Problems for LN Advocates and CT's to answer

[Chosen Ten]

These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
to the debate of the JFK assassination.


1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
assassination? Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they
knew about him? Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others
regarding Oswald?

If he was a patsy, the questions are still the same but more troubling.

2) Has anyone backtracked the bullets used in the assassination farther
than the FBI did? If Brinegar got the bullets from the Century Arms
Company from Alexandria Virginia is that not worth investigating deeper
since it strikes home to the "obvious speculation" that the bullets were
CIA ordered as the bullets did not fit and could not be fired in any of
the USMC weapons (whom they were ordered for).!Could further backtracking
then lead, in turn, to a discovery of something more sinister on the topic
of the bullets? Is it not at least worth investigating deeper given the
coverups and dubious history of the CIA?

3) Many LN advocates do not believe Carolyn Arnold was lying in her
testimonies of what happened during the assassination. And yet she was
never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
dismiss her as an unimportant witness. The star witness for the WC, Howard
Brennan, was a fairly inconsistent witness but a lot of CT's fail to note
that he did give important testimony in regards to the timeframe of the
assassination. When Arnold's testimony and Brennan's testimony are put
together along with the other witnesses, it leads to a serious problem in
the assassination timeframe that the WC failed to acknowledge and even
look at. It leads to serious problems in placing Oswald as the lone
assassin. It is absolutely critical to debate this point as it poses real
questions that need real answers. The motorcade was late. Do you know by
how many minutes? Do you know at what time the first witness stated they
saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Brennan first stated
he saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Carolyn Arnold
stated she believed she saw Oswald on the lower level of the building? Did
LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late? If you know the
answers to all of these you know there is a problem with Oswald's ability
to be the shooter. Hopefully we can find the answers together.

ChosenTen

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/15/2017 1:56 PM, Chosen Ten wrote:
> These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
> to the debate of the JFK assassination.
>
>
> 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
> ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
> regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
> remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
> assassination? Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they
> knew about him? Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others
> regarding Oswald?
>

4 reasons.
1. Fear of WWIII.
Fear that the public would not understand the subtle difference between
a CIA asset and a CIA officer or a CIA agent.
3. Fear that digging too deep will reveal secrets they want to keep
forever, like the Castro assassination plots.
4. Sources and methods.

> If he was a patsy, the questions are still the same but more troubling.
>
> 2) Has anyone backtracked the bullets used in the assassination farther
> than the FBI did? If Brinegar got the bullets from the Century Arms
> Company from Alexandria Virginia is that not worth investigating deeper
> since it strikes home to the "obvious speculation" that the bullets were
> CIA ordered as the bullets did not fit and could not be fired in any of
> the USMC weapons (whom they were ordered for).!Could further backtracking
> then lead, in turn, to a discovery of something more sinister on the topic
> of the bullets? Is it not at least worth investigating deeper given the
> coverups and dubious history of the CIA?
>

Yes, we know it was a DoD contract using the Marine Corps as a front.

> 3) Many LN advocates do not believe Carolyn Arnold was lying in her
> testimonies of what happened during the assassination. And yet she was
> never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates

She wasn't the only one not called. It's best NOT to call a witness when
you are afraid of what they might say.

> dismiss her as an unimportant witness. The star witness for the WC, Howard
> Brennan, was a fairly inconsistent witness but a lot of CT's fail to note
> that he did give important testimony in regards to the timeframe of the
> assassination. When Arnold's testimony and Brennan's testimony are put

But their stated mission was to frame Oswald at all costs.

> together along with the other witnesses, it leads to a serious problem in
> the assassination timeframe that the WC failed to acknowledge and even

Wrong. There is no problem with the time line. Only in identifying who
the shooter was in the TSBD.

> look at. It leads to serious problems in placing Oswald as the lone
> assassin. It is absolutely critical to debate this point as it poses real
> questions that need real answers. The motorcade was late. Do you know by
> how many minutes? Do you know at what time the first witness stated they

Yes, I do. 15 minutes.
Next question.
WHy was it late?
Because JFK stopped to talk to some spectators.
If some had the right kind of radio he could know that.

> saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Brennan first stated

12:24.
12:32.

> he saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Carolyn Arnold
> stated she believed she saw Oswald on the lower level of the building? Did

Mrs. R. E. ARNOLD, Secretary, Texas School Book Depository, advised
she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November 22,
1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go downstairs
and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential Motorcade. As
she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she
caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway
between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse,
located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this was OSWALD,
but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes before
12:15 PM.

She stated thereafter she viewed the Presidential Motorcade and
heard the shots that were fired at the President; however, she could
furnish no information of value as to the individual firing the shots or
any other information concerning OSWALD, whom she stated she did not
know and had merely seen him working in the building.

on 11/26/1963 at Dallas, Texas
File # DL 89???43
by Special Agent Richard E. Harrison

Read the damn documents. I've only post them a few hundred times.

> LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late? If you know the

No one inside the building had any way of knowing. Others did, but they
weren't there.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:56:30 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
> to the debate of the JFK assassination.
>
>
> 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
> ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
> regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
> remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
> assassination? Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they
> knew about him? Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others
> regarding Oswald?
>
> If he was a patsy, the questions are still the same but more troubling.
>

The answer to the question is obvious. First, the evidence through
the whole case says Oswald was indeed a 'patsy'. But in any event, the
CIA wanted no one to connect them to a person that took shots at the
POTUS, so they lied about any connection.

> 2) Has anyone backtracked the bullets used in the assassination farther
> than the FBI did? If Brinegar got the bullets from the Century Arms
> Company from Alexandria Virginia is that not worth investigating deeper
> since it strikes home to the "obvious speculation" that the bullets were
> CIA ordered as the bullets did not fit and could not be fired in any of
> the USMC weapons (whom they were ordered for).!Could further backtracking
> then lead, in turn, to a discovery of something more sinister on the topic
> of the bullets? Is it not at least worth investigating deeper given the
> coverups and dubious history of the CIA?
>

Given that the FBI was trying in every way possible to them to cause
Oswald to be blamed for the 'lone nut' killing of JFK, you can be sure
they tried as hard as they might to find where Oswald might have gotten
the bullets, but they failed. Did they run up against the CIA? We have
no way of knowing.

> 3) Many LN advocates do not believe Carolyn Arnold was lying in her
> testimonies of what happened during the assassination. And yet she was
> never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> dismiss her as an unimportant witness.

When you use the plural for Carolyn's 'testimonies', it is wrong.
She made only one statement that was recorded properly. Her first
statement to the FBI was completely rewritten by the FBI in a 302 record,
which is usually not seen by the person making the statement. Her second
was also rewritten, but she didn't make it. The FBI had to have read the
first statement which helped Oswald, and they felt they had to rewrite it
to make it useless as evidence for anything. It made her sound like a
dingbat that knew nothing and was unsure of everything. Her real
statement was an accident. Reporters came to her and told her of the
previous statements she had supposedly made, and she immediately corrected
them. She thought that the tale that was told in her name was silly and
would be something she would have said.

Her final statement to the reporters, was that she had seen Oswald in
the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm sitting in a booth.

The star witness for the WC, Howard
> Brennan, was a fairly inconsistent witness but a lot of CT's fail to note
> that he did give important testimony in regards to the timeframe of the
> assassination. When Arnold's testimony and Brennan's testimony are put
> together along with the other witnesses, it leads to a serious problem in
> the assassination timeframe that the WC failed to acknowledge and even
> look at. It leads to serious problems in placing Oswald as the lone
> assassin. It is absolutely critical to debate this point as it poses real
> questions that need real answers. The motorcade was late. Do you know by
> how many minutes? Do you know at what time the first witness stated they
> saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Brennan first stated
> he saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Carolyn Arnold
> stated she believed she saw Oswald on the lower level of the building? Did
> LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late? If you know the
> answers to all of these you know there is a problem with Oswald's ability
> to be the shooter. Hopefully we can find the answers together.
>

Howard Brennan had problems as a witness. He gave description as if
Oswald was next to him in the street, yet a teen ager standing near him
(Amos Euins) could not tell if the person on the 6th floor was black or
white. He only could se a 'bald spot' on the head of the person.
Brennan also during testimony said he saw no scope on the rifle and the WC
lawyer had to prompt him and get him to say he wasn't sure about that.
As well, even more devastating, Brennan in his autobiography stated that
he saw Oswald twice on TV before he went down to the lineup. As well, he
also stated there that a detective told him what position Oswald was
standing in art the lineup:

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html


I hope this helps answer these questions. If you need further info,
just let me know.

Chris



> ChosenTen

[bigdog]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:56:30 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

> These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
> to the debate of the JFK assassination.
>
>
> 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
> ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
> regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
> remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
> assassination? Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they
> knew about him? Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others
> regarding Oswald?
>

Why do you think you are proving anything by raising questions? To prove
something, you need to answer those questions. Don't expect others to do
your work for you.

> If he was a patsy, the questions are still the same but more troubling.
>
> 2) Has anyone backtracked the bullets used in the assassination farther
> than the FBI did? If Brinegar got the bullets from the Century Arms
> Company from Alexandria Virginia is that not worth investigating deeper
> since it strikes home to the "obvious speculation" that the bullets were
> CIA ordered as the bullets did not fit and could not be fired in any of
> the USMC weapons (whom they were ordered for).!Could further backtracking
> then lead, in turn, to a discovery of something more sinister on the topic
> of the bullets? Is it not at least worth investigating deeper given the
> coverups and dubious history of the CIA?

Your going over old ground. The ammo was available to the public
regardless of what they were initially ordered for.

>
> 3) Many LN advocates do not believe Carolyn Arnold was lying in her
> testimonies of what happened during the assassination.

I don't believe Carolyn Arnold ever testified to anyone regarding the JFK
assassination. There is an FBI report that she might have seen Oswald on
the first floor some time before the assassination. 15 years later she
said she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:15. Whether either of those
stories are true or not they aren't important because neither would have
precluded Oswald from being on the 6th floor killing JFK at 12:30. They
don't remotely establish an alibi for Oswald.

> And yet she was
> never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> dismiss her as an unimportant witness.

Why would that be troubling. She is an unimportant witnesses for the
reasons given above.

> The star witness for the WC, Howard
> Brennan, was a fairly inconsistent witness but a lot of CT's fail to note
> that he did give important testimony in regards to the timeframe of the
> assassination. When Arnold's testimony and Brennan's testimony are put
> together along with the other witnesses, it leads to a serious problem in
> the assassination timeframe that the WC failed to acknowledge and even
> look at. It leads to serious problems in placing Oswald as the lone
> assassin. It is absolutely critical to debate this point as it poses real
> questions that need real answers.

It is not the least bit critical. Neither Arnold nor Brennan could
pinpoint the exact time they saw Oswald so neither's story refutes the
other.

> The motorcade was late. Do you know by
> how many minutes? Do you know at what time the first witness stated they
> saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Brennan first stated
> he saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Carolyn Arnold
> stated she believed she saw Oswald on the lower level of the building? Did
> LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late? If you know the
> answers to all of these you know there is a problem with Oswald's ability
> to be the shooter. Hopefully we can find the answers together.
>

Do you know there is no contemporaneous statement by Arnold that tells us
exactly what time she might have seen Oswald and her 15 year old
recollection that she saw him in the lunchroom at 12:15 hardly established
that Oswald was in the lunchroom at 12:15. What we do have is an
eyewitness who states he saw Oswald firing the the shots at 12:30 and his
account is corroborated by a number of pieces of physical evidence.

[claviger]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:56:30 PM UTC-6, Chosen Ten wrote:
> These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
> to the debate of the JFK assassination.
>
> 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
> ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
> regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
> remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
> assassination?

What is your source for believing this to be the case?

> Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they knew about him?

Cite please.

> Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others regarding Oswald?

Can you be more specific?

> If he was a patsy, the questions are still the same but more troubling.
>
> 2) Has anyone backtracked the bullets used in the assassination farther
> than the FBI did? If Brinegar got the bullets from the Century Arms
> Company from Alexandria Virginia is that not worth investigating deeper
> since it strikes home to the "obvious speculation" that the bullets were
> CIA ordered as the bullets did not fit and could not be fired in any of

> the USMC weapons (whom they were ordered for).! Could further backtracking

> then lead, in turn, to a discovery of something more sinister on the topic
> of the bullets? Is it not at least worth investigating deeper given the
> coverups and dubious history of the CIA?

For all these reasons the CIA would be idiots to provide this kind of
weapon and ammo to LHO. Any cheap hunting rifle would do and the ammo
would not be traceable to the CIA. Evidently the CIA had modern ammo made
for the Carcano which were readily available as war surplus they could
provide the anti-Communist faction in the Greek civil war. That civil war
ended with a large supply of this ammunition. The CIA no longer needed
the ammo so they dumped it on the market for WWII surplus rifles that were
a bargain for deer hunters.

> 3) Many LN advocates do not believe Carolyn Arnold was lying in her
> testimonies of what happened during the assassination. And yet she was
> never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> dismiss her as an unimportant witness.

Carolyn Arnold made three different statements and no two were alike.
There was no corroboration for her final version which put LHO in the
lunchroom at 12:15 pm, which means he would have plenty of time to
reach the 6th floor and shoot at the motorcade.

> The star witness for the WC, Howard Brennan, was a fairly inconsistent
> witness but a lot of CT's fail to note that he did give important testimony
> in regards to the timeframe of the assassination.

How so?

> When Arnold's testimony and Brennan's testimony are put together along
> with the other witnesses, it leads to a serious problem in the assassination
> timeframe that the WC failed to acknowledge and even look at. It leads to
> serious problems in placing Oswald as the lone assassin.

As pointed out above even the dubious sighting by Carolyn Arnold leaves
plenty of time for LHO to make it up to the 6th floor to fire his rifle at
the Presidential Limousine. Another witness on Houston St saw a man on
the sixth floor with a rifle a few minutes before the motorcade passed by.
He was seen standing up back from a window on the west side of the
building. The description by this witness fit LHO.

> It is absolutely critical to debate this point as it poses real questions

As opposed to?

> that need real answers.

Don't they all?

> The motorcade was late. Do you know by how many minutes?

About 40 minutes.

> Do you know at what time the first witness stated they saw a gunman in
> the window?

12:15 - 12:20 pm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/arowland.htm

> Do you know at what time Brennan first stated he saw a gunman in the
> window?

About 12:22 - 12:24 pm.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan.htm

> Do you know at what time Carolyn Arnold stated she believed she saw
> Oswald on the lower level of the building?

About 12:15 pm.

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Mrs. Carolyn Arnold vs Mrs. Carolyn Johnston
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/claviger$20carolyn$20arnold%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/TImdD0s-kmA/GiiZgUCWFAAJ

> LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late?

Employees in the TSBD had radios on and were aware when
the parade would pass by the building.

> If you know the answers to all of these you know there is a
> problem with Oswald's ability to be the shooter. Hopefully
> we can find the answers together.
> ChosenTen

I see no problem whatsoever that an exMarine could shoot a man-size target
inside close range with a military rifle. All 3 shots were under 100
yards. Marines have to qualify in boot camp on a man-size target at 300
yards with open fixed sights and no scope.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/16/2017 7:05 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:56:30 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
>> These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
>> to the debate of the JFK assassination.
>>
>>
>> 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
>> ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
>> regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
>> remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
>> assassination? Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they
>> knew about him? Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others
>> regarding Oswald?
>>
>
> Why do you think you are proving anything by raising questions? To prove
> something, you need to answer those questions. Don't expect others to do
> your work for you.
>

Wrong, that's silly. If she knew the answer she wouldn't be asking the
questions.

[Jason Burke]

On 1/16/2017 4:05 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:56:30 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
>> These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
>> to the debate of the JFK assassination.
>>
>>
>> 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
>> ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
>> regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
>> remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
>> assassination? Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they
>> knew about him? Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others
>> regarding Oswald?
>>
>
> Why do you think you are proving anything by raising questions? To prove
> something, you need to answer those questions. Don't expect others to do
> your work for you.
>

But, but. That's all the CT crowd has.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Carolyn made a statement to the FBI and they twisted it around
and filed it as different than she had said. The 302's that they use to
file reports aren't seen by the witnesses generally and so it was not
corrected. The FBI then saw that the report they submitted had given
Oswald a sort of a alibi, so they rewrote it to appear completely like a
dingbat and with nothing of use in it. In 1978 2 reporters came to
Carolyn Arnold and told her of her statement, which she immediately
corrected, and gave her correct statement. She thought the FBI would be
silly to write what they had for her. At that time, the FBI had been
found to have incorrectly reported many witnesses statements to support
the 'lone nut' scenario.

> > And yet she was
> > never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> > dismiss her as an unimportant witness.
>

The LNs HAVE to dismiss her, or her statement would give Oswald an
alibi. She saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm. At
about the same time witnesses saw 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th
floor of the TSBD. If Oswald had tried to go to the 6th floor, the 2 men
with a gun would have dissuaded him from hanging around there. If he had
tried to go there BEFORE the 2 men with a gun, I'm sure they could
convince him to leave their staked out window alone and go away. 2 men
with a gun in the TSBD 6th floor window is pretty clear who did the
shooting a the motorcade. So Oswald had an alibi from Carolyn Arnold.

> Why would that be troubling. She is an unimportant witnesses for the
> reasons given above.
>

WRONG! See above.

WRONG! There is no witness that saw Oswald firing a rifle at the
motorcade. Howard Brennan was discredited by his own autobiography. He
stated that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to the lineup to
identify him. Then he admitted that when he got to the lineup, a
detective told him which position Oswald was in:

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html

At the time, a teenager was standing near to Brennan and he could not
see well at the window on the 6th floor. He saw a rifle and he saw a man
with a 'bald spot', but couldn't even tell if he as black or white.
Brennan couldn't do any better, but had a good description of Oswald.
When Brennan was testifying, he thought the rifle didn't have a scope, and
the WC lawyer had to get him to say he wasn't sure.

Brennan was the ONLY possible witness to the shooter on the 6th floor,
and he was discredited. So there is no such witness.

Chris

[Ace Kefford]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:56:30 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

Do some basic reading and then you would know the answers to these
questions.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:56:30 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

How do you reason from (a) Angleton knew more about Oswald then he
revealed to (b) Oswald had "affiliations" with the CIA?

First, I'm not sure what you mean by Angleton "knowing more". What "more"
did he know than he revealed? Certainly both the FBI and CIA were
monitoring Oswald since they didn't know whether he was working for the
Soviets or not. But the monitoring of him in the US was done by the FBI.
And poorly done.

But again going from saying that counter intelligence in the CIA was
watching Oswald is far from showing that Oswald had "affiliations" with
them.

Frankly, I think it's this type of connecting of dots that gets the
conspiracy people in trouble. You make connects that simply aren't shown
by the available evidence.

As to Angleton: You are aware, I'm sure, of his views of Nosenko and
Oswald?

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Carolyn never saw what the FBI wrote down for her statement the
first time. When they realized it made too much of an alibi for Oswald,
they rewrote it to an innocuous statement that wasn't sure of anything and
carried no real information. Both time the witness never gets to see the
302 file that the FBI agents write up, so they never complained. In 1978
2 reporters spoke with Carolyn Arnold and told her what the FBI had sad
she said. She immediately said that they were wrong and gave her true
statement, which was that she had seen Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom
at about 12:`15pm.

At about that same time 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th floor
window by witnesses. Id Oswald had tried to get to the 6th floor, he
would have been dissuaded by the 2 men with a gun. If he had gotten there
before them, they would have found a way to get rid of him. There can be
only on thing they wanted being in the 6th floor window with a gun.

The army found that the MC rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad
mounting. As well, the rifle had a sticky bolt which would make rapid
firing difficult.

Chris

[bigdog]

Once again, because a witness says something that you want to believe you accept it as fact even if there is no corroboration for it.

>
>
> > > And yet she was
> > > never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> > > dismiss her as an unimportant witness.
> >
>
>
> The LNs HAVE to dismiss her, or her statement would give Oswald an
> alibi.

You've never explained how someone spotting Oswald in the lunchroom at
12:15 gives him an alibi for where he was at 12:30. Oswald has no alibi.
Not a single witness claims they saw Oswald in the TSBD anywhere except
the sniper's nest. I guess you don't understand what the word alibi means.

> She saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm. At
> about the same time witnesses saw 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th
> floor of the TSBD. If Oswald had tried to go to the 6th floor, the 2 men
> with a gun would have dissuaded him from hanging around there. If he had
> tried to go there BEFORE the 2 men with a gun, I'm sure they could
> convince him to leave their staked out window alone and go away. 2 men
> with a gun in the TSBD 6th floor window is pretty clear who did the
> shooting a the motorcade. So Oswald had an alibi from Carolyn Arnold.
>

Your tortured figuring doesn't give him an alibi either.

>
>
> > Why would that be troubling. She is an unimportant witnesses for the
> > reasons given above.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! See above.
>

RIGHT! See above.

For some reason you think because Brennan saw Oswald on TV he couldn't
also have seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.

> At the time, a teenager was standing near to Brennan and he could not
> see well at the window on the 6th floor. He saw a rifle and he saw a man
> with a 'bald spot', but couldn't even tell if he as black or white.
> Brennan couldn't do any better, but had a good description of Oswald.
> When Brennan was testifying, he thought the rifle didn't have a scope, and
> the WC lawyer had to get him to say he wasn't sure.
>
> Brennan was the ONLY possible witness to the shooter on the 6th floor,
> and he was discredited. So there is no such witness.
>

The case against Oswald is rock solid without any witnesses. Brennan's
testimony is icing on the cake.

[Anthony Marsh]

False.

> At about that same time 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th floor
> window by witnesses. Id Oswald had tried to get to the 6th floor, he
> would have been dissuaded by the 2 men with a gun. If he had gotten there
> before them, they would have found a way to get rid of him. There can be
> only on thing they wanted being in the 6th floor window with a gun.
>

False.

Not exactly.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I think she's calling about the interrogation (torture) of Nosenko.
That makes Angleton privy to information that no one else had.

> did he know than he revealed? Certainly both the FBI and CIA were
> monitoring Oswald since they didn't know whether he was working for the
> Soviets or not. But the monitoring of him in the US was done by the FBI.
> And poorly done.
>

And you really think it was ONLY the FBI? It was also the CIA, ONI, NSA
and the 122th Military Intelligence Group.

> But again going from saying that counter intelligence in the CIA was
> watching Oswald is far from showing that Oswald had "affiliations" with
> them.

