
>

Oh geez! You're WRONG Again! Hopeless. We're currently arguing about
what I said above, and if you check it, you'll see that I included:

"...as fast as he could at his first opportunity."

That fits your recitation of the facts, and so you've had us arguing
for no reason at all! Is that sort of foolishness really necessary?

> > > > > > He was running just as if he was guilty,
> > > > >
> > > > > Gee, I wonder why?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because he figured he had been set up, and wanted to get to the person
> > > > that either caused it, or could get him out if it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Keep assuming.
> > >
> >
> >
> > No assumption, since he was innocent of shooting out the window.
> >
>
> One bad assumption leads to another.
>

Keeps trying. Your adage is faulty.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > but he may have saved his own
> > > > > > life, since the conspirators probably had his death in mind to happen
> > > > > > right in the TSBD. Failing to get him there, the DPD got him, but not the
> > > > > > ones who would have shot him dead, and so the conspirators had to order
> > > > > > someone to step in and get rid of Oswald before he told what little he
> > > > > > knew.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your script needs a little polishing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Naah. Ready for prime time. Not like the theories of the WC lawyers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Good luck trying to sell it. Self publishing would be your best bet.
> > > Groden might be able to give you pointers on that.
> >
> >
> > It's not time for that yet. I'm still vetting the real scenario that
> > was stated in the official records, and using it on you to see what kind
> > of wild complaints I'll get from the public. Didn't I tell you I had uses
> > for you?
> >
>
> What I have given you is just a sample of what you would get if you ever
> did manage to publish your ridiculous story. Stick to this forum. There
> will be a lot fewer people laughing at you this way.

I have no concern for those that would laugh without looking first.
And when I'm ready to depart this forum, it will be some time after you.
If you're here, I'm here...whether I'm elsewhere at the same time is
another story for another time...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Wow, that certainly does sound much more dramatic to say gut instead of
belly or stomach.

Would Baker have said gut?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, what confession? The one you made up in your mind?

>>> his trial and would have used the trial as a forum for his radical beliefs
>>> or maybe he would have stonewalled his way through and continued to deny
>>> his guilt. We'll never know that thanks to Jack Ruby.
>>
>> That's why you like him.
>>
>
> He was a goofball but he did the country a favor. Oswald might still be
> sitting in a Texas penetentiary thumbing his nose at us. He would have
> gotten the death penalty but there is a very good chance he might have
> delayed his execution until SCOTUS vacated all existing death penalty
> statutes.
>

As I've said before he would have been a cause celebre like Alfred
Dreyfus. Cops would now be issuing Oswald rights.

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean my father? The CIA tried to claim that they were allowed to
experiment on him because he was a CIA agent. Just as they had done to
Frank Olson. My father was in that research group.

[tom...@cox.net]

Jason Burke <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 4/23/2015 4:39 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 7:41:31 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:30:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made
> >>>>> the statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that
> >>>>> he would kill the one he loved.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't stop
> >>>> him from nearly decapitating her.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In his deranged mind he had a reason, that she was seeing another
> >>> man, when he had promised disaster for her if when she left him. I
> >>> can't think of a similar element in the life of Oswald. JFK hadn't
> >>> done him wrong...:)
> >>>
> >>
> >> In his deranged mind Oswald had a reason for killing JFK. Sorry if he
> >> didn't tell you what it was.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah! A chink appears in the baloney story of the WC! Oswald had no
> > reason to kill JFK! But the LN kooks won't stop blaming him, since
> > they were told by the WC lawyers that their 'theory' says Oswald did
> > it.
> >

> > Chris
> >
>
> Not to mention ALL the evidence, eh, Chris?

===========================================================================
===== tere isn't a single piece of evidence that can withstand the
adversary procedure ! ! !
===========================================================================
======

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

Jason Burke <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/23/2015 4:41 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:33:40 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com

> > wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> >>> On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 6:06:31 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com

> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 2:30:41 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:58:33 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

> >>>>>> On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 11:56:32 PM UTC-4, David Emerling

> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:50:40 PM UTC-5, tims...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is anyone else starting to see a pattern here?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From everything we've come to learn about Oswald, much of it
> >>>>>>> through Marina, he had no personal animosity toward President
> >>>>>>> Kennedy. Oswald had a problem with the REPRESENTATIVES
> >>>>>>> (philosophically speaking) of capitalism.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is interesting to discuss Oswald's motives - but it really
> >>>>>>> isn't relevant to solving the assassination. The evidence speaks
> >>>>>>> for itself. Oswald was guilty. To conclude otherwise requires one
> >>>>>>> to reject a ton of evidence. It simply is not rational to believe
> >>>>>>> Oswald did not fire shots from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>