I don't think she said that. You are making a straw man argument and
putting words in her mouth to misdirect.

>
> Frankly, I think it's this type of connecting of dots that gets the
> conspiracy people in trouble. You make connects that simply aren't shown
> by the available evidence.
>

Yes, and not connecting dots lets terrorists get away with terrorism.

> As to Angleton: You are aware, I'm sure, of his views of Nosenko and
> Oswald?
>

There is mor to it than you know.
Who was the mole?
Cat got your tongue again?

>

[Anthony Marsh]

She can't. You've covered up all the evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true. Euins saw someone. Others saw someone.

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

You just can't seem to grasp that none of the versions of Arnold's story
gives Oswald an alibi because none of them places him at the time the
shots were fired. That's what an alibi needs to show. Why do you have such
a hard time understanding that.

> Both time the witness never gets to see the
> 302 file that the FBI agents write up, so they never complained. In 1978
> 2 reporters spoke with Carolyn Arnold and told her what the FBI had sad
> she said. She immediately said that they were wrong and gave her true
> statement, which was that she had seen Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom
> at about 12:`15pm.
>

15 minutes before the shots were fired. BFD.

> At about that same time 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th floor
> window by witnesses. Id Oswald had tried to get to the 6th floor, he
> would have been dissuaded by the 2 men with a gun. If he had gotten there
> before them, they would have found a way to get rid of him. There can be
> only on thing they wanted being in the 6th floor window with a gun.
>

Silliness.

The FBI found that the Carcano had fired both the recovered bullets and
also matched the shells found at the window were several witnesses had
seen the gunman. That trumps any perceived problems you think the Carcano
had. It got the job done. Also, why do I need to keep pointing out to you
that the assassination did not require rapid fire. 3 shots in 8-9 seconds
is not rapid fire. It is deliberate fire.

[Chosen Ten]

I asked these questions precisely hoping to see what kind of responses I
would get back. And I must say... they didn't disappoint. You need look no
further than the varying different responses to the questions in the
comments above than to see part of the bigger problem. Believe it or not,
Not all questions come from lack of knowledge on the subject matter. I
would hope I would not be wrong in saying everyone in here is, at least in
some form, moderately well versed in the Kennedy assassination. But the
distinctness of the different answers I got from each individual are quite
revealing to each persons personal characteristics and knowledge. And
speaks to the heart of the problem. I got a lot of mixed answers here and
there. Some did not provide any answers at all. I will only answer to the
responses worth answering to since writing responses is very time
consuming. A lot of people either don't know the answers or are
misinformed. Everyone can fall victim to this so it is important to get
the correct facts if we wish to be able to reach accurate conclusions. The
best response I got was BY FAR from Claviger. Not only did he nail down
alot of the correct facts but the ones he got right he cited references.
But here's what is troubling. Carolyn's Arnold, like Arnold Rowland, both
stated how the FBI took their reports with seemingly very little interest.
Carolyn Arnold was NEVER called up to the WC. But Rowland was. And he even
stated this in his testimony before the WC how disinterested the FBI
seemed. You can see for yourself below in his testimony. He was not the
first nor the last who stated this seeming lack of interest and poor
handling by the FBI.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowland_a.htm

He also clearly states as Claviger nailed down correctly, having seen a
gunman in the 6th floor window at 12:15-12:16 and he quickly pointed this
out to his wife. He thought the gunman was part of the protection detail.
The reason they knew at what time this happened and how his statements
were corroborated was because of the police radio that was giving out the
time and location of the motorcade as it proceeded on route not far from
them. And he states clearly that he checked his watch several times before
the assassination as the motorcade was arriving.

Now... let's examine Carolyn Arnold.

On the first FBI report given regarding her testimony , Mrs Arnold DID NOT
sign off on. She signed off on the second one. There are a few problems
here. Mrs Arnold herself stated the FBI did not seem interested in what
she had to say. But there are key differences in the two different FBI
reports. The first report downplayed the strength of her recognition of
him.

http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

Regardless if it was at 12:15 or 12:25 that she saw LHO, either account
provided problems for the WC. If it was at 12:15 that she saw Oswald, who
was the gunman in the 6th floor window Arnold Rowland saw? She stated in
her second report that she left the building at 12:25. But the wording on
that is what throws people off. 12:15 is probably around the time she saw
Oswald. 12:25 is likely the time she left work officially. If it was at
12:25 that she saw Oswald who then was the man on the 6th floor Howard
Brennan saw as Claviger correctly answered between 12:22 and 12:24? But
12:15 is the most likely answer to around what time she saw him. Another
important factor to keep in mind here is how late the motorcade was. I got
different answers from a lot of people on this one. 5 minutes, 15 minutes,
40 minutes! (I have no idea where Claviger got that one from to be fair)
The most common answer I see is 15 minutes late. Is there no consensus on
how late the motorcade actually was then within the JFK research
community? Unless Oswald had a radio he could listen to giving the
motorcades exact position, how could he know it was arriving late? How
could he know when it would arrive? He would need time to get to and set
up in his snipers nest. Let's assume he knew anyways by means of a
coworker or a radio... if Carolyn Arnold and Arnold Rowland, and Brennan
all told the truth, then the timeframe is conflicted and something quite
clearly does not add up. And this is where LHO Oswald's testimony (his
alibi so to speak) comes into play. Because then you get into Eddie
Piper's, Jarman's, and Norman's, testimonies as well If you examine the
other witness testimonies as well, you begin to get a better sense of the
timeframe. A KEY point within that timeframe was the ambulance that took
away the epileptic victim. I will be back and respond to as many posts as
I can. There are some good questions and things that were asked that I
most certainly want to go into. Hopefully within the next few days.

All the best,

ChosenTen

[Chosen Ten]

From his own autobiography you could say Brennan was a conspiracy theorist
himself

>
> Chris

[Ace Kefford]

Asking questions like that show you haven't been around the conspiracy
bunch much. Truthfully that's more solid reasoning than most of that mob
generally use!

[mainframetech]

FALSE! Because the witness has something of value to offer as to
evidence, she will be included in various proofs.

> >
> >
> > > > And yet she was
> > > > never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> > > > dismiss her as an unimportant witness.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The LNs HAVE to dismiss her, or her statement would give Oswald an
> > alibi.
>
> You've never explained how someone spotting Oswald in the lunchroom at
> 12:15 gives him an alibi for where he was at 12:30. Oswald has no alibi.
> Not a single witness claims they saw Oswald in the TSBD anywhere except
> the sniper's nest. I guess you don't understand what the word alibi means.
>

Ah, but you're WRONG as usual! I've explained it to you so many times
I can't count. You just have an inability to understand anything that
doesn't come directly from the tired old WCR. Now I'll repeat what I've
told you before, and once again you'll see your latest mistake. Carolyn
Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm. At about
the same time 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun. If
Oswald tried to go to the 6th floor, the 2 men with a gun would make him
go away. Simple.

> > She saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm. At
> > about the same time witnesses saw 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th
> > floor of the TSBD. If Oswald had tried to go to the 6th floor, the 2 men
> > with a gun would have dissuaded him from hanging around there. If he had
> > tried to go there BEFORE the 2 men with a gun, I'm sure they could
> > convince him to leave their staked out window alone and go away. 2 men
> > with a gun in the TSBD 6th floor window is pretty clear who did the
> > shooting a the motorcade. So Oswald had an alibi from Carolyn Arnold.
> >
>
> Your tortured figuring doesn't give him an alibi either.
>

Sure he had one. That was it, though there are other considerations,
like the idea that Oswald had no intention of shooting anyone that day.

WRONG! That was covered. A teen standing near him was unable to tell
if the man in the 6th floor window was black or white, and he could only
see that he had a 'bald spot' on his head. So I figure Brennan couldn't
see either and got his info some other way. Like from TV or a detective
that gave him info before identifying Oswald.

> > At the time, a teenager was standing near to Brennan and he could not
> > see well at the window on the 6th floor. He saw a rifle and he saw a man
> > with a 'bald spot', but couldn't even tell if he as black or white.
> > Brennan couldn't do any better, but had a good description of Oswald.
> > When Brennan was testifying, he thought the rifle didn't have a scope, and
> > the WC lawyer had to get him to say he wasn't sure.
> >
> > Brennan was the ONLY possible witness to the shooter on the 6th floor,
> > and he was discredited. So there is no such witness.
> >
>
> The case against Oswald is rock solid without any witnesses. Brennan's
> testimony is icing on the cake.

There is NO case against Oswald. I know because you listed what you
thought was evidence and it amounted to a hill of beans. None of it was
direct evidence, and a few bits were circumstantial. Nothing of any
solidity.

Chris

[bigdog]

I suppose you could find a less important witness than Carolyn Arnold but
it is hard to imagine how. She gave three different accounts of seeing
Oswald and they were inconsistent as to the time or place she thought she
saw him. It makes no sense to use what she has said to try to establish
Oswald's whereabouts at any given time. As for Arnold Rowland, do you
really think when he spotted the gunman in the TSBD he thought to himself,
"I better mark the time I saw this guy. It might be important later". This
is the one guy who probably had the best opportunity to have prevented the
assassination if he had only alerted a nearby cop to the presence of the
gunman in the TSBD. But he didn't think it was important enough to do that
but we are supposed to believe it was important enough to mark the time.

Collectively, these two witnesses are much ado about nothing.

[bigdog]

You assume she had something of value even though none of her three
versions is corroborated by anything and they don't agree as to the time
and place she saw Oswald. Add to that the fact that none of her three
versions establishes an alibi for Oswald because none of them, even if
true, would preclude Oswald from being in the sniper's nest at 12:30.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > And yet she was
> > > > > never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> > > > > dismiss her as an unimportant witness.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The LNs HAVE to dismiss her, or her statement would give Oswald an
> > > alibi.
> >
> > You've never explained how someone spotting Oswald in the lunchroom at
> > 12:15 gives him an alibi for where he was at 12:30. Oswald has no alibi.
> > Not a single witness claims they saw Oswald in the TSBD anywhere except
> > the sniper's nest. I guess you don't understand what the word alibi means.
> >
>
>
> Ah, but you're WRONG as usual! I've explained it to you so many times
> I can't count.

None of your explanations have made sense.

> You just have an inability to understand anything that
> doesn't come directly from the tired old WCR.

I don't understand the nonsense that comes from you.

> Now I'll repeat what I've
> told you before,

Oh, goody.

> and once again you'll see your latest mistake. Carolyn
> Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.

She said that. It may or may not be true. You refuse to consider the very
real possibility it is the latter.

> At about
> the same time 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun. If
> Oswald tried to go to the 6th floor, the 2 men with a gun would make him
> go away. Simple.
>

This is your FUBAR figuring which does nothing to establish the validity
of Arnold's story nor does it preclude Oswald from being in the 6th floor
sniper's nest at 12:30. Seriously, nobody gives as hit about this hair
brained idea of yours.

>
>
>
> > > She saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm. At
> > > about the same time witnesses saw 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th
> > > floor of the TSBD. If Oswald had tried to go to the 6th floor, the 2 men
> > > with a gun would have dissuaded him from hanging around there. If he had
> > > tried to go there BEFORE the 2 men with a gun, I'm sure they could
> > > convince him to leave their staked out window alone and go away. 2 men
> > > with a gun in the TSBD 6th floor window is pretty clear who did the
> > > shooting a the motorcade. So Oswald had an alibi from Carolyn Arnold.
> > >
> >
> > Your tortured figuring doesn't give him an alibi either.
> >
>
>
> Sure he had one. That was it, though there are other considerations,
> like the idea that Oswald had no intention of shooting anyone that day.
>

The only way to establish an alibi for Oswald is to establish where he was
at 12:30. If you can't do that, there is no reason he couldn't have been
in the sniper's nest and therefore he has no alibi.

You figure a lot of things that don't make a lick of sense.

>
>
> > > At the time, a teenager was standing near to Brennan and he could not
> > > see well at the window on the 6th floor. He saw a rifle and he saw a man
> > > with a 'bald spot', but couldn't even tell if he as black or white.
> > > Brennan couldn't do any better, but had a good description of Oswald.
> > > When Brennan was testifying, he thought the rifle didn't have a scope, and
> > > the WC lawyer had to get him to say he wasn't sure.
> > >
> > > Brennan was the ONLY possible witness to the shooter on the 6th floor,
> > > and he was discredited. So there is no such witness.
> > >
> >
> > The case against Oswald is rock solid without any witnesses. Brennan's
> > testimony is icing on the cake.
>
>
>
> There is NO case against Oswald. I know because you listed what you
> thought was evidence and it amounted to a hill of beans. None of it was
> direct evidence, and a few bits were circumstantial. Nothing of any
> solidity.
>

I listed things any that would lead any reasonable person to conclude
Oswald was guilty of killing JFK. People who have seen the evidence and
haven't reached the same conclusion are incapable of ever figuring out
such a simple murder case. For that reason their opinions should simply be
dismissed. Unless of course someone wants to rattle their cages for
amusement.

[Chosen Ten]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 1:25:23 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:56:30 PM UTC-6, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
> > to the debate of the JFK assassination.
> >
> > 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
> > ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
> > regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
> > remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
> > assassination?
>
> What is your source for believing this to be the case?

What is my main PRIMARY source for believing this to be true? The CIA
itself. Through reading their available documents (because some very
important ones are still being witheld) Through the confessions and
admissions from their own agents either retired or active. Through the
actions of their own agents. Through their well documented coverups. The
CIA, like Oswald, implicated themselves through their own actions.

http://jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/

Now... who is my secondary source for believing this to be the case? Dr.
John Newman, Jeff Morley, Lisa Pease, Alan Dale... basically any serious
researcher who has looked into the coverups and history of the CIA
regarding the JFK assassination.

>
> > Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they knew about him?
>
> Cite please.

You've never heard of James Angleton or George Joannidess or Anne
Goodpasture? You've never read the CIA's own admissions? Have you never
heard of Jane Roman? The CIA was covering up what it knew about Oswald. To
the WC, to the HSCA, to everybody. I would refer you to Morley's excellent
work into researching the CIA's coverups.

http://jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley1.htm

https://youtu.be/XTdKgH1HN5M

https://youtu.be/WdBvTJV3W70

>
> > Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others regarding Oswald?
>
> Can you be more specific?

Yes, in brief summary, the CIA lied about how much they knew about LHO
prior to the assassination. They misdirected the WC and HSCA and other
committees. Angleton, Helms, and McCone with the WC. Joannidess with the
HSCA. But it doesn't stop there. Again I refer you to the links I posted
above. There are books on this subject as well. I would refer you to Jeff
Morley's work.

http://jfkfacts.org/why-did-the-cias-richard-helms-lie-about-lee-harvey-oswald/

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/The_CIA_and_the_JFK_Assassination.html

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/10/declassified-cia-report-concluded-director-mccone-led-cover-up-kennedy.amp.html?client=safari

>
> > If he was a patsy, the questions are still the same but more troubling.
> >
> > 2) Has anyone backtracked the bullets used in the assassination farther
> > than the FBI did? If Brinegar got the bullets from the Century Arms
> > Company from Alexandria Virginia is that not worth investigating deeper
> > since it strikes home to the "obvious speculation" that the bullets were
> > CIA ordered as the bullets did not fit and could not be fired in any of
> > the USMC weapons (whom they were ordered for).! Could further backtracking
> > then lead, in turn, to a discovery of something more sinister on the topic
> > of the bullets? Is it not at least worth investigating deeper given the
> > coverups and dubious history of the CIA?
>
> For all these reasons the CIA would be idiots to provide this kind of
> weapon and ammo to LHO. Any cheap hunting rifle would do and the ammo
> would not be traceable to the CIA. Evidently the CIA had modern ammo made
> for the Carcano which were readily available as war surplus they could
> provide the anti-Communist faction in the Greek civil war. That civil war
> ended with a large supply of this ammunition. The CIA no longer needed
> the ammo so they dumped it on the market for WWII surplus rifles that were
> a bargain for deer hunters.

But you at least admit the ammo came from the CIA... unlike some others on
this forum that have a reputation for denying... how many here even knew
the bullets originated from a CIA order? And the CIA has been caught for
stupider stuff... the CIA was not immune from stupidity. watergate *cough*
op40 *cough* mafia connection *cough* Bay of Pigs *cough* mkultra...

>
> > 3) Many LN advocates do not believe Carolyn Arnold was lying in her
> > testimonies of what happened during the assassination. And yet she was
> > never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> > dismiss her as an unimportant witness.
>
> Carolyn Arnold made three different statements and no two were alike.
> There was no corroboration for her final version which put LHO in the
> lunchroom at 12:15 pm, which means he would have plenty of time to
> reach the 6th floor and shoot at the motorcade.
>
> > The star witness for the WC, Howard Brennan, was a fairly inconsistent
> > witness but a lot of CT's fail to note that he did give important testimony
> > in regards to the timeframe of the assassination.
>
> How so?

His testimony reaffirms at what time the gunman was in the snipers nest
before the assassination. If the man Brennan saw in the 6th floor window
from around 12:22-12-24 WAS in fact LHO... when put together with Carolyn
Arnold's statements of having seen LHO around 12:15 on the lower floors,
that leaves a very limited window for LHO to be able to have made his way
up.

But HEREIN lies the problem... Oswald did have an alibi. And Jarman and
Norman at least partially helped corroborate it. And it places him having
lunch around 12:20. More on that in the link below.

But even on top of that... how do you get around Mr. Arnold Rowland's
testimony of seeing the gunman at 12:15-12:16? Answer. The WC discredits
him an paints him as an "unreliable" witness. If you read his testimony he
clearly states that his vision was exceptional. Better than 20/20 I
believe his doctor told him and is what is stated in the record. Yet his
observations were dismissed by the WC. What a complete travesty. How does
Brennan, a man who could be labeled a conspiracy theorist himself, who had
several inconsistencies in his testimonies,become the "star witness" is
beyond me. Beyond logic. And beyond words. And it brings into question the
validity of the WC's "search for truth" as many LN advocates in here like
to say, when a witness like Carolyn Arnold isn't even included in the WC
and the testimony of a witness like Arnold Rowland is dismissed.

>
> > When Arnold's testimony and Brennan's testimony are put together along

> > with the other witnesses, it leads to a serious problem in the assassinaotion

> > timeframe that the WC failed to acknowledge and even look at. It leads to
> > serious problems in placing Oswald as the lone assassin.
>
> As pointed out above even the dubious sighting by Carolyn Arnold leaves
> plenty of time for LHO to make it up to the 6th floor to fire his rifle at
> the Presidential Limousine.

If it stopped there then yes... but then factor in LHO's alibi along with
Jarman and Normans testimonies.

Another witness on Houston St saw a man on
> the sixth floor with a rifle a few minutes before the motorcade passed by.
> He was seen standing up back from a window on the west side of the
> building. The description by this witness fit LHO.
>
> > It is absolutely critical to debate this point as it poses real questions
>
> As opposed to?
>
> > that need real answers.
>
> Don't they all?

Yes.

>
> > The motorcade was late. Do you know by how many minutes?
>
> About 40 minutes.

Cite?

>
>
> > Do you know at what time the first witness stated they saw a gunman in
> > the window?
>
> 12:15 - 12:20 pm
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/arowland.htm
>
> > Do you know at what time Brennan first stated he saw a gunman in the
> > window?
>
> About 12:22 - 12:24 pm.
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
>
> > Do you know at what time Carolyn Arnold stated she believed she saw
> > Oswald on the lower level of the building?
>
> About 12:15 pm.
>
> alt.assassination.jfk ›
> Mrs. Carolyn Arnold vs Mrs. Carolyn Johnston
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/claviger$20carolyn$20arnold%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/TImdD0s-kmA/GiiZgUCWFAAJ
>
> > LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late?
>
> Employees in the TSBD had radios on and were aware when
> the parade would pass by the building.

Cite? Sidetangent: If they did have radios on in the TSBD, WHERE did they
have them on and would LHO have been in the vicinity to hear one? Did they
have one on in the Domino room on for instance?

>
> > If you know the answers to all of these you know there is a
> > problem with Oswald's ability to be the shooter. Hopefully
> > we can find the answers together.
> > ChosenTen
>
> I see no problem whatsoever that an exMarine could shoot a man-size target
> inside close range with a military rifle. All 3 shots were under 100
> yards. Marines have to qualify in boot camp on a man-size target at 300
> yards with open fixed sights and no scope.

I see no problem with that at all. Your statements are accurate. What I DO
have a problem with is the ability of LHO being the lone assassin given
the timeframe of the assassination. Because the witness testimony paints a
different picture than the one the WC did.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html

With ALL THIS being said... Oswald's actions after the assassination are
at the very least, partially self-incriminating and point towards him
being suspect. There are very serious questions to be asked from his
actions thereafter... But that alone would not be enough to convict him of
assassinating the president nor does it throw out the questions of why the
CIA was hiding what they knew about him before the assassination. Ending
Point: The CIA has A LOT of explaining to do. And so would LHO... if he
were alive. But even though he is not... guess what is? The CIA. And
that's why the truth matters.

Interesting after note:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/19/9-incredible-things-learnt-cias-declassified-documents-aliens/amp/?client=safari

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38663522?client=safari

How much will the CIA really let us know?... 13 million documents just
freshly declassified... but are they the ones we NEED or just the ones
they WANT us to see?

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, he immediately thought it was an International Communist
Conspiracy. Many rightwingers thought that.

>>
>> Chris
>
>

[Bud]

I saw you questions as manifestations of the same problems that have
plagued this event from the beginning. Some people just don`t know how to
weigh evidence, some people are desperate to believe Oswald was innocent,
ect.

> Believe it or not,
> Not all questions come from lack of knowledge on the subject matter. I
> would hope I would not be wrong in saying everyone in here is, at least in
> some form, moderately well versed in the Kennedy assassination. But the
> distinctness of the different answers I got from each individual are quite
> revealing to each persons personal characteristics and knowledge. And
> speaks to the heart of the problem. I got a lot of mixed answers here and
> there. Some did not provide any answers at all. I will only answer to the
> responses worth answering to since writing responses is very time
> consuming. A lot of people either don't know the answers or are
> misinformed. Everyone can fall victim to this so it is important to get
> the correct facts if we wish to be able to reach accurate conclusions. The
> best response I got was BY FAR from Claviger. Not only did he nail down
> alot of the correct facts but the ones he got right he cited references.
> But here's what is troubling. Carolyn's Arnold, like Arnold Rowland, both
> stated how the FBI took their reports with seemingly very little interest.

Neither offered anything very interesting. Arnold saw Oswald in the
TSBD, and it well well known by then that he was. Rowland told them he saw
a guy with a rifle in the upper floors of the TSBD well after the
investigation determined there was a guy with a rifle in the upper floors
of the TSBD. Nothing either had to offer moved the investigation any
further forward than it was without their input.

The fact is that most of the people who have appointed themselves to
look into this matter display precious little skill in doing so. It is a
simple thing to determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, it is a conclusion
that is both obvious and on firm ground. When someone not only can`t
determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, but spends all their time concocting
ways to try to undermine that firm ground it becomes apparent very quickly
that they are only playing silly games.

> Carolyn Arnold was NEVER called up to the WC. But Rowland was. And he even
> stated this in his testimony before the WC how disinterested the FBI
> seemed. You can see for yourself below in his testimony. He was not the
> first nor the last who stated this seeming lack of interest and poor
> handling by the FBI.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowland_a.htm
>
> He also clearly states as Claviger nailed down correctly, having seen a
> gunman in the 6th floor window at 12:15-12:16 and he quickly pointed this
> out to his wife. He thought the gunman was part of the protection detail.
> The reason they knew at what time this happened and how his statements
> were corroborated was because of the police radio that was giving out the
> time and location of the motorcade as it proceeded on route not far from
> them. And he states clearly that he checked his watch several times before
> the assassination as the motorcade was arriving.

<snicker> I look at my watch all the time. I think I usually retain the
information for about 30 seconds. I can imagine if somebody asked me "You
looked at your watch a couple months ago, what time did it read?" The fact
is that it is very weak, soft information. You can look at Rowland`s
affidavit and you can tell all he had to offer was guesses at the time.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arowland.htm

"Approximately 12:10", "five or ten minutes later", ect. This is how
people typically keep track of time, loosely and imprecisely. Conspiracy
hobbyists are always trying to represent mush as concrete, because you can
attempt greater leaps off of concrete than they can with mush. The problem
is they can`t the difference between the two.

> Now... let's examine Carolyn Arnold.
>
> On the first FBI report given regarding her testimony , Mrs Arnold DID NOT
> sign off on. She signed off on the second one. There are a few problems
> here. Mrs Arnold herself stated the FBI did not seem interested in what
> she had to say.

You claim it is a problem but you can`t even show it is significant.

You have no established times so you have no timeframe. Do you want us
to pretend along with you that you have real times to work with?

Extra credit question, how long do you suppose it would take Oswald to
go from the 6th to the first back to the 6th if he hurried?

I`ve always felt he would have kept the bullets separate from the rifle
to allow deniability of murderous intent had the rifle been discovered.
May have had to go down and retrieve the clip from his jacket in the
domino room.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes there is. The motorcade was planned to leave at 11:30 from the airport
and arrive in 45 minutes at the Trade Mart. Again, look at the evidence.
The WH logs.

> community? Unless Oswald had a radio he could listen to giving the
> motorcades exact position, how could he know it was arriving late? How

Well he had a general idea from the newspaper. Again, I ask the question
that everyone is afraid to answer. What radio station are you talking
about? The motorcade was not broadcast live, but updates were sent out on
the police channel and SS channel. Oswald could not listen to those.

> could he know when it would arrive? He would need time to get to and set
> up in his snipers nest. Let's assume he knew anyways by means of a

If the motorcade was running late and it was, that takes care of giving
the assassin plenty of time to be ready. It should have passed the TSBD by
at least 12:15 but didn't get there until 12:30. That gives the assassins
a leeway of 15 minutes. In other real life assassinations the assassins
did screw up the timing. In one of the de Gaulle attempts the snipers in
the front had not even loaded their guns and missed seeing the signal from
the lookout man so the limo got to their location before they were ready
to shoot. By the time they did start shooting the limo had sped away and
they barely missed killing him. In one attempt on Hitler, the assassin
planted the bomb and calculated when Hitler would be there, but Hitler
left early and the bomb went off after he had left.

> coworker or a radio... if Carolyn Arnold and Arnold Rowland, and Brennan
> all told the truth, then the timeframe is conflicted and something quite
> clearly does not add up. And this is where LHO Oswald's testimony (his

So what? Don't listen to the lies from the kook. Read the damn documents.

> alibi so to speak) comes into play. Because then you get into Eddie
> Piper's, Jarman's, and Norman's, testimonies as well If you examine the
> other witness testimonies as well, you begin to get a better sense of the
> timeframe. A KEY point within that timeframe was the ambulance that took
> away the epileptic victim. I will be back and respond to as many posts as

Yes, it is interesting, but it doesn't prove anything. Why did you leave
out the Pawn Shop truck? You're not trying hard enough. And what about the
Laundry truck parked on the corner? There could have been a sniper hidden
in there. And don't forget the storm drains!

> I can. There are some good questions and things that were asked that I
> most certainly want to go into. Hopefully within the next few days.
>

You're not asking enough questions.

The important thing for you is not to do actual research to answer those
questions, but to ask as many questions as you can.

If someone doesn't answer them, that alone proves conspiracy, right?

> All the best,
>
> ChosenTen
>
>

[Chosen Ten]

HA! hahahaha! XD Says who? You?

She gave three different accounts of seeing
> Oswald and they were inconsistent as to the time or place she thought she
> saw him.

Not true. She maintained that she saw Oswald at around 12:15. She stated
she left work officially at 12:25. But while we're talking about
inconsistencies, why don't we talk about all the things that made Brennan
inconsistent and a damaging witness to the WC... or would you prefer to
skip over those small irrelevant details?

It makes no sense to use what she has said to try to establish
> Oswald's whereabouts at any given time.

Again. According to who? You?

As for Arnold Rowland, do you
> really think when he spotted the gunman in the TSBD he thought to himself,
> "I better mark the time I saw this guy. It might be important later".

Why not? Have you even actually read his testimony? If you did you would
understand why he remembered it so well. He thought the gunman was part of
the protection detail. An agent. And he clearly told this to his wife who
corroborated it. Would you like me to post their testimony? I'll do it
anyways since you don't seem to remember these important details.

Mr. BELIN. The farthermost west pair of windows. What did your husband say
to you?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, we assumed that it was a Secret Service man.
Mr. BELIN. But what did he say, if you remember?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was
holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the
motorcade.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowland_a.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../testimony/rowland_barb.htm

This
> is the one guy who probably had the best opportunity to have prevented the
> assassination if he had only alerted a nearby cop to the presence of the
> gunman in the TSBD. But he didn't think it was important enough to do that
> but we are supposed to believe it was important enough to mark the time.

He CLEARLY states EXACTLY why he didn't think the man was a threat and
gives us insight into his mindset at the time. He immediately pointed it
out to his wife. He thought the gunman was part of the security detail.
And they knew what time and where the motorcade was due to the police
radio giving out the location of the radio and Mr. Rowland checking the
time on his watch.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you like to start the question again or would you like
the question repeated?
Mr. ROWLAND - I understand the question.
Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man,
was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and
Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
Mr. SPECTER - How do you fix the time that he was there until the procession
reached the intersection of Commerce and Ervay?
Mr. ROWLAND - The police motorcycle was almost in front of me with the
speaker on very loud, giving the relative position about every 15 or 20
seconds of the motorcade, and this is how I was able to note that.

>
> Collectively, these two witnesses are much ado about nothing.

That's what I keep hearing from you but that's not what the evidence and
testimonies suggest.

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> alt.assassination.jfk ???

>>> Mrs. Carolyn Arnold vs Mrs. Carolyn Johnston
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/claviger$20carolyn$20arnold%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/TImdD0s-kmA/GiiZgUCWFAAJ
>>>
>>>> LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late?
>>>
>>> Employees in the TSBD had radios on and were aware when
>>> the parade would pass by the building.
>>>
>>>> If you know the answers to all of these you know there is a
>>>> problem with Oswald's ability to be the shooter. Hopefully
>>>> we can find the answers together.
>>>> ChosenTen
>>>
>>> I see no problem whatsoever that an exMarine could shoot a man-size target
>>> inside close range with a military rifle. All 3 shots were under 100
>>> yards. Marines have to qualify in boot camp on a man-size target at 300
>>> yards with open fixed sights and no scope.
>>
>>
>>
>> The army found that the MC rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad
>> mounting. As well, the rifle had a sticky bolt which would make rapid
>> firing difficult.
>>
>
> The FBI found that the Carcano had fired both the recovered bullets and
> also matched the shells found at the window were several witnesses had
> seen the gunman. That trumps any perceived problems you think the Carcano
> had. It got the job done. Also, why do I need to keep pointing out to you
> that the assassination did not require rapid fire. 3 shots in 8-9 seconds
> is not rapid fire. It is deliberate fire.
>

And the acoustical evidence proved that 3 shots were fired from that
window. BTW, rapid fire can be deliberate fire. Are you saying it was
accidental fire?

[mainframetech]

WRONG! As usual, you've been suckered again. Carolyn made only one of those statements. The first 2 were made up by the FBI. By pure luck we heard about her real statement because a couple of reporters came to her in 1978 and told her about her statements and she immediately disavowed them and gave her true statement.

As for Arnold Rowland, do you
> really think when he spotted the gunman in the TSBD he thought to himself,
> "I better mark the time I saw this guy. It might be important later". This
> is the one guy who probably had the best opportunity to have prevented the
> assassination if he had only alerted a nearby cop to the presence of the
> gunman in the TSBD. But he didn't think it was important enough to do that
> but we are supposed to believe it was important enough to mark the time.
>
> Collectively, these two witnesses are much ado about nothing.

Naah, you're just full of opinion.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You've gone wrong already. Carolyn did NOT see the second statement
attributed to her, and reading it and then listening to her real statement
shows that the FBI either faked a signature, or simply SAID it was signed
and never really signed it. If you saw a document that was signed, I'd be
interested in seeing it, but I don't think you'll find it. The FBI did
not normally show their 302 reports to anyone but the other FBI people.
This was one of the major problems with the FBI methods. They have been
PROVED to have changed statements of witnesses. Cites and links if
requested.

Carolyn Arnold disavowed both faked statements when she heard about
them, and gave her true statement to the reporters in 1978.

A shame you've gotten some wrong info so far. If you need any cites
and links for ANYTHING I've said please ask and I'll supply them. I don't
want you to go off thinking that I just talk and don't back myself up with
proof. In time if you keep reading Claviger's posts, you'll se that he
really doesn't have a good handle on the case at all. Sorry, that's what
I've found. Now, let's correct some other things. I don't remember
whether you read this from me or not, so I'll repeat it. Carolyn Arnold
saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm. At about that
same time witnesses saw 2 men in the 6th floor window with a gun (Repeat:
2 men with a gun). The witnesses were Ruby Henderson, John Powell, and
Carolyn Walther. Carolyn Walther:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47e-jyZz0o4

She said she saw the 2 men with a gun on the 3rd or 4th floor. It was
next to impossible to have seen them on those floors, but the 6th floor
made sense. John Powell was an inmate across the street in the jail, with
a number of other inmates who all saw the 2 men with a gun in the TSBD.
They were on the same floor (6th). Ruby ?Henderson saw 2 men, but not a
gun in the 6th floor window.

Now, Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald was about 12:15pm. Since the 2 men with
a gun were seen at about the same time on the 6th floor, there wasn't much
chance for Oswald to go there since the 2 men with a gun would dissuade
him from staying.

Further, read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and
Sample, and you'll hear from a native American Indian (Loy Factor) who
spoke with the authors and told them that the leader of a 3 person group
snuck into the TSBD at close to the time for the motorcade to come by, and
they set up positions at 2 windows for him and the leader who was named
Mac Wallace. The authors say they didn't know who that was until they
investigated later. When the motorcade came by, they fired art it and a
woman that was with them named "Ruth Ann Martinez" gave as signal on a
walkie-talkie to other shooters around Dealey Plaza. They then left down
the back stairs and out through the loading dock and away.

This is a very odd story given all the stuff that has been spread
around up to now, But the book answered many questions, and fit with some
other facts and so I mention it here.

Again there are cites and links I can supply for most of what I say.
Just ask. I've passed them out before.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You just can't seem to face the fact that Arnold's story made
it impossible for Oswald to go to the 6th floor, even if he wanted to.
That's all been explained to you before, why repeat it all over now?

> > Both time the witness never gets to see the
> > 302 file that the FBI agents write up, so they never complained. In 1978
> > 2 reporters spoke with Carolyn Arnold and told her what the FBI had sad
> > she said. She immediately said that they were wrong and gave her true
> > statement, which was that she had seen Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom
> > at about 12:`15pm.
> >
>
> 15 minutes before the shots were fired. BFD.
>

WRONG! That was explained to you.

> > At about that same time 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th floor
> > window by witnesses. Id Oswald had tried to get to the 6th floor, he
> > would have been dissuaded by the 2 men with a gun. If he had gotten there
> > before them, they would have found a way to get rid of him. There can be
> > only on thing they wanted being in the 6th floor window with a gun.
> >
> Silliness.

Opinion.

That was not contested by me. Think a little. And the witnesses did
not identify the shooter holding the gun.

That trumps any perceived problems you think the Carcano
> had. It got the job done. Also, why do I need to keep pointing out to you
> that the assassination did not require rapid fire. 3 shots in 8-9 seconds
> is not rapid fire. It is deliberate fire.

WRONG! You have NO PROOF that the MC rifle bullets hit or hurt anyone.
I'll stipulate that the MC rifle fired bullets into Dealey Plaza, but not
hitting anyone. When a rifle has a bad scope and a bad bolt, it can
easily fire shells that do nothing. What's the matter with you?

Rapid firing also is not accurate firing. The 2 do not have to go
together.

Chris

[Chosen Ten]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 10:47:21 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 1/15/2017 1:56 PM, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
> > to the debate of the JFK assassination.
> >
> >
> > 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
> > ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
> > regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
> > remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK

> > assassination? Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they
> > knew about him? Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others
> > regarding Oswald?
> >
>
> 4 reasons.
> 1. Fear of WWIII.
> Fear that the public would not understand the subtle difference between
> a CIA asset and a CIA officer or a CIA agent.
> 3. Fear that digging too deep will reveal secrets they want to keep
> forever, like the Castro assassination plots.
> 4. Sources and methods.

Agreed completely Mr. Marsh.

>
> > If he was a patsy, the questions are still the same but more troubling.
> >
> > 2) Has anyone backtracked the bullets used in the assassination farther
> > than the FBI did? If Brinegar got the bullets from the Century Arms
> > Company from Alexandria Virginia is that not worth investigating deeper
> > since it strikes home to the "obvious speculation" that the bullets were
> > CIA ordered as the bullets did not fit and could not be fired in any of

> > the USMC weapons (whom they were ordered for).!Could further backtracking

> > then lead, in turn, to a discovery of something more sinister on the topic
> > of the bullets? Is it not at least worth investigating deeper given the
> > coverups and dubious history of the CIA?
> >
>

> Yes, we know it was a DoD contract using the Marine Corps as a front.

Indeed... and what were the CIA's thoughts on the matter of the bullets I
wonder....

>
> > 3) Many LN advocates do not believe Carolyn Arnold was lying in her
> > testimonies of what happened during the assassination. And yet she was
> > never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
>

> She wasn't the only one not called. It's best NOT to call a witness when
> you are afraid of what they might say.

Indeed...

>
> > dismiss her as an unimportant witness. The star witness for the WC, Howard

> > Brennan, was a fairly inconsistent witness but a lot of CT's fail to note
> > that he did give important testimony in regards to the timeframe of the

> > assassination. When Arnold's testimony and Brennan's testimony are put
>
> But their stated mission was to frame Oswald at all costs.

I'm going to play the role of Bigdog here.... "But... their mission
statement was to find the truth wherever that led...and the truth was
known within the first couple of hours after the assassination!" And yet a
witness like Carolyn Arnold was never even included in the Warren
Commission investigations. Never even called to give testimony by the
commission. And there is proof that the CIA lied and misled the WC and the
HSCA. I guess the CIA had more to hide huh? And how long did it take us
after the assassination to find out about THEIR coverups?

>
> > together along with the other witnesses, it leads to a serious problem in
> > the assassination timeframe that the WC failed to acknowledge and even
>

> Wrong. There is no problem with the time line. Only in identifying who
> the shooter was in the TSBD.

That's in essence what I meant Mr. Marsh. I probably could have worded it
better. My mistake. By looking at the timeframe and the witness testimony
(ALL the witnesses. Not just the ones the WC called up to hear) you see a
conflict in who the shooter could have been.

>
> > look at. It leads to serious problems in placing Oswald as the lone

> > assassin. It is absolutely critical to debate this point as it poses real
> > questions that need real answers. The motorcade was late. Do you know by
> > how many minutes? Do you know at what time the first witness stated they
>
> Yes, I do. 15 minutes.
> Next question.

That is indeed generally the answer I hear within the community. But it
varies. As shown above from the comments of others.

> WHy was it late?
> Because JFK stopped to talk to some spectators.
> If some had the right kind of radio he could know that.
>
> > saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Brennan first stated
>
> 12:24.
> 12:32.
>
?
>
> > he saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Carolyn Arnold
> > stated she believed she saw Oswald on the lower level of the building? Did
>
>
>
> Mrs. R. E. ARNOLD, Secretary, Texas School Book Depository, advised
> she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November 22,
> 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go downstairs
> and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential Motorcade. As
> she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she
> caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway
> between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse,
> located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this was OSWALD,
> but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes before
> 12:15 PM.
>
> She stated thereafter she viewed the Presidential Motorcade and
> heard the shots that were fired at the President; however, she could
> furnish no information of value as to the individual firing the shots or
> any other information concerning OSWALD, whom she stated she did not
> know and had merely seen him working in the building.
>
> on 11/26/1963 at Dallas, Texas
> File # DL 89???43
> by Special Agent Richard E. Harrison
>
> Read the damn documents. I've only post them a few hundred times.

Oh I've read them alright Mr. Marsh. That's why there are so many
questions that need answering.

>
>
> > LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late? If you know the
>
> No one inside the building had any way of knowing. Others did, but they
> weren't there.

It seems you and Claviger might have an interesting talk on that.

[claviger]

Somewhere I read the original schedule was for President Kennedy to arrive
Dallas Trade Mart at 12:00 N and give his speech at 12:30 pm. That would
be a normal time table for any planned luncheon of this sort, allowing
most business people to eat lunch, hear the speech, and get back to work.
If that was the printed schedule on the invitation and the motorcade
passed through Dealey Plaza at 12:30 pm and took 10 minutes to reach the
Trade Mart from there, the motorcade would be 40 minutes behind schedule.
If eating Lunch was not a priority the motorcade was 10 minutes late.

_________________________________________________________________

ARRIVAL AT LOVE FIELD

In Dallas the rain had stopped, and by midmorning a gloomy overcast sky
had given way to the bright. sunshine that greeted the Presidential party
when Air Force One touched down at Love Field at 11:40 a.m., e.s.t.
Governor and Mrs. Connally and Senator Ralph W. Yarborough had come with
the President from Fort Worth.85 Vice President Johnson's airplane, Air
Force Two, had arrived at Love

Page 43

Field at approximately 11:35 a.m., and the Vice President and Mrs. Johnson were in the receiving line to greet President and Mrs. Kennedy.86

After a welcome from the Dallas reception committee, President and Mrs. Kennedy walked along a chain-link fence at the reception area greeting a large crowd of spectators that had gathered behind it.87 Secret Service agents formed a cordon to keep the press and photographers from impeding their passage and scanned the crowd for threatening movements.88 Dallas police stood at intervals along the fence and Dallas plain clothes men mixed in the crowd.89 Vice President and Mrs. Johnson followed along the fence, guarded by four members of the Vice-Presidential detail.90 Approximately 10 minutes after the arrival at Love Field, the President and Mrs. Kennedy went to the Presidential automobile to begin the motorcade.91

THE DRIVE THROUGH DALLAS

The motorcade left Love Field shortly after 11:50 a.m. and drove at speeds up to 25 to 30 miles an hour through thinly populated areas on the outskirts of Dallas.127 At the President's direction, his automobile stopped twice, the first time to permit him to respond to a sign asking him to shake hands.128 During this brief stop, agents in the front positions on the running boards of the Presidential follow-up car came forward and stood beside the President's car, looking out toward the crowd, and Special Agent Kellerman assumed his position next to the car.129 On the other occasion, the President halted the motorcade to speak to a Catholic nun and a group of small children.130

In the downtown area, large crowds of spectators gave the President a tremendous reception.131 The crowds were so dense

Page 48

that Special Agent Clinton J. Hill had to leave the left front running board of the President's follow-up car four times to ride on the rear of the President's limousine.132 (See Commission Exhibit No. 698, p. 47.) Several times Special Agent John D. Ready came forward from the right front running board of the Presidential follow-up car to the right side of the President's car.133 Special Agent Glen A. Bennett once left his place inside the follow-up car to help keep the crowd away from the President's car. When a teenage boy ran toward the rear of the President's car,184 Ready left the running board to chase the boy back into the crowd. On several occasions when the Vice President's car was slowed down by the throng, Special Agent Youngblood stepped out to hold the crowd back.135

According to plan, the President's motorcade proceeded west through downtown Dallas on Main Street to the intersection of Houston Street, which marks the beginning of Dealey Plaza.136 From Main Street the motorcade turned right and went north on Houston Street, passing tall buildings on the right, and headed toward the Texas School Book Depository Building.137 The spectators were still thickly congregated in front of the buildings which lined the east side of Houston Street, but the crowd thinned abruptly along Elm Street, which curves in a southwesterly direction as it proceeds downgrade toward the Triple Underpass and the Stemmons Freeway.138

As the motorcade approached the intersection of Houston and Elm Streets, there was general gratification in the Presidential party about the enthusiastic reception. Evaluating the political overtones, Kenneth O'Donnell was especially pleased because it convinced him that the average Dallas resident was like other American citizens in respecting and admiring the President. 139 Mrs. Connally, elated by the reception, turned to President Kennedy and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." The President replied, "That is very obvious."

THE ASSASSINATION

At 12:30 p.m., e.s.t., as the President's open limousine proceeded at approximately 11 miles per hour along Elm Street toward the Triple Underpass, shots fired from a rifle mortally wounded President Kennedy and seriously injured Governor Connally. One bullet passed through the President's neck; a subsequent bullet, which was lethal, shattered the right side of his skull. Governor Connally sustained bullet wounds in his back, the right side of his chest, right wrist, and left thigh.