===========================================================================
==== like the ngle bullet theory !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:30:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made
> > > > the statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that
> > > > he would kill the one he loved.
> > >
> > > I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't stop
> > > him from nearly decapitating her.
> >
> >
> > In his deranged mind he had a reason, that she was seeing another
> > man, when he had promised disaster for her if when she left him. I
> > can't think of a similar element in the life of Oswald. JFK hadn't
> > done him wrong...:)
> >
>
> In his deranged mind Oswald had a reason for killing JFK. Sorry if he
> didn't tell you what it was.

===========================================================================
====== so did the cia and, anti castro Cubans ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:39:37 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 7:41:31 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:30:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US,
> > > > > > made the statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's
> > > > > > doubtful that he would kill the one he loved.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't
> > > > > stop him from nearly decapitating her.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In his deranged mind he had a reason, that she was seeing another
> > > > man, when he had promised disaster for her if when she left him. I
> > > > can't think of a similar element in the life of Oswald. JFK hadn't
> > > > done him wrong...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > In his deranged mind Oswald had a reason for killing JFK. Sorry if he
> > > didn't tell you what it was.
> >
> >
> >

> > Ah! A chink appears in the baloney story of the WC! Oswald had no
> > reason to kill JFK! But the LN kooks won't stop blaming him, since
> > they were told by the WC lawyers that their 'theory' says Oswald did
> > it.
> >
>

> Just because we don't know what Oswald's reason was doesn't mean he
> didn't have a reason.
>

> We won't stop blaming Oswald because the WC provided us with convincing
> evidence of his guilt. The only mystery is why do some refuse to be
> convinced in the face of such compelling evidence.
===========================================================================
==== wrong again Corbett;

the evidence/testimony ahow e exact opposite ! ! !
===========================================================================
======

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:40:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com

> > wrote:

> > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:58:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US, made
> > > > > the statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful
> > > > > that he would kill the one he loved.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't
> > > > stop him from nearly decapitating her.
> > >

> > > Yeah, he loved JFK so much that he was glued to the TV trying to find
> > > out what happened to him. Something about getting shot?
> > >
> > > And when he was arrested he so loved JFK that he did everything he
> > > could to help the police find out what happened. Totally cooperative.
> > >
> > > Yes, Lee loved Jack.
> >
> >
> > You forget that Oswald left the TSBD early. He had brought in a
> > rifle which he had hidden possibly on the 6th floor for later sale or
> > trade or whatever.
>
> How do you know he brought it in to sell or trade. Oh, that's right. You
> just made that part up.
>

> > He had encountered officer Baker who put a gun in his gut until
> > Roy Truly identified him as an employee.
>
> Baker drew the gun but never put it in Oswald's gut. Why do you have to
> embellish everything.
>

> > Other employees mentioned to him
> > that JFK had been shot, and he put 2 and 2 together and knew they were
> > looking for the shooter in the TSBD.
>
> How do you know he didn't already know JFK had been shot?
>

> > He figured out that he had been set
> > up, and he may have even known who had done it to him, and he got out
> > of there as fast as he could at his first opportunity.
> >
>
> He told you all of this?
>

> > He was running just as if he was guilty,
>
> Gee, I wonder why?
>

> > but he may have saved his own
> > life, since the conspirators probably had his death in mind to happen
> > right in the TSBD. Failing to get him there, the DPD got him, but not
> > the ones who would have shot him dead, and so the conspirators had to
> > order someone to step in and get rid of Oswald before he told what
> > little he knew.
>
> Your script needs a little polishing.

===========================================================================
=====your knowledge of official evidence/testimony needs a lot of polishing
! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 9:32:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > On 4/24/2015 11:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:39:37 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 7:41:31 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:30:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech

> > >>> wrot=
> e:

> > >>>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:05:38 PM UTC-4, mainframetech
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> More recently Marina, after becoming a citizen of the US,

> > >>>>>> made =

> the
> > >>>>>> statement that Oswald "loved" JFK. If true, it's doubtful that

> > >>>>>> he=

> would
> > >>>>>> kill the one he loved.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm sure at one time OJ Simpson loved Nicole Brown. That didn't

> > >>>>> sto=

> p him
> > >>>>> from nearly decapitating her.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>