The Time

The exact time of the assassination was fixed by the testimony of four witnesses. Special Agent Rufus W. Youngblood observed that the large electric sign clock atop the Texas School Book Depository Building showed the numerals "12:30" as the Vice-Presidential automobile proceeded north on Houston Street, a few seconds before the

Page 49

shots were fired.141 Just prior to the shooting, David F. Powers, riding in the Secret Service follow-up car, remarked to Kenneth O'Donnell that it was 12:30 p.m., the time they were due at the Trade Mart.142 Seconds after the shooting, Roy Kellerman, riding in the front seat of the Presidential limousine, looked at his watch and said "12:30" to the driver, Special Agent Greer.143 The Dallas police radio log reflects that Chief of Police Curry reported the shooting of the President and issued his initial orders at 12:30 p.m.144

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-2.html#drive
__________________________________________________________________________________

Any normal Luncheon is usually 12:00 Lunch - Speaker 12:30 - Over at 1:00.
The invitations had the 12:00 Lunch and probably 12:30 Speech. So according
to this revised timetable the motorcade was only 10-15 minutes late. Evidently
the President was not that interested in lunch and would arrive just in time for his
speech.

November 22: Arrival in Dallas[edit]
On Friday, November 22, 1963, at 11:38 a.m. CST, Kennedy, his wife Jacqueline, and the rest of the presidential entourage arrived at Love Field in northwest Dallas aboard Air Force One after a very short flight from nearby Carswell Air Force Base, west of Fort Worth.[1][2] The motorcade cars had been lined up in a certain order earlier that morning. The original schedule was for the president to proceed in a long motorcade from Love Field through downtown Dallas, and end at the Dallas Business and Trade Mart.

The motorcade was scheduled to enter Dealey Plaza at 12:10 p.m., followed by a 12:15 p.m. arrival at the Dallas Business and Trade Mart so President Kennedy could deliver a speech and share in a steak luncheon with Dallas government, business, religious, and civic leaders and their spouses. Invitations that were sent out specify a noon start time to the luncheon while SS agent Lawson told Chief Curry that after arriving at Love Field and leaving at 11:30 the 38- to 45-minute trip would get them to the Trade Mart on time. Air Force One touched down at 11:39 a.m. and the Presidential motorcade did not leave Love Field until approximately fifteen minutes later.

Dallas/Fort Worth's television stations were given separate assignments. As Bob Walker of WFAA-TV 8 (ABC) was providing live coverage of the President's arrival at Love Field, KRLD-TV 4 (CBS) with Eddie Barker was set up at the Trade Mart for Kennedy's luncheon speech. KTVT Channel 11 (Independent), had originated live coverage of the President's breakfast speech in Fort Worth earlier that day. On hand to report the arrival on radio was Joe Long of KLIF 1190.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#Presidential_motorcade_route

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 1:25:23 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:56:30 PM UTC-6, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > > These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
> > > to the debate of the JFK assassination.
> > >
> > > 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
> > > ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
> > > regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
> > > remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
> > > assassination?
> >
> > What is your source for believing this to be the case?
>
> What is my main PRIMARY source for believing this to be true? The CIA
> itself. Through reading their available documents (because some very
> important ones are still being witheld) Through the confessions and
> admissions from their own agents either retired or active. Through the
> actions of their own agents. Through their well documented coverups. The
> CIA, like Oswald, implicated themselves through their own actions.
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/
>

It would be normal for the CIA to deny any connection with a killer of
the POTUS, whether or not he had done the deed. Control paranoia.

WRONG! First, logic proves that the FBI made the first 2 versions, and
the third was Arnold's statement from herself to reporters. There was NO
sworn testimony, only statements. As well, there were 2 men seen at about
the same time (12:15pm) in the window of the 6th floor by 3 witnesses.
That meant that if Oswald tried to get to the 6th floor window he would
have been rebuffed.

And include that there were 2 men with a gun seen in the 6th floor
window by 3 witnesses at about the same time (12:15pm).

[mainframetech]

Why would phony FBI made up statements match any other statements?
They didn't make up statements for her for no reason. Those 2 phony
statements were nailed down as such by Carolyn Arnold herself when she
found out about them in 1978 and gave her true statement. It's not an
assumption, because she corrected the record herself.

> > > > > > And yet she was
> > > > > > never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> > > > > > dismiss her as an unimportant witness.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The LNs HAVE to dismiss her, or her statement would give Oswald an
> > > > alibi.
> > >
> > > You've never explained how someone spotting Oswald in the lunchroom at
> > > 12:15 gives him an alibi for where he was at 12:30. Oswald has no alibi.
> > > Not a single witness claims they saw Oswald in the TSBD anywhere except
> > > the sniper's nest. I guess you don't understand what the word alibi means.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Ah, but you're WRONG as usual! I've explained it to you so many times
> > I can't count.
>
> None of your explanations have made sense.
>

WRONG! Well, that's one of your problems. You can't understand many
things that are OBVIOUS.

> > You just have an inability to understand anything that
> > doesn't come directly from the tired old WCR.
>
> I don't understand the nonsense that comes from you.
>
> > Now I'll repeat what I've
> > told you before,
>
> Oh, goody.
>
> > and once again you'll see your latest mistake. Carolyn
> > Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
>
> She said that. It may or may not be true. You refuse to consider the very
> real possibility it is the latter.
>

WRONG! I considered it and decided she had no reason to lie about what
she saw, and the FBI had plenty of reason to lie. Which they had gotten
caught at before.

> > At about
> > the same time 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun. If
> > Oswald tried to go to the 6th floor, the 2 men with a gun would make him
> > go away. Simple.
> >
>
> This is your FUBAR figuring which does nothing to establish the validity
> of Arnold's story nor does it preclude Oswald from being in the 6th floor
> sniper's nest at 12:30. Seriously, nobody gives as hit about this hair
> brained idea of yours.
>

Carolyn Arnold corrected the invalid version of stories made up by the
FBI. And there is every reason to believe that 2 men with a gun intended
to fire on the motorcade and wouldn't allow anyone to stop them, like
Oswald wanting to be by the window. Not that he tried.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > She saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm. At
> > > > about the same time witnesses saw 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th
> > > > floor of the TSBD. If Oswald had tried to go to the 6th floor, the 2 men
> > > > with a gun would have dissuaded him from hanging around there. If he had
> > > > tried to go there BEFORE the 2 men with a gun, I'm sure they could
> > > > convince him to leave their staked out window alone and go away. 2 men
> > > > with a gun in the TSBD 6th floor window is pretty clear who did the
> > > > shooting a the motorcade. So Oswald had an alibi from Carolyn Arnold.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your tortured figuring doesn't give him an alibi either.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sure he had one. That was it, though there are other considerations,
> > like the idea that Oswald had no intention of shooting anyone that day.
> >
>
> The only way to establish an alibi for Oswald is to establish where he was
> at 12:30. If you can't do that, there is no reason he couldn't have been
> in the sniper's nest and therefore he has no alibi.
>

WRONG! Don't ever try to tell me what is good evidence and what is
not. I'll provide the evidence and you can just sit on the sidelines and
complain. Oswald was shown to have no interest in shooting anyone, but
the Carolyn Arnold sighting was enough to make sure that Oswald wasn't
going to try for the 6th floor when there were 2 men with a gun waiting
there.

Well, not to you maybe. But that's easy to see.

> >
> >
> > > > At the time, a teenager was standing near to Brennan and he could not
> > > > see well at the window on the 6th floor. He saw a rifle and he saw a man
> > > > with a 'bald spot', but couldn't even tell if he as black or white.
> > > > Brennan couldn't do any better, but had a good description of Oswald.
> > > > When Brennan was testifying, he thought the rifle didn't have a scope, and
> > > > the WC lawyer had to get him to say he wasn't sure.
> > > >
> > > > Brennan was the ONLY possible witness to the shooter on the 6th floor,
> > > > and he was discredited. So there is no such witness.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The case against Oswald is rock solid without any witnesses. Brennan's
> > > testimony is icing on the cake.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is NO case against Oswald. I know because you listed what you
> > thought was evidence and it amounted to a hill of beans. None of it was
> > direct evidence, and a few bits were circumstantial. Nothing of any
> > solidity.
> >
>
> I listed things any that would lead any reasonable person to conclude
> Oswald was guilty of killing JFK.

Reasonable people in a case where there was a 'patsy'? I don't think
so.

People who have seen the evidence and
> haven't reached the same conclusion are incapable of ever figuring out
> such a simple murder case. For that reason their opinions should simply be
> dismissed. Unless of course someone wants to rattle their cages for
> amusement.

::: rattlin' bd's cage for a laugh :::

Chris

[claviger]

When it comes to witnesses estimating time it seems to be a ± 5
minute situation since no one was using a stop watch. When the sudden
gunfire took place it was over in 10 seconds or less, the reason for so
many differing perceptions of time between shots. A majority of witnesses
thought the last two shots were closer together but the Zapruder film does
not support that perception.

As for Carolyn Arnold she gave 3 statements through the years and no two
were alike. Two other ladies were in the lunchroom from 12:00 n - 12:25
pm and they did not see LHO in there the whole time. Carolyn Arnold's
evolving story of what she saw that day is highly suspect.

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Mrs. Carolyn Arnold vs Mrs. Carolyn Johnston

13 posts by 5 authors

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Carolyn Nearn Arnold
2 posts by 2 authors

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

You're making these claims of "admissions" when there aren't any
admissions.

The CIA didn't want to reveal methods or sources of operations to the
public. They were opening American citizens mail. That was probably
illegal at the time; certainly improper. They didn't want to reveal that.
They didn't want to reveal their bugging of the Soviet and Cuban
embassies/consulates in Mexico City either. So they tried to keep that
secret.

The fact that they didn't reveal EVERYTHING about what they were doing in
monitoring suspected agents doesn't mean Oswald was "affiliated" with the
CIA.

Again, you're engaged in the classic conspiracy thinking: the CIA "knew"
more about Oswald then they admitted at the time therefore Oswald was an
asset.

That's illogical and nonsensical.

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jan 2017 23:28:54 -0500, Chosen Ten <rushi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 1:25:23 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:56:30 PM UTC-6, Chosen Ten wrote:
>> > These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
>> > to the debate of the JFK assassination.
>> >
>> > 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
>> > ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
>> > regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
>> > remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
>> > assassination?
>>
>> What is your source for believing this to be the case?
>
>What is my main PRIMARY source for believing this to be true? The CIA
>itself. Through reading their available documents (because some very
>important ones are still being witheld) Through the confessions and
>admissions from their own agents either retired or active. Through the
>actions of their own agents. Through their well documented coverups. The
>CIA, like Oswald, implicated themselves through their own actions.
>
>http://jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/
>
>Now... who is my secondary source for believing this to be the case? Dr.
>John Newman, Jeff Morley, Lisa Pease, Alan Dale... basically any serious
>researcher who has looked into the coverups and history of the CIA
>regarding the JFK assassination.
>

You are assuming those are "serious researchers?"

>>
>> > Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they knew about him?
>>
>> Cite please.
>
>You've never heard of James Angleton or George Joannidess or Anne
>Goodpasture? You've never read the CIA's own admissions? Have you never
>heard of Jane Roman? The CIA was covering up what it knew about Oswald.

Just what was the CIA "covering up" that they knew about Oswald?

I know about Morley's article.

He has only suspicions. Not evidence.

So explain.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/19/2017 11:28 PM, Chosen Ten wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 1:25:23 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:56:30 PM UTC-6, Chosen Ten wrote:
>>> These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
>>> to the debate of the JFK assassination.
>>>
>>> 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
>>> ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
>>> regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
>>> remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
>>> assassination?
>>
>> What is your source for believing this to be the case?
>
> What is my main PRIMARY source for believing this to be true? The CIA
> itself. Through reading their available documents (because some very
> important ones are still being witheld) Through the confessions and
> admissions from their own agents either retired or active. Through the
> actions of their own agents. Through their well documented coverups. The
> CIA, like Oswald, implicated themselves through their own actions.
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/
>
> Now... who is my secondary source for believing this to be the case? Dr.
> John Newman, Jeff Morley, Lisa Pease, Alan Dale... basically any serious
> researcher who has looked into the coverups and history of the CIA
> regarding the JFK assassination.
>

You might also need to know that the CIA is still covering up its
supporting Fidel Castro. One of their top agents, Frank Bender,
interviewed Castro when he was in New York and reported back to HQ that
Castro was not a Communists and should be supported by the CIA. WHen I
filed an FOIA request for Bender's report, the CIA denied that there was
any report or any such person.

>>
>>> Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they knew about him?
>>
>> Cite please.
>
> You've never heard of James Angleton or George Joannidess or Anne
> Goodpasture? You've never read the CIA's own admissions? Have you never
> heard of Jane Roman? The CIA was covering up what it knew about Oswald. To
> the WC, to the HSCA, to everybody. I would refer you to Morley's excellent
> work into researching the CIA's coverups.
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley1.htm
>
> https://youtu.be/XTdKgH1HN5M
>
> https://youtu.be/WdBvTJV3W70
>
>>
>>> Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others regarding Oswald?
>>
>> Can you be more specific?
>
> Yes, in brief summary, the CIA lied about how much they knew about LHO
> prior to the assassination. They misdirected the WC and HSCA and other
> committees. Angleton, Helms, and McCone with the WC. Joannidess with the
> HSCA. But it doesn't stop there. Again I refer you to the links I posted
> above. There are books on this subject as well. I would refer you to Jeff
> Morley's work.
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/why-did-the-cias-richard-helms-lie-about-lee-harvey-oswald/
>

You might also like to know that shortly before the assassination, Richard
Helms lied to President Kennedy. A professor doing research was seized by
the KGB to use as a pawn in a spy swap. Helms lied and said that Barghoorn
had NO connections to the CIA or intelligence. Then the State Department
admitted that he had once been a consultant for the CIA and participated
in debriefing refugees fleeing Russia.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Kohler63.gif




DEPARTMENT OF STATE

THE DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH

NOV 12 1963

TO : The Secretary
THROUGH: S/S
FROM : INR - George C. Denney, Jr. [written initials G.C.D.Jr.]

INTELLIGENCE NOTE: SOVIET MOTIVES IN BARGHOORN ARREST OBSCURE


From what we know so far of the Barghoorn case, we frankly

are unable to make any confident estimate of Soviet motivations.


Background. On the face of it, Barghoorn seems, if anything,

a less likely candidate for being arrested as a spy than scores

of other American scholars who have visited the USSR in recent

times. It is true, he is a former Department official; and he

has written frequently and critically on Soviet affairs. Moreover,

he has had professional contact with US officials concerned with

Soviet affairs, and is understood once to have had a CIA
contract for

academic research. He may at one time or another have been the re-

cipient of research grants from organizations which the Soviets

view as being in the business of financing the "fight against

Communism." (e.g., the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie
Foundations.)

But all this would be true of other American scholars. And,

unlike some of these, Barghoorn is not formally a government con-

sultant. As far as we can determine he has no overt or covert

government association. Although he is traveling as a private
tourist

on this occasion, he has in the past participated in the formal US-

Soviet academic exchange program which presumably should have made






CONFIDENTIAL








CONFIDENTIAL

- 2 -


the Soviets aware of the repercussions which his arrest may have

for the future of that program. Yale University, with which he

is associated, was listed in a recent Soviet article on US re-

search centers "in the service of anti-Communism" but did not

even figure in the detailed description of the most important

such centers (e.g., Harvard and Columbia). As an individual,

Barghoorn is quiet, circumspect and reserved.


Internal Soviet Factors? We assume that his arrest was staged

by the Soviet security organs without consulting either the Soviet

Foreign Ministry or the organizations concerned with promoting

and organizing cultural exchange which almost certainly would

have opposed it. Indeed it may be that there is a certain amount

of pulling and hauling between various elements of the Soviet

bureaucracy regarding exchanges with the US -- with some, like

the security organs and the party apparatus, concerned about the

risks and others interested in stimulating a certain flow of

persons. Whether this played a role ln the present case we cannot

tell but we would not rule it out.


Exchange for Ivanov. At the very least, however, we believe

as does the Moscow Embassy that the Soviets are interested in

getting back Igor A. Ivanov, the Amtorg chauffeur who is being held

in New Jersey for espionage and whom the Soviets probably calculate







CONFIDENTIAL








CONFIDENTIAL

- 3 -


the US would be willing to exchange. If this is their purpose,

Barghoorn's person and background may be largely irrelevant to

the reasons for his arrest.


Warning to Intellectuals. We would not, however, rule out

a broader Soviet intent. Some, at least, in Moscow may be becoming

concerned about the relatively extensive travel by US scholars,

such as Barghoorn, and about the number and extent of their contacts

among Soviet scholars and lntellectuals. To lash out at a man of

Barghoorn's caliber and repute may be designed to put both American

and Soviet scholars on notice that they should be less bold in

cultivating each other.


Timing -- Cultural Exchange Negotiations. The timing of the

arrest -- one week before US-Soviet cultural exchange negotiations

open -- seems awkward. But the Soviet authorities may calculate

that the US interest in a new agreement is such that the arrest

will not interfere with the schedule of the talks. If past pat-

terns hold, the talks themselves are likely to be protracted in

any case and the Soviets may feel that by the time they reach the

critical stage any initial, adverse impact of the Barghoorn case

will have evaporated.







CONFIDENTIAL



DECLASSIFIED GROUP 4
E. O. 11652, SEC. 3(E), 5(D), 5(E) AND 11 Downgraded at 3 year
Group 4 intervals;
declassified
BY MFD NARS, DATE 4/8/77 after 12 years

Stored in JFK Library NSF Box 190 NLK-77-467, item #2.

Any alibi can be made to disappear. Just pay somebody off or drive him
out to the desert and shoot him and leave him for the coyotes.

> But even on top of that... how do you get around Mr. Arnold Rowland's
> testimony of seeing the gunman at 12:15-12:16? Answer. The WC discredits
> him an paints him as an "unreliable" witness. If you read his testimony he
> clearly states that his vision was exceptional. Better than 20/20 I
> believe his doctor told him and is what is stated in the record. Yet his
> observations were dismissed by the WC. What a complete travesty. How does
> Brennan, a man who could be labeled a conspiracy theorist himself, who had
> several inconsistencies in his testimonies,become the "star witness" is
> beyond me. Beyond logic. And beyond words. And it brings into question the
> validity of the WC's "search for truth" as many LN advocates in here like
> to say, when a witness like Carolyn Arnold isn't even included in the WC
> and the testimony of a witness like Arnold Rowland is dismissed.
>

Well, I got a hint for you. Science. Science proves that SOMEBODY was
shooting from that window at 12:31.
We just can't prove who.

>>
>>> When Arnold's testimony and Brennan's testimony are put together along
>>> with the other witnesses, it leads to a serious problem in the assassinaotion
>>> timeframe that the WC failed to acknowledge and even look at. It leads to
>>> serious problems in placing Oswald as the lone assassin.
>>
>> As pointed out above even the dubious sighting by Carolyn Arnold leaves
>> plenty of time for LHO to make it up to the 6th floor to fire his rifle at
>> the Presidential Limousine.
>
> If it stopped there then yes... but then factor in LHO's alibi along with
> Jarman and Normans testimonies.
>

Dead men need no alibis.

> Another witness on Houston St saw a man on
>> the sixth floor with a rifle a few minutes before the motorcade passed by.
>> He was seen standing up back from a window on the west side of the
>> building. The description by this witness fit LHO.
>>
>>> It is absolutely critical to debate this point as it poses real questions
>>
>> As opposed to?
>>
>>> that need real answers.
>>
>> Don't they all?
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>>> The motorcade was late. Do you know by how many minutes?
>>
>> About 40 minutes.
>
> Cite?
>

Never ask a WC defender for facts. Internet 101.

>>
>>
>>> Do you know at what time the first witness stated they saw a gunman in
>>> the window?
>>
>> 12:15 - 12:20 pm
>> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/arowland.htm
>>
>>> Do you know at what time Brennan first stated he saw a gunman in the
>>> window?
>>
>> About 12:22 - 12:24 pm.
>> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
>>
>>> Do you know at what time Carolyn Arnold stated she believed she saw
>>> Oswald on the lower level of the building?
>>
>> About 12:15 pm.
>>

>> alt.assassination.jfk ???

>> Mrs. Carolyn Arnold vs Mrs. Carolyn Johnston
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/claviger$20carolyn$20arnold%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/TImdD0s-kmA/GiiZgUCWFAAJ
>>
>>> LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late?
>>
>> Employees in the TSBD had radios on and were aware when
>> the parade would pass by the building.
>
> Cite? Sidetangent: If they did have radios on in the TSBD, WHERE did they
> have them on and would LHO have been in the vicinity to hear one? Did they
> have one on in the Domino room on for instance?
>
>>
>>> If you know the answers to all of these you know there is a
>>> problem with Oswald's ability to be the shooter. Hopefully
>>> we can find the answers together.
>>> ChosenTen
>>
>> I see no problem whatsoever that an exMarine could shoot a man-size target
>> inside close range with a military rifle. All 3 shots were under 100
>> yards. Marines have to qualify in boot camp on a man-size target at 300
>> yards with open fixed sights and no scope.
>
> I see no problem with that at all. Your statements are accurate. What I DO
> have a problem with is the ability of LHO being the lone assassin given
> the timeframe of the assassination. Because the witness testimony paints a
> different picture than the one the WC did.
>

None of the WC defenders can explain how Oswald could fire both from the
TSBD and from the grassy knoll at the same time.

> https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html
>
> With ALL THIS being said... Oswald's actions after the assassination are
> at the very least, partially self-incriminating and point towards him
> being suspect. There are very serious questions to be asked from his

Typical paranoid reaction to finding out that the CIA had set you up to
be the patsy. No one to trust then.

> actions thereafter... But that alone would not be enough to convict him of
> assassinating the president nor does it throw out the questions of why the

It would in Texas. A two-hour trial.

> CIA was hiding what they knew about him before the assassination. Ending
> Point: The CIA has A LOT of explaining to do. And so would LHO... if he
> were alive. But even though he is not... guess what is? The CIA. And
> that's why the truth matters.
>
> Interesting after note:
>
> https://www.google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/19/9-incredible-things-learnt-cias-declassified-documents-aliens/amp/?client=safari
>
> https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38663522?client=safari
>
> How much will the CIA really let us know?... 13 million documents just
> freshly declassified... but are they the ones we NEED or just the ones
> they WANT us to see?
>

Helms ordered them ALL destroyed. What he didn't know was that other
agencies and other agents kept extra copies which have been kept in safe
places.

[Anthony Marsh]

So tell me how Oswald could shoot both from the TSBD and from the grassy
knoll at the same time?

[Anthony Marsh]

And no one would have noticed? What if someone stole his jacket and ther
go his bullets? Normally when you have bullets in the clip you just leave
it in the magazine ready to go.

I don't know the kook's theory, but maybe if he was trying to sell the
rifle he needed to sell it with the clip and bullets included.

[bigdog]

The November 26 FBI report stated she saw Oswald a few minutes 12:15 on
the first floor inside the door. Her March 18 statement which she signed
did not mention a time or place she saw Oswald. It stated she left the
building at 12:25 which does nothing to establish the time or place she
saw him. Her 1978 interview was the first record of her saying she saw
Oswald in the second floor lunchroom but does not specify a time. It does
again say she left the building at 12:25 but that does indicate what time
she saw him in the lunchroom. Nothing in any of these three statements
preclude Oswald from being in the sniper's nest at 12:30. So what value
does she have as a witness.

> It makes no sense to use what she has said to try to establish
> > Oswald's whereabouts at any given time.
>
> Again. According to who? You?
>

No. According to her statements. None of the statements are specific as to
the time she saw Oswald. If you dispute that, QUOTE any of these three
versions.

It was a stupid assumption to make. Somebody not wearing a uniform holding
a rifle with a scope overlooking the parade route is a very serious matter
and anybody with half a brain would realize that and alert the nearest law
enforcement officer as a precautionary measure. The results of his
inaction speak for themselves.

> And they knew what time and where the motorcade was due to the police
> radio giving out the location of the radio and Mr. Rowland checking the
> time on his watch.
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Would you like to start the question again or would you like
> the question repeated?
> Mr. ROWLAND - I understand the question.
> Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man,
> was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and
> Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
> Mr. SPECTER - How do you fix the time that he was there until the procession
> reached the intersection of Commerce and Ervay?
> Mr. ROWLAND - The police motorcycle was almost in front of me with the
> speaker on very loud, giving the relative position about every 15 or 20
> seconds of the motorcade, and this is how I was able to note that.
>

"Let me see, the exact time I do not remember".

In his own words he is telling us he did not remember the exact time he
saw Oswald or the black man in the TSBD. We can approximate the time he
saw Oswald just as we can approximate the time Arnold saw Oswald and these
approximations do not preclude Oswald being the man Arnold saw in the
window.

>
> >
> > Collectively, these two witnesses are much ado about nothing.
>
> That's what I keep hearing from you but that's not what the evidence and
> testimonies suggest.

That's because you are very bad at weighing evidence. It seems to be a
common trait among conspiracy hobbyists.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think they intended them for a client state which had bought some
Carcanos on the black market, but then the client state bought better
rifles elsewhere and they never needed the Carcano bullets.

[Anthony Marsh]

You know we can't prove it now because they covered it up.
How about the recording in the Cuban embassy in Mexico where Oswald
yelled out that he was going to assassinate the President?
Sources and methods you know.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/time64.gif

Naturally you won't display this inline so that everyone can read it.
You have to maintain the cover-up.

> I know about Morley's article.
>
> He has only suspicions. Not evidence.
>

Because YOU covered it up.

> So explain.
>

Sources and methods. You are not allowed to know.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> alt.assassination.jfk ???

Or so you think. The CIA ADMITTED that they tried to assassinate Fidel
Castro. Even though they had destroyed many of the documents. The CIA
admitted MK/Ultra even though Helms ordered all the documents destroyed.

Ever hear of the Family Jewels? Of course not, because you say your
beloved CIA would never do anything wrong.

> The CIA didn't want to reveal methods or sources of operations to the
> public. They were opening American citizens mail. That was probably

How can you admit that? Have you been cleared to admit that? Have you been
cleared to admit them giving radioactive cereal to children?

> illegal at the time; certainly improper. They didn't want to reveal that.

Probably? Not if you are a CIA supporter. Then they can do anything they
want, even eating your children.

> They didn't want to reveal their bugging of the Soviet and Cuban
> embassies/consulates in Mexico City either. So they tried to keep that
> secret.
>
> The fact that they didn't reveal EVERYTHING about what they were doing in
> monitoring suspected agents doesn't mean Oswald was "affiliated" with the
> CIA.
>

When you set up eavesdropping you can only very rarely make it single
out only the very dangerous agents you need to watch. That's extremely
difficult to do. You just spy on EVERYONE and HOPE that you learn
something useful.

> Again, you're engaged in the classic conspiracy thinking: the CIA "knew"
> more about Oswald then they admitted at the time therefore Oswald was an
> asset.
>

They already admitted that. Why are you covering up for things that they
already admitted? Why don't you try to deny that they tried to assassinate
Castro? People will be impressed by your loyalty!

> That's illogical and nonsensical.
>
>

Yes, you are.
I can't say you're STUPID.

[Bud]

Nobody said they did.

> What if someone stole his jacket and ther
> go his bullets?

I guess he could have tried throwing the rifle.

> Normally when you have bullets in the clip you just leave
> it in the magazine ready to go.

The rifle by itself is a doorstop. It is only lethal with the bullets.
If he is caught with a unloaded weapon it would be much harder to convict
him for his murderous intentions.

> I don't know the kook's theory, but maybe if he was trying to sell the
> rifle he needed to sell it with the clip and bullets included.

That is the idea, other people had rifles in the building, it wasn`t
unheard of. Without bullets Oswald could say he brought it in for show and
tell. I suspect Oswald had the rifle hidden where the clipboard was found.
The bullets somewhere on the first floor. A quick trip down to the first
to retrieve the clip and he was ready to rock and roll. Maybe this is when
Arnold saw him. All conjecture, not a lot of information available and
what is available might not be reliable. What can be said with a strong
degree of certainty is that around 12:30 he was up on the sixth floor
shooting people.

[claviger]

1. The CIA cloned him.
2. The KGB cloned him
3. Lee had a twin brother named Roy. Leroy was their Code Name.
4. Lee had a twin sister named Lesley. Despite her name she was a
better shot.
5. Lee was the middle child of triplets. The first born, a brother
named Morley, moved to
Minneapolis, went to Yale, and became an editor in DC.

[bigdog]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:42:37 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 1:25:23 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:

> > > Carolyn Arnold made three different statements and no two were alike.
> > > There was no corroboration for her final version which put LHO in the
> > > lunchroom at 12:15 pm, which means he would have plenty of time to
> > > reach the 6th floor and shoot at the motorcade.
> > >

> WRONG! First, logic proves that the FBI made the first 2 versions, and
> the third was Arnold's statement from herself to reporters. There was NO
> sworn testimony, only statements.

You conveniently forget that she signed the second statement which was
prepared at the request of Warren Commission.

> As well, there were 2 men seen at about
> the same time (12:15pm) in the window of the 6th floor by 3 witnesses.
> That meant that if Oswald tried to get to the 6th floor window he would
> have been rebuffed.
>

Silliness ignored.

[Chosen Ten]

Egos and pride aside, which of those people above would you like to openly
say has not been a serious researcher into the CIA's coverups and the JFK
assassination Mr. Mcadams? Which of those people above has not spent
countless hours doing research into the material? Do you think any of them
doesn't take it seriously? Perhaps your definition of serious researchers
may be different given your stances on the assassination, but I don't
think anyone can question the amount of work they have put in to looking
at the case.

Without Morley would we be even half as aware about the CIA's coverups
into the case as we are now? Perhaps your definition of serious
researchers may differ from others. I would hope you don't expect every
"serious researcher" to produce a book the size of Bugliosi's to be taken
seriously.

My definition of serious researcher does not exclude either Bugliosi, nor
Mr. Von Pein, nor yourself merely because you believe in the lone nut
theory. And the amount of time and effort you have all expended into this
case is undeniable. And must be commended. All of it has been vital
towards pushing us to the brink of two almost inescapable conclusions. 1)
That LHO was, at the very least, undeniably involved and knew more about
the assassination than he let on (although it is still not possible to say
beyond reasonable doubt if he was innocent or guilty of shooting the
president) and 2) that the CIA has a lot of explaining to do regarding its
continued coverups on how much they really knew about LHO prior to the
assassination and why they tried to cover up what they knew of him AFTER
the assassination to both the WC and the HSCA . You cannot look at one
without also looking at the other. And that is why it is essential to find
out the truth about what the CIA was and still is covering up to set the
record straight.

>
> >>
> >> > Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they knew about him?
> >>
> >> Cite please.
> >
> >You've never heard of James Angleton or George Joannidess or Anne
> >Goodpasture? You've never read the CIA's own admissions? Have you never
> >heard of Jane Roman? The CIA was covering up what it knew about Oswald.
>
> Just what was the CIA "covering up" that they knew about Oswald?
>
> I know about Morley's article.

Then you know what documents are being hidden from the public by the CIA
as well as anybody. Surely you've seen it for yourself. How closely were
they really monitoring Oswald? Where are those files on him? His 201? The
CIA clearly had great interest in Oswald prior to the assassination. What
of the Joannidess files being withheld in the interest of "national
security"? What could they possibly be withholding in the interest of
"national security" after all this time? Perhaps to hide embarrassment?
Like what Hosty did with Oswald's letter? What of the Nosenko
interrogation files? How much did Angleton know? Either way it is
troubling. Would you not agree? Oswald was a walking red flag. So why is
the CIA withholding what they had on him. Or will the LN advocates now
boldly and blatantly say the CIA was withholding nothing on him that would
have made a difference in the WC's final conclusions? The evidence points
towards the CIA purposely distancing itself from Oswald after the
assassination while it misled and lied to the WC and HSCA. And that is why
the question MUST be asked. Why did the CIA mislead the WC on what they
knew of Oswald prior to the assassination? Did the CIA lie in the interest
of avoiding embarrassment? In the interest of not being put down as the
ones to blame for not having stopped a "lone nut" they had been monitoring
from assassinating the president? Plausible Deniability? Or did they lie
because LHO was a CIA asset and the possible implications of that would
have been seen as sinister?

>
> He has only suspicions. Not evidence.

SUSPICIONS?!? Admissions from a former CIA officer does not count as
evidence? Jane Roman confirming the CIA hiding its interest and knowledge
on Oswald prior to the assassination doesn't count as evidence!? How many
former and active agents have come out now implicating and denouncing the
CIA ? David Morales? Atlee Phillips on his death bed? E Howard Hunt on
his? The CIA's own historian coming out and publicly confirming the CIA's
coverups? The withholding of numerous documents from the CIA that have no
sensible reason to be witheld anymore regarding operatives and operations
that are long dead does not count as evidence of conspiracy to cover up
the truth??? Then what DOES?

And let's look at the bigger problem. Indulge me if you will Mr.
Mcadams... WHY do you think there is no smoking gun evidence to date that
either officially places or absolves the guilt on the CIA? The biggest
perpetrator for that is the CIA itself. They could easily dismiss any and
all guilt or conspiracies that point their way if they were transparent
and had nothing to hide.

But THEY DO NOT. Who here even among the LN advocates would argue this in
good faith and say they had nothing to hide on Oswald? It is as obvious as
the "obvious speculation" Jevon came to when backtracking the bullets....
it all points to one place but that one place is being blocked off. And
where those traces lead go to classified files. Do you expect the CIA to
just give out a smoking gun openly to the people? The truth had to be
wrenched from them by institutions like the Church Committee and the
Rockefeller Commission and independent researchers like Jeff Morely. But
one way or another the truth comes out.

Here is the big question I am hoping perhaps someone can enlighten me on
Mr. Mcadams.... why is it that LN advocates claim that it is common sense
that Oswald was the LN shooter because most of the evidence points to and
incriminates him (even though there is no definitive evidence that places
him as the LN shooter) and yet... that same logic does not seem to apply
to the LN crowd when most of the evidence points to the CIA covering up
and lying about how much they knew about Oswald?

>
> So explain.

Ending Query: if the LN crowd can make "obvious speculations" as to
Oswald's guilt as the shooter without hard irrefutable evidence, why does
it then not make sense to make "obvious speculations" about the CIA's
guilt in the coverup of information on Oswald when that evidence is just
as or more overwhelming than most of the evidence that points towards
Oswald being the shooter?

Answer: It doesn't.

All the best,

ChosenTen

[John McAdams]

On 22 Jan 2017 22:18:00 -0500, Chosen Ten <rushi...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 7:58:38 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2017 23:28:54 -0500, Chosen Ten <rushi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >http://jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/
>> >
>> >Now... who is my secondary source for believing this to be the case? Dr.
>> >John Newman, Jeff Morley, Lisa Pease, Alan Dale... basically any serious
>> >researcher who has looked into the coverups and history of the CIA
>> >regarding the JFK assassination.
>> >
>>
>> You are assuming those are "serious researchers?"
>
>Egos and pride aside, which of those people above would you like to openly
>say has not been a serious researcher into the CIA's coverups and the JFK
>assassination Mr. Mcadams? Which of those people above has not spent
>countless hours doing research into the material? Do you think any of them
>doesn't take it seriously?

They "take it seriously," but would never be taken seriously by
academic researchers.

>Perhaps your definition of serious researchers
>may be different given your stances on the assassination, but I don't
>think anyone can question the amount of work they have put in to looking
>at the case.
>
>Without Morley would we be even half as aware about the CIA's coverups
>into the case as we are now?

What cover ups?

>Perhaps your definition of serious
>researchers may differ from others. I would hope you don't expect every
>"serious researcher" to produce a book the size of Bugliosi's to be taken
>seriously.
>
>My definition of serious researcher does not exclude either Bugliosi, nor
>Mr. Von Pein, nor yourself merely because you believe in the lone nut
>theory. And the amount of time and effort you have all expended into this
>case is undeniable. And must be commended. All of it has been vital
>towards pushing us to the brink of two almost inescapable conclusions. 1)
>That LHO was, at the very least, undeniably involved and knew more about
>the assassination than he let on

You can't make something true by saying it's "undeniable."

>(although it is still not possible to say
>beyond reasonable doubt if he was innocent or guilty of shooting the
>president) and 2) that the CIA has a lot of explaining to do regarding its
>continued coverups on how much they really knew about LHO prior to the
>assassination and why they tried to cover up what they knew of him AFTER
>the assassination to both the WC and the HSCA .

Be specific.

>> >
>> >You've never heard of James Angleton or George Joannidess or Anne
>> >Goodpasture?

How do any of them support what you are saying?

>> >You've never read the CIA's own admissions?

What has the CIA admitted? Be specific.

>> >Have you never
>> >heard of Jane Roman? The CIA was covering up what it knew about Oswald.
>>

John Newman and Jeff Morley manipulated an old woman (Roman) and got
her to say some things they jumped onto.

Roman wrote a letter to the WASHINGTON POST denouncing the conclusions
they drew from the interview.

>> Just what was the CIA "covering up" that they knew about Oswald?
>>
>> I know about Morley's article.
>
>Then you know what documents are being hidden from the public by the CIA
>as well as anybody. Surely you've seen it for yourself. How closely were
>they really monitoring Oswald? Where are those files on him? His 201? The
>CIA clearly had great interest in Oswald prior to the assassination.

No, they did not.

If you disagree, post your evidence.

>What
>of the Joannidess files being withheld in the interest of "national
>security"? What could they possibly be withholding in the interest of
>"national security" after all this time? Perhaps to hide embarrassment?

How does anything about Joannides show the CIA "knew more than they
admitted about Oswald?"

>Like what Hosty did with Oswald's letter? What of the Nosenko
>interrogation files? How much did Angleton know? Either way it is
>troubling. Would you not agree? Oswald was a walking red flag. So why is
>the CIA withholding what they had on him. Or will the LN advocates now
>boldly and blatantly say the CIA was withholding nothing on him that would
>have made a difference in the WC's final conclusions? The evidence points
>towards the CIA purposely distancing itself from Oswald after the
>assassination while it misled and lied to the WC and HSCA.

Be specific.

>And that is why
>the question MUST be asked. Why did the CIA mislead the WC on what they
>knew of Oswald prior to the assassination?

Quit begging the question. Explain how the CIA "mislead" the WC.

>
>>
>> He has only suspicions. Not evidence.
>
>SUSPICIONS?!? Admissions from a former CIA officer does not count as
>evidence? Jane Roman confirming the CIA hiding its interest and knowledge
>on Oswald prior to the assassination doesn't count as evidence!?

See above.

>How many
>former and active agents have come out now implicating and denouncing the
>CIA ?

Explain.

>David Morales?

Huh?

>Atlee Phillips on his death bed?

Untrue.

>E Howard Hunt on
>his?

Lacks credibility.

>The CIA's own historian coming out and publicly confirming the CIA's
>coverups?

Explain.

>The withholding of numerous documents from the CIA that have no
>sensible reason to be witheld anymore regarding operatives and operations
>that are long dead does not count as evidence of conspiracy to cover up
>the truth??? Then what DOES?
>

So you are *positing* that those documents show involvement in the
assassination.

I'm afraid you don't know that.

>And let's look at the bigger problem. Indulge me if you will Mr.
>Mcadams... WHY do you think there is no smoking gun evidence to date that
>either officially places or absolves the guilt on the CIA? The biggest
>perpetrator for that is the CIA itself. They could easily dismiss any and
>all guilt or conspiracies that point their way if they were transparent
>and had nothing to hide.

No, they could not.

You buffs will always blame them, no matter what they release.

But enough.

You need to provide some specifics on the points you raised.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Fail

6. Time travel
7. Teleporter
8. Very fast runner

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:42:37 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 1:25:23 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>
> > > > Carolyn Arnold made three different statements and no two were alike.
> > > > There was no corroboration for her final version which put LHO in the
> > > > lunchroom at 12:15 pm, which means he would have plenty of time to
> > > > reach the 6th floor and shoot at the motorcade.
> > > >
>
> > WRONG! First, logic proves that the FBI made the first 2 versions, and
> > the third was Arnold's statement from herself to reporters. There was NO
> > sworn testimony, only statements.
>
> You conveniently forget that she signed the second statement which was
> prepared at the request of Warren Commission.
>

Show me the signature. Or tell me you can't find it. And if you find
one, is it hers? Ther FBI was not above faking evidence to support the
'lone nut' scenario.

> > As well, there were 2 men seen at about
> > the same time (12:15pm) in the window of the 6th floor by 3 witnesses.
> > That meant that if Oswald tried to get to the 6th floor window he would
> > have been rebuffed.
> >
>
> Silliness ignored.

Opinion ignored.

Chris

[mainframetech]

She corrected that in 1978 when she heard from a reporter that they had
written down her saying that. She had only one statement that was seen to
be from her by the reporters. All others were written by the FBI, and
were wrong. She had no way of knowing what they had written. As to a
signature, have you see a signature? Let me know when you do. I'd like
to see it. But I'll bet it'll be hard to find.

It stated she left the
> building at 12:25 which does nothing to establish the time or place she
> saw him. Her 1978 interview was the first record of her saying she saw
> Oswald in the second floor lunchroom but does not specify a time. It does
> again say she left the building at 12:25 but that does indicate what time
> she saw him in the lunchroom. Nothing in any of these three statements
> preclude Oswald from being in the sniper's nest at 12:30. So what value
> does she have as a witness.
>

WRONG! At about the same time she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor
lunchroom, there were 3 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun in the 6th
floor window. If Oswald had tried to go there, he would have been
dissuaded by the 2 men with a gun, who were there for an OBVIOUS reason.

> > It makes no sense to use what she has said to try to establish
> > > Oswald's whereabouts at any given time.
> >
> > Again. According to who? You?
> >
>
> No. According to her statements. None of the statements are specific as to
> the time she saw Oswald. If you dispute that, QUOTE any of these three
> versions.
>

Forget the first 2 version, they were written by the FBI and not
Carolyn Arnold.

Not necessarily. Easy to assume the gunmen were protection and not
killers. Much more likely.

>
> > And they knew what time and where the motorcade was due to the police
> > radio giving out the location of the radio and Mr. Rowland checking the
> > time on his watch.
> >
> > Mr. SPECTER - Would you like to start the question again or would you like
> > the question repeated?
> > Mr. ROWLAND - I understand the question.
> > Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man,
> > was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and
> > Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
> > Mr. SPECTER - How do you fix the time that he was there until the procession
> > reached the intersection of Commerce and Ervay?
> > Mr. ROWLAND - The police motorcycle was almost in front of me with the
> > speaker on very loud, giving the relative position about every 15 or 20
> > seconds of the motorcade, and this is how I was able to note that.
> >
> "Let me see, the exact time I do not remember".
>
> In his own words he is telling us he did not remember the exact time he
> saw Oswald or the black man in the TSBD. We can approximate the time he
> saw Oswald just as we can approximate the time Arnold saw Oswald and these
> approximations do not preclude Oswald being the man Arnold saw in the
> window.
>

Except that there were 2 men with a gun already there.

> >
> > >
> > > Collectively, these two witnesses are much ado about nothing.
> >
> > That's what I keep hearing from you but that's not what the evidence and
> > testimonies suggest.
>
> That's because you are very bad at weighing evidence. It seems to be a
> common trait among conspiracy hobbyists.

Ah. Opinion. Proves nothing.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Carolyn Arnold was told about her 2 previous statements that
the FBI had recorded. She disavowed them and gave the reporters that
talked to her the truth. The 2 previous version were written down by the
FBI agents and she had nothing to do with them. Witnesses don't get to
see the 302 files that the FBI agents write up.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Your exchange reminds me of Liebeler's comment about Mark Lane
(paraphrasing): "Lane will talk for ten minutes and it takes you three
hours to sort out everything he said."

I mean Angleton and Phillips and Joannides and Newman and this and that
and FBI and Hosty and U-2 flights and......

[John McAdams]

>Your exchange reminds me of Liebeler's comment about Mark Lane
>(paraphrasing): "Lane will talk for ten minutes and it takes you three
>hours to sort out everything he said."
>
>I mean Angleton and Phillips and Joannides and Newman and this and that
>and FBI and Hosty and U-2 flights and......

Yea, it's way easier to throw out conspiracy factoids than to explain
what really happened.

But intelligent people, watching the debate and seeing that the first
three or five or seven conspiracy factoids get debunked with, from
that point on, cease to be impressed.

To convert those people, the conspiracist has to actually make a case
by explaining the details and discussing the evidence. That's way
harder than throwing factoid after factoid.



.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

The Family Jewels? Ever hear of it? Boy are you in denial.