> > >>>> In his deranged mind he had a reason, that she was seeing

> > >>>> another=

> man,
> > >>>> when he had promised disaster for her if when she left him. I

> > >>>> can't=

> think
> > >>>> of a similar element in the life of Oswald. JFK hadn't done him
> > >>>> wrong...:)
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> In his deranged mind Oswald had a reason for killing JFK. Sorry if
> > >>> he didn't tell you what it was.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Ah! A chink appears in the baloney story of the WC! Oswald had
> > >> no reason to kill JFK! But the LN kooks won't stop blaming him,

> > >> since th=

> ey
> > >> were told by the WC lawyers that their 'theory' says Oswald did it.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Just because we don't know what Oswald's reason was doesn't mean he

> > > did=
> n't
> > > have a reason.
> > >
> >=20

> > You don't want to know. The moment you speculate about motive you

> > open=20 the door to conspiracy.
> >=20

>
> Another in a long line of silly assertions. I could easily come up with
> dozens of possible motives none of which involved a conspiracy. We can't

> ever know what Oswald's reason for killing JFK was because he never
> provided us with any such evidence. He never admitted to doing the crime
> so of course he wouldn't tell anyone why. He didn't leave behind a
> manifesto to tell us why he did what he did. Maybe he was saving it for

> his trial and would have used the trial as a forum for his radical
> beliefs or maybe he would have stonewalled his way through and continued
> to deny his guilt. We'll never know that thanks to Jack Ruby.

===========================================================================
==== ruby was a dpd informant, an fbi informant and, a gunrunner for the
cia ! ! !

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 9:33:03 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 4/24/2015 11:03 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:24:14 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:

> > >> On Sunday, 19 April 2015 13:56:32 UTC+10, David Emerling wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:50:40 PM UTC-5, tims...@gmail.com
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Is anyone else starting to see a pattern here?
> > >>>
> > >>> From everything we've come to learn about Oswald, much of it
> > >>> through Marina, he had no personal animosity toward President
> > >>> Kennedy. Oswald had a problem with the REPRESENTATIVES
> > >>> (philosophically speaking) of capitalism.
> > >>>
> > >>> It is interesting to discuss Oswald's motives - but it really isn't
> > >>> relevant to solving the assassination. The evidence speaks for
> > >>> itself. Oswald was guilty. To conclude otherwise requires one to
> > >>> reject a ton of evidence. It simply is not rational to believe
> > >>> Oswald did not fire shots from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
> > >>>

===========================================================================
=== like the single bullet theory ! ! !
===========================================================================
===

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 09:39:16 UTC+10, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:38:58 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 April 2015 08:01:14 UTC+10, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 9:52:11 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 16 April 2015 11:44:58 UTC+10, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:50:40 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A recent link posted here by John Deagle led me to try and put the
> > > > > > assassination plus Oswald's motive for it in simple terms. Here it is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SCENARIO 1: Walker Shooting
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.pet880.com/images/19630308_Atlanta_Journal_1.JPG
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Walker shooting had nothing to do with Oswald or his MC rifle. The
> > > > > bullet that was fired at Walker was STEEL jacketed as per the police
> > > > > report, and Walker himself who had seen the bullet wrote them and told
> > > > > them to withdraw the bullet that was shown because it wasn't the right
> > > > > one. They ignored him and kept showing the wrong bullet. Here's his
> > > > > letter:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is what happened next:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=359407&imageOnly=true
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is the bullet recovered after that attack:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a9/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > See above for the real story of why this is NOT the bullet in question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > SCENARIO 2: Kennedy Shooting
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0053a.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A newspaper article doesn't offer any proof. At best it might be a
> > > > > motive for the right person. Which Oswald wasn't.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is what happened next:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres15.jpg
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We're all aware that there was a murder, and it didn't happen "next",
> > > > > it happened months later than the Walker shooting.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here are bullets recovered after that attack:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/59/Photo_naraevid_CE399-2.jpg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/12/Photo_naraevid_CE569-2.jpg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/21/Photo_naraevid_CE567-1.jpg
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The first photo is of a test bullet that CE399 originally was. the
> > > > > following WC photo shows it far left:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > In the above photo you see the CE399 bullet next to CE572, a test
> > > > > bullet. The 2 bullets have a slight bend in the middle, and a slight
> > > > > flattening in the middle, and also they both have a bit of material
> > > > > missing from the tail end. The CE399 is a test bullet generated the very
> > > > > next day during FBI testing, at which the FBI bullet custodian was present
> > > > > when they fired about 60 bullets to test the MC rifle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The original bullet in custody from the day of the murder that was
> > > > > found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland hospital was replaced by the
> > > > > custodian. when there was a problem with the CE399 bullet in custody, it
> > > > > was passed around to 4 men that had handled the bullet the day of the
> > > > > murder, and they all refused to identify it. One of them even said that
> > > > > the CE399 bullet was the wrong shape from the original bullet...more proof
> > > > > of a replacement.