>> Perhaps your definition of serious
>> researchers may differ from others. I would hope you don't expect every
>> "serious researcher" to produce a book the size of Bugliosi's to be taken
>> seriously.
>>
>> My definition of serious researcher does not exclude either Bugliosi, nor
>> Mr. Von Pein, nor yourself merely because you believe in the lone nut
>> theory. And the amount of time and effort you have all expended into this
>> case is undeniable. And must be commended. All of it has been vital
>> towards pushing us to the brink of two almost inescapable conclusions. 1)
>> That LHO was, at the very least, undeniably involved and knew more about
>> the assassination than he let on
>
> You can't make something true by saying it's "undeniable."
>
>> (although it is still not possible to say
>> beyond reasonable doubt if he was innocent or guilty of shooting the
>> president) and 2) that the CIA has a lot of explaining to do regarding its
>> continued coverups on how much they really knew about LHO prior to the
>> assassination and why they tried to cover up what they knew of him AFTER
>> the assassination to both the WC and the HSCA .
>
>
> Be specific.

Mexico City.

>
>>>>
>>>> You've never heard of James Angleton or George Joannidess or Anne
>>>> Goodpasture?
>
> How do any of them support what you are saying?
>

So you can't answer a simple question. Is that because you know nothing
about this case or are afraid to give an honest answer?

>>>> You've never read the CIA's own admissions?
>
> What has the CIA admitted? Be specific.
>

The Family Jewels. Pretend you never heard of that.

>>>> Have you never
>>>> heard of Jane Roman? The CIA was covering up what it knew about Oswald.
>>>
>
> John Newman and Jeff Morley manipulated an old woman (Roman) and got
> her to say some things they jumped onto.
>

Oh, I see. So you claim they made her LIE?

> Roman wrote a letter to the WASHINGTON POST denouncing the conclusions
> they drew from the interview.
>

Wow. I guess you think that's proof of something.

>>> Just what was the CIA "covering up" that they knew about Oswald?
>>>
>>> I know about Morley's article.
>>
>> Then you know what documents are being hidden from the public by the CIA
>> as well as anybody. Surely you've seen it for yourself. How closely were
>> they really monitoring Oswald? Where are those files on him? His 201? The
>> CIA clearly had great interest in Oswald prior to the assassination.
>
> No, they did not.
>
> If you disagree, post your evidence.
>

201 file.
Opening his mail.

>> What
>> of the Joannidess files being withheld in the interest of "national
>> security"? What could they possibly be withholding in the interest of
>> "national security" after all this time? Perhaps to hide embarrassment?
>
> How does anything about Joannides show the CIA "knew more than they
> admitted about Oswald?"
>

By not releasing the files. Talk to Blakey.

>> Like what Hosty did with Oswald's letter? What of the Nosenko
>> interrogation files? How much did Angleton know? Either way it is
>> troubling. Would you not agree? Oswald was a walking red flag. So why is
>> the CIA withholding what they had on him. Or will the LN advocates now
>> boldly and blatantly say the CIA was withholding nothing on him that would
>> have made a difference in the WC's final conclusions? The evidence points
>> towards the CIA purposely distancing itself from Oswald after the
>> assassination while it misled and lied to the WC and HSCA.
>
> Be specific.
>

OK, play stupid. That's a good defense.

>> And that is why
>> the question MUST be asked. Why did the CIA mislead the WC on what they
>> knew of Oswald prior to the assassination?
>
>
> Quit begging the question. Explain how the CIA "mislead" the WC.

Talk to Blakey.
Does the name Andy Anderson ring a bell?

>
>>
>>>
>>> He has only suspicions. Not evidence.
>>
>> SUSPICIONS?!? Admissions from a former CIA officer does not count as
>> evidence? Jane Roman confirming the CIA hiding its interest and knowledge
>> on Oswald prior to the assassination doesn't count as evidence!?
>
> See above.
>
>> How many
>> former and active agents have come out now implicating and denouncing the
>> CIA ?
>
> Explain.
>
>> David Morales?
>
> Huh?
>
>
>> Atlee Phillips on his death bed?
>
> Untrue.
>
>> E Howard Hunt on
>> his?
>
> Lacks credibility.
>

How come you didn't say untrue. You're slipping.
Your cover-up is falling around you like a house of cards.

>> The CIA's own historian coming out and publicly confirming the CIA's
>> coverups?
>
> Explain.
>

IG report.

>> The withholding of numerous documents from the CIA that have no
>> sensible reason to be witheld anymore regarding operatives and operations
>> that are long dead does not count as evidence of conspiracy to cover up
>> the truth??? Then what DOES?
>>
>
> So you are *positing* that those documents show involvement in the
> assassination.
>
> I'm afraid you don't know that.
>

Yes, we do.

>> And let's look at the bigger problem. Indulge me if you will Mr.
>> Mcadams... WHY do you think there is no smoking gun evidence to date that
>> either officially places or absolves the guilt on the CIA? The biggest
>> perpetrator for that is the CIA itself. They could easily dismiss any and
>> all guilt or conspiracies that point their way if they were transparent
>> and had nothing to hide.
>
> No, they could not.
>

So you admit that the CIA was involved and could not explain their way
out of it.

> You buffs will always blame them, no matter what they release.
>

No. I did not for many years until I stumbled onto the smoking gun,

> But enough.
>
> You need to provide some specifics on the points you raised.
>

We have for 53 years and all you can do is stonewall.
Never admit anything.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[bigdog]

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 8:30:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:42:37 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 1:25:23 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
> >
> > > > > Carolyn Arnold made three different statements and no two were alike.
> > > > > There was no corroboration for her final version which put LHO in the
> > > > > lunchroom at 12:15 pm, which means he would have plenty of time to
> > > > > reach the 6th floor and shoot at the motorcade.
> > > > >
> >
> > > WRONG! First, logic proves that the FBI made the first 2 versions, and
> > > the third was Arnold's statement from herself to reporters. There was NO
> > > sworn testimony, only statements.
> >
> > You conveniently forget that she signed the second statement which was
> > prepared at the request of Warren Commission.
> >
>
>
>
> Show me the signature. Or tell me you can't find it. And if you find
> one, is it hers? Ther FBI was not above faking evidence to support the
> 'lone nut' scenario.
>

You always have an excuse rather than deal with evidence that challenges
your beliefs. If I showed you the signature you would just claim the FBI
forged it.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Yes, but this is where the conspiracist has the advantage. They can toss
out all of these claims one after the other and it takes time to correct
them. Thus the reason for my Liebeler anecdote.

I can't count the number of times a skeptical "realist" conspiracy
believer has said to me, "True, most of these conspiracy claims have no
basis; but look at it all! All of these groups that Oswald crossed the
paths of. Something strange must have happened. There must be more to it."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/24/2017 12:12 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2017 00:08:15 -0500, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:31:07 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 22 Jan 2017 22:18:00 -0500, Chosen Ten <rushi...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And let's look at the bigger problem. Indulge me if you will Mr.
>>>> Mcadams... WHY do you think there is no smoking gun evidence to date that
>>>> either officially places or absolves the guilt on the CIA? The biggest
>>>> perpetrator for that is the CIA itself. They could easily dismiss any and
>>>> all guilt or conspiracies that point their way if they were transparent
>>>> and had nothing to hide.
>>>
>>> No, they could not.
>>>
>>> You buffs will always blame them, no matter what they release.
>>>
>>> But enough.
>>>
>>> You need to provide some specifics on the points you raised.
>>>
>>
>> Your exchange reminds me of Liebeler's comment about Mark Lane
>> (paraphrasing): "Lane will talk for ten minutes and it takes you three
>> hours to sort out everything he said."
>>
>> I mean Angleton and Phillips and Joannides and Newman and this and that
>> and FBI and Hosty and U-2 flights and......
>
> Yea, it's way easier to throw out conspiracy factoids than to explain
> what really happened.
>

Maybe you don't have the patience to actually read my lengthy articles.
That's why we discuss things here. You can ask for clarification.
I try to answer all your silly questions. You refuse to answer mine.
I defend my positions. You don't.

> But intelligent people, watching the debate and seeing that the first
> three or five or seven conspiracy factoids get debunked with, from
> that point on, cease to be impressed.
>

But they aren't smart enough to see the same problem with WC defender
theories. Ice Bullet? Single Bullet Theory? AR-15?
I've never seen you try to defend Free Frank Warner.

[mainframetech]

I would certainly find myself in that position, though I'm having more
trouble trying to get folks to look at solid evidence, so there is indeed
something happening, and it's closed minds.

But then who would want to give up all those years of believing
something that wasn't true? Many would swear on the WCR before having to
admit all those wasted years believing silliness.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Of course. When you know Carolyn's story, and hopw she rejected the
silly versions the FBI made up, you know right away that the FBI faked the
first 2 versions, thinking that like usual, no one would get a look at
their 302 reports and they could be safe saying there whatever they
wanted. A flaw in their system for sure, since after the JFK act, it all
was made public...or much of it.

Chris

[Ace Kefford]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 9:55:46 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:57:01 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

> > On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:05:04 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:56:30 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > > > These are some of the big questions that are worth answering when it comes
> > > > to the debate of the JFK assassination.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1) If LHO was a lone nut with no affiliations to the CIA, why did the high
> > > > ranking officials in the CIA (especially Angleton) coverup evidence
> > > > regarding what they knew of Oswald prior to the assassination and still
> > > > remain covering up certain files to this day regarding Oswald and the JFK
> > > > assassination? Why did they actively try to cut off traces of what they
> > > > knew about him? Why did they lie and mislead the WC, HSCA, and others
> > > > regarding Oswald?
> > > >
> > >

> > > Why do you think you are proving anything by raising questions? To prove
> > > something, you need to answer those questions. Don't expect others to do
> > > your work for you.
> > >

> > > > If he was a patsy, the questions are still the same but more troubling.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Has anyone backtracked the bullets used in the assassination farther
> > > > than the FBI did? If Brinegar got the bullets from the Century Arms
> > > > Company from Alexandria Virginia is that not worth investigating deeper
> > > > since it strikes home to the "obvious speculation" that the bullets were
> > > > CIA ordered as the bullets did not fit and could not be fired in any of
> > > > the USMC weapons (whom they were ordered for).!Could further backtracking
> > > > then lead, in turn, to a discovery of something more sinister on the topic
> > > > of the bullets? Is it not at least worth investigating deeper given the
> > > > coverups and dubious history of the CIA?
> > >

> > > Your going over old ground. The ammo was available to the public
> > > regardless of what they were initially ordered for.
> > >
> > > >

> > > > 3) Many LN advocates do not believe Carolyn Arnold was lying in her
> > > > testimonies of what happened during the assassination.
> > >

> > > I don't believe Carolyn Arnold ever testified to anyone regarding the JFK
> > > assassination. There is an FBI report that she might have seen Oswald on
> > > the first floor some time before the assassination. 15 years later she
> > > said she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:15. Whether either of those
> > > stories are true or not they aren't important because neither would have
> > > precluded Oswald from being on the 6th floor killing JFK at 12:30. They
> > > don't remotely establish an alibi for Oswald.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Carolyn made a statement to the FBI and they twisted it around
> > and filed it as different than she had said. The 302's that they use to
> > file reports aren't seen by the witnesses generally and so it was not
> > corrected. The FBI then saw that the report they submitted had given
> > Oswald a sort of a alibi, so they rewrote it to appear completely like a
> > dingbat and with nothing of use in it. In 1978 2 reporters came to
> > Carolyn Arnold and told her of her statement, which she immediately
> > corrected, and gave her correct statement. She thought the FBI would be
> > silly to write what they had for her. At that time, the FBI had been

> > found to have incorrectly reported many witnesses statements to support
> > the 'lone nut' scenario.
> >
> >
> >

> > > > And yet she was
> > > > never called upon by the WC. Even more troubling is that many LN advocates
> > > > dismiss her as an unimportant witness.
> > >
> >
> >

> > The LNs HAVE to dismiss her, or her statement would give Oswald an

> > alibi. She saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm. At

> > about the same time witnesses saw 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th
> > floor of the TSBD. If Oswald had tried to go to the 6th floor, the 2 men
> > with a gun would have dissuaded him from hanging around there. If he had
> > tried to go there BEFORE the 2 men with a gun, I'm sure they could
> > convince him to leave their staked out window alone and go away. 2 men
> > with a gun in the TSBD 6th floor window is pretty clear who did the
> > shooting a the motorcade. So Oswald had an alibi from Carolyn Arnold.
> >
> >
> >

> > > Why would that be troubling. She is an unimportant witnesses for the
> > > reasons given above.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! See above.
> >
> >
> >

> > > > The star witness for the WC, Howard
> > > > Brennan, was a fairly inconsistent witness but a lot of CT's fail to note
> > > > that he did give important testimony in regards to the timeframe of the
> > > > assassination. When Arnold's testimony and Brennan's testimony are put
> > > > together along with the other witnesses, it leads to a serious problem in
> > > > the assassination timeframe that the WC failed to acknowledge and even
> > > > look at. It leads to serious problems in placing Oswald as the lone
> > > > assassin. It is absolutely critical to debate this point as it poses real
> > > > questions that need real answers.
> > >

> > > It is not the least bit critical. Neither Arnold nor Brennan could
> > > pinpoint the exact time they saw Oswald so neither's story refutes the
> > > other.
> > >

> > > > The motorcade was late. Do you know by
> > > > how many minutes? Do you know at what time the first witness stated they
> > > > saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Brennan first stated
> > > > he saw a gunman in the window? Do you know at what time Carolyn Arnold
> > > > stated she believed she saw Oswald on the lower level of the building? Did
> > > > LHO have any way of knowing the motorcade was late? If you know the
> > > > answers to all of these you know there is a problem with Oswald's ability
> > > > to be the shooter. Hopefully we can find the answers together.
> > > >
> > >

> > > Do you know there is no contemporaneous statement by Arnold that tells us
> > > exactly what time she might have seen Oswald and her 15 year old
> > > recollection that she saw him in the lunchroom at 12:15 hardly established
> > > that Oswald was in the lunchroom at 12:15. What we do have is an
> > > eyewitness who states he saw Oswald firing the the shots at 12:30 and his
> > > account is corroborated by a number of pieces of physical evidence.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! There is no witness that saw Oswald firing a rifle at the
> > motorcade. Howard Brennan was discredited by his own autobiography. He
> > stated that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to the lineup to
> > identify him. Then he admitted that when he got to the lineup, a
> > detective told him which position Oswald was in:
> >
> > http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
> >

> > At the time, a teenager was standing near to Brennan and he could not
> > see well at the window on the 6th floor. He saw a rifle and he saw a man
> > with a 'bald spot', but couldn't even tell if he as black or white.
> > Brennan couldn't do any better, but had a good description of Oswald.
> > When Brennan was testifying, he thought the rifle didn't have a scope, and
> > the WC lawyer had to get him to say he wasn't sure.
> >
> > Brennan was the ONLY possible witness to the shooter on the 6th floor,
> > and he was discredited. So there is no such witness.
>

> From his own autobiography you could say Brennan was a conspiracy theorist
> himself
>
> >
> > Chris

Walter Brennan?!

[bigdog]

You keep ignoring the fact she signed the second of the FBI reports.

[Chosen Ten]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 9:31:07 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2017 22:18:00 -0500, Chosen Ten <rushi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 7:58:38 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 19 Jan 2017 23:28:54 -0500, Chosen Ten <rushi...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >http://jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/
> >> >
> >> >Now... who is my secondary source for believing this to be the case? Dr.
> >> >John Newman, Jeff Morley, Lisa Pease, Alan Dale... basically any serious
> >> >researcher who has looked into the coverups and history of the CIA
> >> >regarding the JFK assassination.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are assuming those are "serious researchers?"
> >
> >Egos and pride aside, which of those people above would you like to openly
> >say has not been a serious researcher into the CIA's coverups and the JFK
> >assassination Mr. Mcadams? Which of those people above has not spent
> >countless hours doing research into the material? Do you think any of them
> >doesn't take it seriously?
>
> They "take it seriously," but would never be taken seriously by
> academic researchers.

One must ask themself when evaluating your statement... Do you make that
statement as hard undeniable fact or personal opinion?

Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?

Clearly I must have missed something ... I'm sure there are some other
academic researchers that would beg to differ with your statement...

Ironic Side note: "Academic Scholars" don't usually teach about MKultra,
Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods or Operation Mockingbird in your
average history classes either but does that make their existences any
less real? But who can blame the schools for that? It's not like they pay
the history professors to teach about the history of our great nation...
we're the greatest country in the world remember? History is written by
the winners. What is this responsibility and accountability people speak
of? There is no such thing as false flag operations, or assassination
plots against other world leaders. Never mind plans to kill our own
citizens to get them to go to war... unspeakable! No solid basis at all
for any rouge operations by our government agencies that have no
accountability because these operations don't even exist remember? They've
already denied them countless times! What a proposterous idea that
"academic researchers" can come to reasonable conclusions based off the
evidence. They're supposed to only embrace the "official versions." Common
Sense and thinking outside the box are for mere uninformed nonacademic
people. Not the "academic researchers."

> >Perhaps your definition of serious researchers
> >may be different given your stances on the assassination, but I don't
> >think anyone can question the amount of work they have put in to looking
> >at the case.
> >
> >Without Morley would we be even half as aware about the CIA's coverups
> >into the case as we are now?
>
> What cover ups?

You're right. What cover ups? What files could the CIA possibly be hiding?
There are no files being classified. Nothing is being covered up. What is
this 201 you speak of? Oswald? He's a lone nut loser. Why? Because we said
so. What? How do we know you ask? Well... we were only lightly monitoring
him. Nothing extensive. He was never really a major threat. No reason to
believe he was interesting. Yeah he was just some loser self proclaimed
Marxist ex marine (that was common back then) that worked close to U2
planes on a base in Atsugi, claimed he was gonna leak secrets to the
Russians, defected to Russia shortly before the U2 incident, got checks
from the Red Cross while in Russia for no apparent reason, made some type
of weird ruckus in Mexico.... Did we mention he came back to the states
not long after the whole U2 incident thing had settled down and got a job?
Oh yeah. He came back. Got a job. And proclaimed he was pro Castro. Even
was part of the fair play for Cuba Committee. Right under Bannisters nose.
Had a fight with some of our CIA sponsored DRE operatives under
Joannidess. Uh- we mean Howard. Who's Joannidess? Oh we forgot... he's
nobody. Doesn't really exist. National security and all. But we're gonna
put Howard as the liaison to the HSCA's investigations of the
assassination. What? No we didn't question Oswald when he came back into
the country. Why would we? No reason to. We only kept light tabs on him.
It's not like he has connections to some of our assets. Just believe us
because we said so.

To what extent will you make excuses for the CIA? I am curious to hear
your stance myself. But need I go on?... I ask this question knowing full
well already I will probably have to.

>
> >Perhaps your definition of serious
> >researchers may differ from others. I would hope you don't expect every
> >"serious researcher" to produce a book the size of Bugliosi's to be taken
> >seriously.
> >
> >My definition of serious researcher does not exclude either Bugliosi, nor
> >Mr. Von Pein, nor yourself merely because you believe in the lone nut
> >theory. And the amount of time and effort you have all expended into this
> >case is undeniable. And must be commended. All of it has been vital
> >towards pushing us to the brink of two almost inescapable conclusions. 1)
> >That LHO was, at the very least, undeniably involved and knew more about
> >the assassination than he let on
>
> You can't make something true by saying it's "undeniable."

Do you think there is any solid basis for disagreeing with that conclusion
then?

>
> >(although it is still not possible to say
> >beyond reasonable doubt if he was innocent or guilty of shooting the
> >president) and 2) that the CIA has a lot of explaining to do regarding its
> >continued coverups on how much they really knew about LHO prior to the
> >assassination and why they tried to cover up what they knew of him AFTER
> >the assassination to both the WC and the HSCA .
>
>
> Be specific.

I have been. Numerous times in the other threads when I have addressed
Bigdog or Bud or whoever it was. Ironically, even the staunchest WC
defenders on here like Bigdog could tell you the CIA stonewalled the WC.
And the HSCA. Even though he firmly denies their coverups had anything to
do with the Kennedy assassination... I already clearly and explicitly
stated my beliefs with my sources in other threads. Do I have to be
specific again for you now to know what I am referring to? I'll do it
anyway by addressing your comments individually in turn.

>
> >> >
> >> >You've never heard of James Angleton or George Joannidess or Anne
> >> >Goodpasture?
>
> How do any of them support what you are saying?

In that they misled about how much they knew about Oswald to the WC and the HSCA and others. And it wasn't just them.

>
> >> >You've never read the CIA's own admissions?
>
> What has the CIA admitted? Be specific.

Should I now assume that you, John Mcadams, one of the most extensive
researchers on the Kennedy assassination case, is ignorant to what the CIA
has come out with and admitted regarding the case and what they have
denied? That high level members of the CIA, like McCone misled the WC?

>
> >> >Have you never
> >> >heard of Jane Roman? The CIA was covering up what it knew about Oswald.
> >>
>
> John Newman and Jeff Morley manipulated an old woman (Roman) and got
> her to say some things they jumped onto.

Ahhhhh... so THIS is the point where logic and common sense fails good men
and gives way to bias on the case. And now we understand... because you
claim they manipulated her? Yet she made these admissions herself.

Roman: “Yeah, I mean I’m signing off on something that I
know isn’t true.”

Newman: "Is this the mark of a person's file who's dull and
uninteresting?" he asked. "Or would you say that we're looking at somebody
who's--"

Roman: "No, we're really trying to zero in on somebody here," Roman
acknowledged.

The agency's keen interest in Oswald in late 1963, Roman explained, was
the result of his involvement with the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba
Committee, often known by its acronym, FPCC. The agency had wiretap
transcripts proving that the FPCC was funded by the Cuban government, via
Castro's delegation at the United Nations in New York. It was Oswald's
FPCC activities that most interested the counterintelligence staff in
1963, she said..."

I will post the source below so others may see and judge for themselves.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley1.htm

Did she lie then? This "old woman" was a former CIA officer. Although I
guess you COULD make the argument that it is the duty of a CIA officer to
lie if necessary. It's expected from them remember?

>
> Roman wrote a letter to the WASHINGTON POST denouncing the conclusions
> they drew from the interview.

But does that then denounce the conclusions SHE drew within that
interview?!? See above.

Musing afterthought: And Nixon also openly stated... "I'm not a crook..."
That does not make his statements true as history has shown. So by your
logic, her denouncing the conclusions they drew based off of her own
admissions means the "obvious speculations" Morely and Newman came to are
invalid?

BUT WAIT.... if that is the stance you want to take up, where then can we
apply this type of logic to another vital person on this case?... hmmmm...
does the name Carolyn Arnold ring any bells? She also was angered and
denounced the FBI reports to her interviewers when she heard of how her
statements had been recorded. So... one must wonder if your logic will be
consistent then. Because Carolyn Arnold denounced the FBI reports do you
then say the FBI manipulated her reports? Do you think they carry no
weight? Are you consistent with your logic?

The key difference is one was a former CIA officer. The other was an
average ordinary citizen with a normal job. Which of those two would you
say would be more inclined to lie then given their line of work and
background? Roman was loyal to the CIA. Morely even caught her in a lie in
the beginning of the interview when she was asked about Oswald? But after
she was caught she had no reason to deny. Need I quote that part for you?

>
> >> Just what was the CIA "covering up" that they knew about Oswald?
> >>
> >> I know about Morley's article.
> >
> >Then you know what documents are being hidden from the public by the CIA
> >as well as anybody. Surely you've seen it for yourself. How closely were
> >they really monitoring Oswald? Where are those files on him? His 201? The
> >CIA clearly had great interest in Oswald prior to the assassination.
>
> No, they did not.
>
> If you disagree, post your evidence.

See above. Also...

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/12/23/why-cias-richard-helms-lied-about-oswald-part-1/

One of many I am sure you are aware of.

>
> >What
> >of the Joannidess files being withheld in the interest of "national
> >security"? What could they possibly be withholding in the interest of
> >"national security" after all this time? Perhaps to hide embarrassment?
>
> How does anything about Joannides show the CIA "knew more than they
> admitted about Oswald?"

More ignorance? Because the files that are missing on him are relevant to
the timeframe when he was assisting the DRE members and when they had
encounters with Oswald. Also because he failed to tell the HSCA of his
connections to the very CIA funded DRE organization that clashed with
Oswald openly. He KNEW what to cover up and in which direction to point
the HSCA members to mislead them. Why do you believe he was chosen by the
CIA to be a liaison to the HSCA for the CIA?

>
> >Like what Hosty did with Oswald's letter? What of the Nosenko
> >interrogation files? How much did Angleton know? Either way it is
> >troubling. Would you not agree? Oswald was a walking red flag. So why is
> >the CIA withholding what they had on him. Or will the LN advocates now
> >boldly and blatantly say the CIA was withholding nothing on him that would
> >have made a difference in the WC's final conclusions? The evidence points
> >towards the CIA purposely distancing itself from Oswald after the
> >assassination while it misled and lied to the WC and HSCA.
>
> Be specific.

https://youtu.be/XTdKgH1HN5M

38:00-40:50

Is that specific enough for you Mr. Mcadams? Or would like me to also post
the actual government documents to go with it? That can be arranged...

>
> >And that is why
> >the question MUST be asked. Why did the CIA mislead the WC on what they
> >knew of Oswald prior to the assassination?
>
>
> Quit begging the question. Explain how the CIA "mislead" the WC.

It is a question that MUST be begged because it raises implications many
LN advocates refuse to acknowledge.

>
> >
> >>
> >> He has only suspicions. Not evidence.
> >
> >SUSPICIONS?!? Admissions from a former CIA officer does not count as
> >evidence? Jane Roman confirming the CIA hiding its interest and knowledge
> >on Oswald prior to the assassination doesn't count as evidence!?
>
> See above.

I did. I saw you casually dismiss her own admissions then offer excuses
for them claiming Morley and Newman manipulated her... I wonder what they
would think of that. Is that the reasoning of an "academic researcher"?
Would other academic researchers take YOUR claims on that matter
seriously?

>
> >How many
> >former and active agents have come out now implicating and denouncing the
> >CIA ?
>
> Explain.

It's one thing when you get people from the outside pointing the finger at
the CIA. It's another thing completely when people who were within the
agency itself point the finger at the CIA.

>
> >David Morales?
>
> Huh?

Was I unclear? Let me clarify. Link below.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/David_Morales_-_We_Took_Care_of_That_SOB.html

>
>
> >Atlee Phillips on his death bed?
>
> Untrue.

Cite? Proof of this? What about Veciana on his deathbed? Do you claim his
statements are untrue as well?

>
> >E Howard Hunt on
> >his?
>
> Lacks credibility.

Interesting choice of words.

>
> >The CIA's own historian coming out and publicly confirming the CIA's coverups?
>
>Explain.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

Here is the primary source directly below...
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF

And others referring to it...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/10/declassified-cia-report-concluded-director-mccone-led-cover-up-kennedy.amp.html?client=safari

http://awarenessact.com/the-cia-admits-covering-up-jfk-assassination/

It speaks for itself. Want more? And guess what? It wasn't just McCone.
But we don't need a formal admission from the CIA to know this. Their
ACTIONS are self incriminating.

>
> >The withholding of numerous documents from the CIA that have no
> >sensible reason to be witheld anymore regarding operatives and operations
> >that are long dead does not count as evidence of conspiracy to cover up
> >the truth??? Then what DOES?
> >
>
> So you are *positing* that those documents show involvement in the
> assassination.
>
> I'm afraid you don't know that.

Not quite. The very fact that these documents are being witheld is what
raises huge red flags. Because they have no sensible reason to still be
classified if they contain nothing damaging. You could say it is evidence
of coverup in and of itself. This IS NOT the same as saying they are
evidence of the CIA being directly involved in the assassination. But it
is certainly evidence that they have something that they don't want to be
seen. What logical reason could they have for still withholding the
Joannidess files (who you casually dismiss), Oswald's 201, and the Nosenko
interrogation files? Sources and methods? Please... use common sense. 13
million files just freshly released by the CIA and not a single one of the
above mentioned documents released to my knowledge... you don't find that
interesting? They recently released files on operation stargate, on UFO
sightings, even released documents on their recent interrogation and
tortures of terrorists... but nothing, not a trace, of the Nosenko files?
I find that interesting indeed.

>
> >And let's look at the bigger problem. Indulge me if you will Mr.
> >Mcadams... WHY do you think there is no smoking gun evidence to date that
> >either officially places or absolves the guilt on the CIA? The biggest
> >perpetrator for that is the CIA itself. They could easily dismiss any and
> >all guilt or conspiracies that point their way if they were transparent
> >and had nothing to hide.
>
> No, they could not.
>
> You buffs will always blame them, no matter what they release.

Absolutely not true. Blame will be placed where it is due. This applies to
all individuals, parties, and organizations. You don't see me making these
same claims of coverups against... say... the national guard. You know
why? Because there's no solid reason to. The CIA, like Oswald MUST NOT be
above immunity if justice is to be found. But there certainly seems to be
a double standard of pursing this justice within the LN community when it
comes to the two.

>
> But enough.
>
> You need to provide some specifics on the points you raised.

You already know the specifics better than most I would hope. I have
expressed my concerns above. Why then will you not openly denounce the
CIA's actions regarding their coverups and misdirection? Are you so
focused on placing the guilt on Oswald that you fail to see the misdeeds
and failings of your own government? Forget all this talk of what you
SHOULD believe as an "Academic Researcher." What does your common sense
tell you? Has it been numbed by a need for absolute evidence? As a citizen
and patriot, I certainly hope that is not the case. Or else we are in
desperate need of better "academic researchers."

With Consideration Mr. Mcadams,

ChosenTen

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:06:10 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:13:31 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:28:38 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 8:30:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:42:37 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 1:25:23 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carolyn Arnold made three different statements and no two were alike.
> > > > > > > > There was no corroboration for her final version which put LHO in the
> > > > > > > > lunchroom at 12:15 pm, which means he would have plenty of time to
> > > > > > > > reach the 6th floor and shoot at the motorcade.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! First, logic proves that the FBI made the first 2 versions, and
> > > > > > the third was Arnold's statement from herself to reporters. There was NO
> > > > > > sworn testimony, only statements.
> > > > >
> > > > > You conveniently forget that she signed the second statement which was
> > > > > prepared at the request of Warren Commission.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Show me the signature. Or tell me you can't find it. And if you find

> > > > one, is it hers? The FBI was not above faking evidence to support the

> > > > 'lone nut' scenario.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You always have an excuse rather than deal with evidence that challenges
> > > your beliefs. If I showed you the signature you would just claim the FBI
> > > forged it.
> >
> >
> >

> > Of course. When you know Carolyn's story, and know she rejected the

> > silly versions the FBI made up, you know right away that the FBI faked the
> > first 2 versions, thinking that like usual, no one would get a look at
> > their 302 reports and they could be safe saying there whatever they
> > wanted. A flaw in their system for sure, since after the JFK act, it all
> > was made public...or much of it.
> >
>
> You keep ignoring the fact she signed the second of the FBI reports.

She called the previous 2 versions of her story no good.

Chris

[Bud]

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 9:31:07 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 22 Jan 2017 22:18:00 -0500, Chosen Ten <rushi...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 7:58:38 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> > >> On 19 Jan 2017 23:28:54 -0500, Chosen Ten <rushi...@yahoo.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >http://jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/
> > >> >
> > >> >Now... who is my secondary source for believing this to be the case? Dr.
> > >> >John Newman, Jeff Morley, Lisa Pease, Alan Dale... basically any serious
> > >> >researcher who has looked into the coverups and history of the CIA
> > >> >regarding the JFK assassination.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> You are assuming those are "serious researchers?"
> > >
> > >Egos and pride aside, which of those people above would you like to openly
> > >say has not been a serious researcher into the CIA's coverups and the JFK
> > >assassination Mr. Mcadams? Which of those people above has not spent
> > >countless hours doing research into the material? Do you think any of them
> > >doesn't take it seriously?
> >
> > They "take it seriously," but would never be taken seriously by
> > academic researchers.
>
> One must ask themself when evaluating your statement... Do you make that
> statement as hard undeniable fact or personal opinion?

Its true. 9-11 Truthers are marginalized and so are JFK assassination
conspiracy theorists. They are the fringe (and citing polls that show good
sized portions of the people think something fishy happened in regards to
this event doesn`t help them any).

> Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
> researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
> the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
> evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?

It isn`t a matter of having information available, it is a matter of
weighing it a reasonable manner.

> Clearly I must have missed something ...

Clearly you have.

>I'm sure there are some other
> academic researchers that would beg to differ with your statement...
>
> Ironic Side note: "Academic Scholars" don't usually teach about MKultra,
> Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods or Operation Mockingbird in your
> average history classes either but does that make their existences any
> less real?

"real" in what way? What part of Operation Northwoods was ever
implemented?

It just doesn`t work to say that since something exists that means your
ideas in this case are valid. Showing the Rodney King beating does not
implicate a cop in a completely different case of alleged police abuse.

> But who can blame the schools for that? It's not like they pay
> the history professors to teach about the history of our great nation...
> we're the greatest country in the world remember? History is written by
> the winners. What is this responsibility and accountability people speak
> of? There is no such thing as false flag operations, or assassination
> plots against other world leaders. Never mind plans to kill our own
> citizens to get them to go to war... unspeakable! No solid basis at all
> for any rouge operations by our government agencies that have no
> accountability because these operations don't even exist remember? They've
> already denied them countless times! What a proposterous idea that
> "academic researchers" can come to reasonable conclusions based off the
> evidence. They're supposed to only embrace the "official versions." Common
> Sense and thinking outside the box are for mere uninformed nonacademic
> people. Not the "academic researchers."
>
> > >Perhaps your definition of serious researchers
> > >may be different given your stances on the assassination, but I don't
> > >think anyone can question the amount of work they have put in to looking
> > >at the case.
> > >
> > >Without Morley would we be even half as aware about the CIA's coverups
> > >into the case as we are now?
> >
> > What cover ups?
>
> You're right. What cover ups? What files could the CIA possibly be hiding?
> There are no files being classified. Nothing is being covered up.

You think it is better to assume they exist?

> What is
> this 201 you speak of? Oswald? He's a lone nut loser. Why? Because we said
> so. What? How do we know you ask? Well... we were only lightly monitoring
> him. Nothing extensive. He was never really a major threat. No reason to
> believe he was interesting. Yeah he was just some loser self proclaimed
> Marxist ex marine (that was common back then) that worked close to U2
> planes on a base in Atsugi, claimed he was gonna leak secrets to the
> Russians, defected to Russia shortly before the U2 incident, got checks
> from the Red Cross while in Russia for no apparent reason, made some type
> of weird ruckus in Mexico.... Did we mention he came back to the states
> not long after the whole U2 incident thing had settled down and got a job?
> Oh yeah. He came back. Got a job. And proclaimed he was pro Castro. Even
> was part of the fair play for Cuba Committee. Right under Bannisters nose.
> Had a fight with some of our CIA sponsored DRE operatives under
> Joannidess. Uh- we mean Howard. Who's Joannidess? Oh we forgot... he's
> nobody. Doesn't really exist. National security and all. But we're gonna
> put Howard as the liaison to the HSCA's investigations of the
> assassination. What? No we didn't question Oswald when he came back into
> the country. Why would we? No reason to. We only kept light tabs on him.
> It's not like he has connections to some of our assets. Just believe us
> because we said so.

Getting the whole flood of issues conspiracy hobbyists have not been
able to go anywhere with for decades.

<snicker> Pretty much interchangeable, unless the topic is police
shootings.

> Ironically, even the staunchest WC
> defenders on here like Bigdog could tell you the CIA stonewalled the WC.

Even if so, you`d still need to show intent. You assigning motivation
isn`t as meaningful as you might think.

[bigdog]

Then why did she sign one of them? Why don't you use the same excuse you
used for why the three prosectors signed the AR. She was ordered to lie.

[Anthony Marsh]

You're not cleared for that information.

I like your logic that just because the CIA has admitted something that
alone proves that it never happened.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

This is the "they did bad things therefore they killed JFK" line of
reasoning.

I'll dig out my Shakespeare quotes again:

Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

Conspiracy advocates think by "calling spirits from the vasty deep", by
saying conspiracies happen, that the government did them, mentioning
Operation Mongoose or some other plan that that is somehow evidence that
JFK was killed by the same group of people. I don't know why they insist
on thinking that this is an argument; but they do.

Apparently it's the "these are bad people" and they are willing to do bad
things. Okay, let's stipulate Hoover was bad. You can't just call the
spirit of Hoover you have to make him appear.

This they cannot do.

[Chosen Ten]

You're right. Polls don't help them any. The evidence does.

>
>
> > Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
> > researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
> > the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
> > evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?
>
> It isn`t a matter of having information available, it is a matter of
> weighing it a reasonable manner.

Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?

>
>
> > Clearly I must have missed something ...
>
> Clearly you have.

Yes I missed your denial of the evidence I posted. Usually you deny
vehemently. Yet you don't have much to say about the evidence I have
presented now... I admit I find myself taken aback. Is this normal for
you?

>
> >I'm sure there are some other
> > academic researchers that would beg to differ with your statement...
> >
> > Ironic Side note: "Academic Scholars" don't usually teach about MKultra,
> > Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods or Operation Mockingbird in your
> > average history classes either but does that make their existences any
> > less real?
>
> "real" in what way? What part of Operation Northwoods was ever
> implemented?

It didn't have to be implemented for the formulation of it to be real. I
notice you don't say anything about any of the other ones I mentioned.
Because they actually DID go into effect. But does the very notion that
your government was ready to kill its own civilians to get them to go to
war not assail your sense of righteousness and patriotism? It defiles
mine. And guess who was largely responsible for Operation Northwoods being
stopped from going into effect? Take a wild guess... or have you forgotten
that as well?

>
> It just doesn`t work to say that since something exists that means your
> ideas in this case are valid. Showing the Rodney King beating does not
> implicate a cop in a completely different case of alleged police abuse.

Agreed Conpletely. Could not agree more with that statement. EXCEPT that
it DOES show the limits certain agencies and high ranking officials within
our government were willing to go at that time. If they could do this...
why could they not be capable of doing that? Cops CAN brutalize people and
many have. That does not mean all do. But because some of them can and
have, it means we must not overlook the possibility of them being brutal
in other alleged cases of police brutality.

>
> > But who can blame the schools for that? It's not like they pay
> > the history professors to teach about the history of our great nation...
> > we're the greatest country in the world remember? History is written by
> > the winners. What is this responsibility and accountability people speak
> > of? There is no such thing as false flag operations, or assassination
> > plots against other world leaders. Never mind plans to kill our own
> > citizens to get them to go to war... unspeakable! No solid basis at all
> > for any rouge operations by our government agencies that have no
> > accountability because these operations don't even exist remember? They've
> > already denied them countless times! What a proposterous idea that
> > "academic researchers" can come to reasonable conclusions based off the
> > evidence. They're supposed to only embrace the "official versions." Common
> > Sense and thinking outside the box are for mere uninformed nonacademic
> > people. Not the "academic researchers."
> >
> > > >Perhaps your definition of serious researchers
> > > >may be different given your stances on the assassination, but I don't
> > > >think anyone can question the amount of work they have put in to looking
> > > >at the case.
> > > >
> > > >Without Morley would we be even half as aware about the CIA's coverups
> > > >into the case as we are now?
> > >
> > > What cover ups?
> >
> > You're right. What cover ups? What files could the CIA possibly be hiding?
> > There are no files being classified. Nothing is being covered up.
>
> You think it is better to assume they exist?

I don't have to assume. And neither do you. I KNOW. Because they CIA
themselves have admitted to the existence of these documents. There is
evidence of this. And I have presented some of this evidence to you. Have
you never tried reading the files? Are you not aware of Jeff Morely's work
on the matter? Don't take MY word for it. Why don't you ask John mcadams
himself? Or even better. Take a look for yourself. Do you think he even
denies their existence?

>
> > What is
> > this 201 you speak of? Oswald? He's a lone nut loser. Why? Because we said
> > so. What? How do we know you ask? Well... we were only lightly monitoring
> > him. Nothing extensive. He was never really a major threat. No reason to
> > believe he was interesting. Yeah he was just some loser self proclaimed
> > Marxist ex marine (that was common back then) that worked close to U2
> > planes on a base in Atsugi, claimed he was gonna leak secrets to the
> > Russians, defected to Russia shortly before the U2 incident, got checks
> > from the Red Cross while in Russia for no apparent reason, made some type
> > of weird ruckus in Mexico.... Did we mention he came back to the states
> > not long after the whole U2 incident thing had settled down and got a job?
> > Oh yeah. He came back. Got a job. And proclaimed he was pro Castro. Even
> > was part of the fair play for Cuba Committee. Right under Bannisters nose.
> > Had a fight with some of our CIA sponsored DRE operatives under
> > Joannidess. Uh- we mean Howard. Who's Joannidess? Oh we forgot... he's
> > nobody. Doesn't really exist. National security and all. But we're gonna
> > put Howard as the liaison to the HSCA's investigations of the
> > assassination. What? No we didn't question Oswald when he came back into
> > the country. Why would we? No reason to. We only kept light tabs on him.
> > It's not like he has connections to some of our assets. Just believe us
> > because we said so.
>
> Getting the whole flood of issues conspiracy hobbyists have not been
> able to go anywhere with for decades.

But they have... you simply refuse to look. You didn't even know what
files the CIA was covering up.

Hmmm... Ive found that out the hard way. You both refuse to acknowledge
the evidence of the CIA's coverups into the assassination. Police
shootings though...that must have been an interesting conversation.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! YOU say she signed one of them. The FBI said that too.
Show it to me. She wasn't ordered to lie. The public do NOT get to se
the 302 reports the FBI agents make up. That alone makes it illogical for
her to have signed anything. When the reporters told her what the FBI
statements said in her name, she immediately made it know to them that
those were not her statements. She then told them what the truth was.
Where were you when we found that out? She make it clear that the FBI
reports were silly the way they were worded, which only helps back up her
statement of the truth. And since there is proof that the FBI lied often
about witness statements, it's a lock.

Chris

[Bud]

If it did these newsgroups would not exist.

> >
> >
> > > Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
> > > researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
> > > the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
> > > evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?
> >
> > It isn`t a matter of having information available, it is a matter of
> > weighing it a reasonable manner.
>
> Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?

The "dog ate me evidence" excuse. When you disregard what is known and
in evidence in favor of what you think might exist somewhere it shows you
are playing silly games.

> >
> >
> > > Clearly I must have missed something ...
> >
> > Clearly you have.
>
> Yes I missed your denial of the evidence I posted. Usually you deny
> vehemently. Yet you don't have much to say about the evidence I have
> presented now... I admit I find myself taken aback. Is this normal for
> you?

I don`t fight the tarbaby much anymore. When you say things like "What
about this?" or "Why did this person say this?" it means two things. You
are going to like your explanation for these things better than any I
could offer and that they too weak to take you to the destinations you are
desperately trying to get to.

> >
> > >I'm sure there are some other
> > > academic researchers that would beg to differ with your statement...
> > >
> > > Ironic Side note: "Academic Scholars" don't usually teach about MKultra,
> > > Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods or Operation Mockingbird in your
> > > average history classes either but does that make their existences any
> > > less real?
> >
> > "real" in what way? What part of Operation Northwoods was ever
> > implemented?
>
> It didn't have to be implemented for the formulation of it to be real.

So it was "really" just talk.

> I
> notice you don't say anything about any of the other ones I mentioned.

I know very little about them. Northwoods was the only one of them I had
ever looked into. I have seen conspiracy hobbyists bandy them around in
the newsgroups before. So they seem to be things that academic scholars
don`t think important but conspiracy hobbyists do, which tells me all I
need to know.

> Because they actually DID go into effect. But does the very notion that
> your government was ready to kill its own civilians to get them to go to
> war not assail your sense of righteousness and patriotism?

Doesn`t the fact that none of those things could ever be implemented
because they stood no chance of not being uncovered tell you anything?

Operation Northwoods was just a document outlining objectives. Then it
got kicked down to the people who devise ways of achieving these
objectives. They sent a memorandum outlining what they came up with. It is
what you get when you ask soulless idiots to brainstorm.

> It defiles
> mine. And guess who was largely responsible for Operation Northwoods being
> stopped from going into effect? Take a wild guess... or have you forgotten
> that as well?

Who asked for ideas about how to start a war with Cuba?

> > It just doesn`t work to say that since something exists that means your
> > ideas in this case are valid. Showing the Rodney King beating does not
> > implicate a cop in a completely different case of alleged police abuse.
>
> Agreed Conpletely. Could not agree more with that statement. EXCEPT that
> it DOES show the limits certain agencies and high ranking officials within
> our government were willing to go at that time.