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is anyone else starting to see a pattern here?
> > > > > >
> > > > >

> > > > > Yep, the pattern is that you're pushing together a bunch of unrelated
> > > > > newspaper articles and a few mistaken items of evidence and try to make
> > > > > them into a 'lone nut' killing, which is ridiculous.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you were a public figure advocating harm to Lee Harvey Oswald's avowed
> > > > > > hero, Fidel Castro, or his regime, you risked Oswald coming after you with
> > > > > > lethal force.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Naah! Oswald showed himself to be a very non-violent person during his
> > > > > stay in Dallas. He never bought ammunition for his rifle, and he never
> > > > > practiced with it. And he never fired it out of the 5th floor window.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards, Chris
> > > >
> > > > Chris, your reply is such a mish mash of muddled thinking and already
> > > > debunked ideas as to be barely worthy of a response.
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was ever even in Dallas? That is if he
> > > > ever existed at all, Chris.
> > > >
> > > > Astounded Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Tim Brennan
> > > > Sydney, Australia
> > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry you're unable to follow what's there. It's not all mine. So since
> > > you were unable to figure out what was said, you're not going to comment,
> > > right?
> > >
> > > I guess you're not into proof from the official records showing that
> > > the Walker bullet was replaced, and the one shown was NOT the right one.
> > > What's shown was the one that Walker demanded be withdrawn because it was
> > > NOT the bullet he had seen when the shooting occurred. They ignored him,
> > > since they really anted proof that Oswald was violent.
> > >
> > > If you have any other needs in this area, let me know, and possibly I
> > > can give you chapter and verse in a tidy sequence so you can follow it.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > Chris, I have to say that I found this part of your original response
> > rather amusing:
> >
> > QUOTE ON:
> >
> > > SCENARIO 2: Kennedy Shooting
> > >
> > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0053a.htm
> > >
> >
> > A newspaper article doesn't offer any proof. At best it might be a
> > motive for the right person. Which Oswald wasn't.
> >
> >
> > > This is what happened next:
> > >
> > > http://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres15.jpg
> > >
> >
> >
> > We're all aware that there was a murder, and it didn't happen "next",
> > it happened months later than the Walker shooting.
> >
> > QUOTE OFF
> >
> > You are unable to work out that the KENNEDY VIRTUALLY INVITES CUBAN COUP
> > story is from the Tuesday of the week that Kennedy was assassinated? And
> > that the assassination story later in the week follows it?
> >
> > I don't think anyone will be going to you for chapter and verse in a tidy
> > sequence so that they can follow it, Chris. You simply don't know what
> > you're talking about.
> >
> > Corrective Regards,
> >
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> >
>
>
> A shame I didn't bother to check newspaper dates. But it means
> nothing to the JFK shooting. Unless LBJ had a good reason to cause the
> conspiracy due to the news, which I doubt.

Yeah, probably a shame since you were supposedly going to take people thru
things and give them chapter and verse. The REALITY is that you didn't
even understand the original post!

BTW, LBJ would SOMEHOW want to take JFK out on the strength of that DTH
story?!!

>
> All the evidence points to Oswald not wanting to shoot anyone, and only
> wanting the rifle to impress someone he wanted to get in with. They can't
> even show that any bullets form the MC rifle ever hit or hurt anyone!
>
> Chris

WHAT?!! They retrieved two very damaged bullet fragments from the car in
which someone was horribly murdered, matched them to the weapon of the
main suspect, Oswald, to the EXCLUSION of all other weapons (ie Oswald's
MC rifle) and they can't show that any bullets form [sic] the MC rifle
ever hit or hurt anyone?!

Chris, you seem to have a very BIZARRE idea of wound ballistics and/or
crime scene investigation.

The quite INESCAPABLE conclusion, Chris, is that you simply DON'T know
what you're talking about.

And yet you KEEP coming up with quite BIZARRE conspiratorial scenarios...

Astounded Regards,

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

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

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

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!