This was the Cold War, dirty tricks abound. There is a huge difference
between operations against your country`s enemies and killing an American
President.

> If they could do this...
> why could they not be capable of doing that? Cops CAN brutalize people and
> many have. That does not mean all do. But because some of them can and
> have, it means we must not overlook the possibility of them being brutal
> in other alleged cases of police brutality.

It means it must be shown in a case by case basis.

Conspiracy hobbyists always think that *their* reading of material is
*the* reading of the material. But whenever I look it never is. 10 years
of looking, I`m not too keen to go running only to find the claims of what
the material is falls short of what the material actually says. Then I
have to explain why it fall short, and you won`t accept it. Can we just
fast forward past all this and say we did it?

Or if they did. I suppose if there was anything substantial here it
would have more widespread coverage than existing in books only conspiracy
hobbyists buy.

The are fairly recent and can be found in the archives. One of the few
instances I found bigdog to be wrong about something <snicker>.

Gonna <snip> the rest of this, I didn`t address anything from here on
down.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sometimes we have to find or reconstruct the evidence which had been
covered up.

>>> Roman: ???Yeah, I mean I???m signing off on something that I
>>> know isn???t true.???

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> Roman: ???Yeah, I mean I???m signing off on something that I
>>> know isn???t true.???

The point is that WC defenders claim that no conspiracies ever exist,
are no even possible. They cover up every conspiracy and deny everything.

> saying conspiracies happen, that the government did them, mentioning

The Government? You think only the government is capable of conspiracies?

> Operation Mongoose or some other plan that that is somehow evidence that
> JFK was killed by the same group of people. I don't know why they insist

Doesn't have to be the same people. The same mindset.

> on thinking that this is an argument; but they do.
>
> Apparently it's the "these are bad people" and they are willing to do bad
> things. Okay, let's stipulate Hoover was bad. You can't just call the
> spirit of Hoover you have to make him appear.
>

Oh please. You can't stipulate anything.

> This they cannot do.
>

[bigdog]

I am perfectly willing to dig that up provided you are willing to state
that you won't simply claim the signature was forged if I go to that
effort. If you are going to do what you usually do when faced with
inconvenient evidence by making up a cockamamie excuse to dismiss it,
there is really no point in finding that document for you.

> She wasn't ordered to lie. The public do NOT get to se
> the 302 reports the FBI agents make up. That alone makes it illogical for
> her to have signed anything.

I am speaking of the statements the FBI gathered from various witnesses at
the request of the WC.

> When the reporters told her what the FBI
> statements said in her name, she immediately made it know to them that
> those were not her statements. She then told them what the truth was.
> Where were you when we found that out? She make it clear that the FBI
> reports were silly the way they were worded, which only helps back up her
> statement of the truth. And since there is proof that the FBI lied often
> about witness statements, it's a lock.
>

I know what she said 15 years later and I don't put much faith in
somebody's ability to remember precisely where and when they saw somebody
that far back. Even if her memory was so extraordinary that she knew to
the minute that she saw Oswald in the lunchroom, the time she stated would
not preclude Oswald being in the sniper's nest at 12:30. Don't bother
telling us the myth about your two men with a gun who wouldn't let Oswald
get to that window because nobody cares about that nonsense.

[Chosen Ten]

If that is the logic you want to use then surely you must see how that
applies to the LN theory believers as well... right? I'm not the only one
reading this who is chuckling surely. LN theory advocates are still
conspiracy theorists nonetheless. They just merely believe it was a
conspiracy by one lone nut. Which given the evidence is not completely
unreasonable to say. But my problem with lone nut advocates has always
been their denial of the coverups regarding Oswald and the assassination.
Occasionally I stumble across a couple that are actually reasonable and do
acknowledge the coverups the of the CIA but it is few and far between. I
think it speaks in part of the bigger problem we are having even today.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
> > > > researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
> > > > the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
> > > > evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?
> > >
> > > It isn`t a matter of having information available, it is a matter of
> > > weighing it a reasonable manner.
> >
> > Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?
>
> The "dog ate me evidence" excuse. When you disregard what is known and
> in evidence in favor of what you think might exist somewhere it shows you
> are playing silly games.

Why do you keep saying things like "assume" and "might exist?" I can only
come to the conclusion you are not serious or haven't really researched
into the coverups of the CIA on the matter if you can't even acknowledge
their coverups or their withholding of these documents I have stated.
Again, try to look for the missing documents for yourself and see what you
find. Your logic is wildly baffling to me. What serious LN advocate, in
good faith, can say the CIA is not withholding these documents? I
challenge ANY to step forward and do so.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Clearly I must have missed something ...
> > >
> > > Clearly you have.
> >
> > Yes I missed your denial of the evidence I posted. Usually you deny
> > vehemently. Yet you don't have much to say about the evidence I have
> > presented now... I admit I find myself taken aback. Is this normal for
> > you?
>
> I don`t fight the tarbaby much anymore. When you say things like "What
> about this?" or "Why did this person say this?" it means two things. You
> are going to like your explanation for these things better than any I
> could offer and that they too weak to take you to the destinations you are
> desperately trying to get to.

Tarbaby.... interesting... does your frustration stem from me actually
providing evidence of CIA coverup that you can't refute or from you just
not really having any explanations to offer at all? You say I am going to
like my explanation of things better than any you could offer. Well then
by all means bud, explain away. What are YOUR explanations for why the CIA
covered up what it knew about Oswald? I'm all ears. We'll let the readers
decide if your explanation is good enough. Considering you didn't even
know what documents the CIA was withholding, I would say that would
probably be the best place for you to start if you want to have any
serious discussion regarding the evidence. Fire away bud.

>
> > >
> > > >I'm sure there are some other
> > > > academic researchers that would beg to differ with your statement...
> > > >
> > > > Ironic Side note: "Academic Scholars" don't usually teach about MKultra,
> > > > Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods or Operation Mockingbird in your
> > > > average history classes either but does that make their existences any
> > > > less real?
> > >
> > > "real" in what way? What part of Operation Northwoods was ever
> > > implemented?
> >
> > It didn't have to be implemented for the formulation of it to be real.
>
> So it was "really" just talk.

Does the fact that it never became implemented make its implications any
less grave and serious to you ? At this point it would not surprise me if
you said yes. Surprise me for a change.

> > I
> > notice you don't say anything about any of the other ones I mentioned.
>
> I know very little about them. Northwoods was the only one of them I had
> ever looked into. I have seen conspiracy hobbyists bandy them around in
> the newsgroups before. So they seem to be things that academic scholars
> don`t think important but conspiracy hobbyists do, which tells me all I
> need to know.
>
> > Because they actually DID go into effect. But does the very notion that
> > your government was ready to kill its own civilians to get them to go to
> > war not assail your sense of righteousness and patriotism?
>
> Doesn`t the fact that none of those things could ever be implemented
> because they stood no chance of not being uncovered tell you anything?

Your logic is absolutely mindblowingly horrid. And THIS is exactly what I
am talking about. THIS is my point. Did you know about Operation
Mockingbird before the CIA released the Family Jewels? What about
Operation Stargate? I would bet all my money from my entire life savings,
if the LN advocates in here heard a CT or any person for that matter
talking about Operation Stargate as if it were reality before the CIA
officially declassified it just weeks ago, you would absolutely laugh them
out of the room and point them to the nearest psych ward... I would bet my
life and my entire house you didn't know about any of these operations
before the CIA publicly acknowledged them. Same goes for MkUltra. Were it
not for the CIA's own admissions and investigations that have had to
wrench the truth out of the CIA, you would know exactly as much as I would
about these operations. That is to say... NOTHING. Not a thing.

>
> Operation Northwoods was just a document outlining objectives. Then it
> got kicked down to the people who devise ways of achieving these
> objectives. They sent a memorandum outlining what they came up with. It is
> what you get when you ask soulless idiots to brainstorm.

Do you understand that those "soulless idiots" would have been able to
make it a reality had JFK only approved it. THAT'S how close they were to
making it a reality. The Bay of Pigs happened behind JFK's back... guess
what soulless idiots came up with that idea? The same soulless idiots that
got caught for Watergate. The same ones that have been implicated in the
JFK assassination. But that is another topic for another thread entirely.

>
> > It defiles
> > mine. And guess who was largely responsible for Operation Northwoods being
> > stopped from going into effect? Take a wild guess... or have you forgotten
> > that as well?
>
> Who asked for ideas about how to start a war with Cuba?

JFK and RFK wanted ideas about how to start war with Cuba. Not stupidities
that employed treason or the killing of American civilian lives by our own
government. Do you really think for even a second that's what they wanted
when he asked for ideas?

>
>
> > > It just doesn`t work to say that since something exists that means your
> > > ideas in this case are valid. Showing the Rodney King beating does not
> > > implicate a cop in a completely different case of alleged police abuse.
> >
> > Agreed Conpletely. Could not agree more with that statement. EXCEPT that
> > it DOES show the limits certain agencies and high ranking officials within
> > our government were willing to go at that time.
>
> This was the Cold War, dirty tricks abound. There is a huge difference
> between operations against your country`s enemies and killing an American
> President.

What about killing your own Citizens?... that's how desperate it seems
some people were. JFK WAS the enemy of the CIA. What's the cry we're
hearing from the Trump haters? "He's not my president!" Same cry many have
used for the presidents before him. Do you think JFK was the CIA's
president? Of course not. They were all threatened by him. Their ways of
life. Their jobs. Their illegal activities. Their fun and games. All were
to be taken away and they more than likely knew he would try to dismantle
them after what happened at the Bay of Pigs. Does anyone seriously refute
this?

>
> > If they could do this...
> > why could they not be capable of doing that? Cops CAN brutalize people and
> > many have. That does not mean all do. But because some of them can and
> > have, it means we must not overlook the possibility of them being brutal
> > in other alleged cases of police brutality.
>
> It means it must be shown in a case by case basis.

EXACTLY!!! And that is EXACTLY what we are doing here!!! FINALLY some
sense at last!

Fast forward past looking at the evidence of CIA coverup just because it
isn't what you want to see? Ok. Carry on Citizen. Nothing to see here.
Move along...

It has been! Hence all the links and evidence I provided from a multitude
of different sources!!! Even FOX news reported the MCCone coverups! (Not
that that's saying much I know but still...mainstream media)I know this
might shock you but... *leans in slightly closer to whisper stunning
revelation* we've known about this for quite some time now. It's not a
novel idea. Just one most LN advocates don't want to acknowledge because
it clashes with their theory that LHO was a LN.

Looking at it right now... and wow...

>
> Gonna <snip> the rest of this, I didn`t address anything from here on
> down.

You mean the part with ALL the evidence and arguments I posted with my
links and sources? Shocker...

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh please. Don't play his game. He will always claim that everything is
fake.

>> She wasn't ordered to lie. The public do NOT get to se

So you claim no witness has ever been ordered to lie? Everyone always
tells the truth?

>> the 302 reports the FBI agents make up. That alone makes it illogical for
>> her to have signed anything.
>
> I am speaking of the statements the FBI gathered from various witnesses at
> the request of the WC.
>

How about BEFORE the WC even existed? Are those all lies?

>> When the reporters told her what the FBI
>> statements said in her name, she immediately made it know to them that
>> those were not her statements. She then told them what the truth was.
>> Where were you when we found that out? She make it clear that the FBI
>> reports were silly the way they were worded, which only helps back up her
>> statement of the truth. And since there is proof that the FBI lied often
>> about witness statements, it's a lock.
>>
>
> I know what she said 15 years later and I don't put much faith in
> somebody's ability to remember precisely where and when they saw somebody

You do if you LIKE what they say.

[Bud]

No, that doesn`t work. You keep insisting on thinking that our positions
are two sides of the same coin. There would be newgroups devoted to
conspiracy hobbyists chattering on about their suspicions even if no LNers
participated.

> I'm not the only one
> reading this who is chuckling surely. LN theory advocates are still
> conspiracy theorists nonetheless.

Yes, and atheists believe in God. Trump haters think the wall should be
built. Fire is cold. Up is down.

> They just merely believe it was a
> conspiracy by one lone nut.

And conspiracy hobbyists think the assassination was the work of one
sole individual. Just many, many sole individuals. See, if you don`t
understand the meanings of common words then everyone has the same
position.

> Which given the evidence is not completely
> unreasonable to say. But my problem with lone nut advocates has always
> been their denial of the coverups regarding Oswald and the assassination.
> Occasionally I stumble across a couple that are actually reasonable and do
> acknowledge the coverups the of the CIA but it is few and far between. I
> think it speaks in part of the bigger problem we are having even today.

Not to belabor these points but what conspiracy hobbyists represent
information to be and what it actually is often differ, and assigned
motivations are not established motivations.

Someone in the CIA could take actions or say things with the purpose of protecting the agency that look like cover-up from the outside looking in even if the CIA had nothing to do with the assassination.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
> > > > > researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
> > > > > the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
> > > > > evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?
> > > >
> > > > It isn`t a matter of having information available, it is a matter of
> > > > weighing it a reasonable manner.
> > >
> > > Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?
> >
> > The "dog ate me evidence" excuse. When you disregard what is known and
> > in evidence in favor of what you think might exist somewhere it shows you
> > are playing silly games.
>
> Why do you keep saying things like "assume" and "might exist?"

Because you said...

"Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?"

"covered up" indicates information you do not have for examination.

> I can only
> come to the conclusion you are not serious or haven't really researched
> into the coverups of the CIA on the matter if you can't even acknowledge
> their coverups or their withholding of these documents I have stated.
> Again, try to look for the missing documents for yourself and see what you
> find. Your logic is wildly baffling to me. What serious LN advocate, in
> good faith, can say the CIA is not withholding these documents? I
> challenge ANY to step forward and do so.

I certainly never took that position.

> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Clearly I must have missed something ...
> > > >
> > > > Clearly you have.
> > >
> > > Yes I missed your denial of the evidence I posted. Usually you deny
> > > vehemently. Yet you don't have much to say about the evidence I have
> > > presented now... I admit I find myself taken aback. Is this normal for
> > > you?
> >
> > I don`t fight the tarbaby much anymore. When you say things like "What
> > about this?" or "Why did this person say this?" it means two things. You
> > are going to like your explanation for these things better than any I
> > could offer and that they too weak to take you to the destinations you are
> > desperately trying to get to.
>
> Tarbaby.... interesting... does your frustration

If challenging conspiracy hobbyists to think correctly frustrated me I
wouldn`t do it.

>stem from me actually
> providing evidence of CIA coverup that you can't refute or from you just
> not really having any explanations to offer at all? You say I am going to
> like my explanation of things better than any you could offer. Well then
> by all means bud, explain away. What are YOUR explanations for why the CIA
> covered up what it knew about Oswald? I'm all ears. We'll let the readers
> decide if your explanation is good enough. Considering you didn't even
> know what documents the CIA was withholding, I would say that would
> probably be the best place for you to start if you want to have any
> serious discussion regarding the evidence. Fire away bud.

If these things were actually stepping stones leading to a destination I
would have heard about it by now.

> >
> > > >
> > > > >I'm sure there are some other
> > > > > academic researchers that would beg to differ with your statement...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ironic Side note: "Academic Scholars" don't usually teach about MKultra,
> > > > > Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods or Operation Mockingbird in your
> > > > > average history classes either but does that make their existences any
> > > > > less real?
> > > >
> > > > "real" in what way? What part of Operation Northwoods was ever
> > > > implemented?
> > >
> > > It didn't have to be implemented for the formulation of it to be real.
> >
> > So it was "really" just talk.
>
> Does the fact that it never became implemented make its implications any
> less grave and serious to you ?

Of course. Does the phrase "Actions speak louder than words" mean
anything to you.

I was talking about Northwoods exclusively there. I admitted ignorance
on the details of the others you mentioned.

> >
> > Operation Northwoods was just a document outlining objectives. Then it
> > got kicked down to the people who devise ways of achieving these
> > objectives. They sent a memorandum outlining what they came up with. It is
> > what you get when you ask soulless idiots to brainstorm.
>
> Do you understand that those "soulless idiots" would have been able to
> make it a reality had JFK only approved it.

They were tasked to do an immoral thing, start a war and blame it on
another country. What do you think you are going to get? Lets see you
spitball some courses of action that aren`t horrid.

> THAT'S how close they were to
> making it a reality.

I doubt any were anywhere close to being implemented. Most were
implausible and stupid on the face of them.

> The Bay of Pigs happened behind JFK's back...

Then he should have been impeached.

> guess
> what soulless idiots came up with that idea? The same soulless idiots that
> got caught for Watergate. The same ones that have been implicated in the
> JFK assassination. But that is another topic for another thread entirely.
>
> >
> > > It defiles
> > > mine. And guess who was largely responsible for Operation Northwoods being
> > > stopped from going into effect? Take a wild guess... or have you forgotten
> > > that as well?
> >
> > Who asked for ideas about how to start a war with Cuba?
>
> JFK and RFK wanted ideas about how to start war with Cuba. Not stupidities
> that employed treason or the killing of American civilian lives by our own
> government. Do you really think for even a second that's what they wanted
> when he asked for ideas?

Most were attacks on military targets. I believe all the casualties
mentioned in all the offerings were meant to be staged.

> >
> >
> > > > It just doesn`t work to say that since something exists that means your
> > > > ideas in this case are valid. Showing the Rodney King beating does not
> > > > implicate a cop in a completely different case of alleged police abuse.
> > >
> > > Agreed Conpletely. Could not agree more with that statement. EXCEPT that
> > > it DOES show the limits certain agencies and high ranking officials within
> > > our government were willing to go at that time.
> >
> > This was the Cold War, dirty tricks abound. There is a huge difference
> > between operations against your country`s enemies and killing an American
> > President.
>
> What about killing your own Citizens?...

Can you show this was done?

> that's how desperate it seems
> some people were. JFK WAS the enemy of the CIA. What's the cry we're
> hearing from the Trump haters? "He's not my president!" Same cry many have
> used for the presidents before him. Do you think JFK was the CIA's
> president? Of course not. They were all threatened by him. Their ways of
> life. Their jobs. Their illegal activities. Their fun and games. All were
> to be taken away and they more than likely knew he would try to dismantle
> them after what happened at the Bay of Pigs. Does anyone seriously refute
> this?

How does one refute the musings of a conspiracy hobbyist?

> >
> > > If they could do this...
> > > why could they not be capable of doing that? Cops CAN brutalize people and
> > > many have. That does not mean all do. But because some of them can and
> > > have, it means we must not overlook the possibility of them being brutal
> > > in other alleged cases of police brutality.
> >
> > It means it must be shown in a case by case basis.
>
> EXACTLY!!! And that is EXACTLY what we are doing here!!! FINALLY some
> sense at last!

Wake me when your done.

> > have to explain why it falls short, and you won`t accept it. Can we just

> > fast forward past all this and say we did it?
>
> Fast forward past looking at the evidence of CIA coverup just because it
> isn't what you want to see? Ok. Carry on Citizen. Nothing to see here.
> Move along...

It is just that the process is so darn predictable. You are on a hamster
wheel that goes nowhere and you are saying "Look at me go!".

So I did a brief search and came up with this...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

Seems much ado about nothing.

> (Not
> that that's saying much I know but still...mainstream media)I know this
> might shock you but... *leans in slightly closer to whisper stunning
> revelation* we've known about this for quite some time now. It's not a
> novel idea. Just one most LN advocates don't want to acknowledge because
> it clashes with their theory that LHO was a LN.

By all means, show the CIA conspiring with Oswald.

I didn`t address any of it in the previous post either, so there was no
use wasting bandwidth or .john`s time.

[mainframetech]

There's nothing wrong with having a CIA obsession, but there are
plenty of people involved that helped the conspiracy along that weren't
connected to them. and there is proof, evidence, for many parts of the
case that is sitting in the ARRB files waiting for the people with the
courage to browse them. The LNs do not have that courage. Too many thing
in there that will show up the foolishness of the WC.

Why not present your evidence of CIA involvement the way everyone else
here does? First show the exact text of a comment or a letter or some
such, then a link to it online so that folks can view it in context and
make their decisions about your evidence that way? You speak of this and
that, but I don't see the proofs that I'm used to seeing from the folks
here.

Where are the links showing the proofs? They would be helpful.

This is good place for some of those links to the proofs. Put them
here.

Yes, the tendency here is to leave the previous conversation where it
is so that things can be followed when mentioned from a previous chat.
Proofs and links can then be checked at any time.


Chris

[mainframetech]

Don't be ridiculous! Carolyn Arnold made it clear what her story
really was when they told her about the FBI versions of her statement.
Why should she do that if one of the versions was a signed truthful
statement? The public don't get to se the 302 reports the agents make up
and submit. That apparently applies to anything that they say had a
signature on it. CAROLYN ARNOLD MADE IT CLEAR WHAT HER REAL STORY WAS!
How can there be a signed statement that says something different than her
version told to reporters, where you at least know what was said to them?



> > She wasn't ordered to lie. The public do NOT get to see

> > the 302 reports the FBI agents make up. That alone makes it illogical for
> > her to have signed anything.
>
> I am speaking of the statements the FBI gathered from various witnesses at
> the request of the WC.
>

Arnold was the only one who stated she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor
lunchroom that I know of. Not sure what you're talking about.

> > When the reporters told her what the FBI

> > statements said in her name, she immediately made it known to them that

> > those were not her statements. She then told them what the truth was.
> > Where were you when we found that out? She make it clear that the FBI
> > reports were silly the way they were worded, which only helps back up her
> > statement of the truth. And since there is proof that the FBI lied often
> > about witness statements, it's a lock.
> >
>
> I know what she said 15 years later and I don't put much faith in
> somebody's ability to remember precisely where and when they saw somebody
> that far back. Even if her memory was so extraordinary that she knew to
> the minute that she saw Oswald in the lunchroom, the time she stated would
> not preclude Oswald being in the sniper's nest at 12:30. Don't bother
> telling us the myth about your two men with a gun who wouldn't let Oswald
> get to that window because nobody cares about that nonsense.

WRONG! Get off the baloney. I don't need you pretending to be a little
tinpot dictator telling me what everyone cares about or doesn't care
about. You do NOT speak for everyone here. Only some of the misled
suckers. And don't try to pull your 'it's all too old to remember' stunt
either. It's too different a story to be mistakes from time passing.
Face it.

Chris

[bigdog]

Conspiracy of One was the title of a book Jim Moore wrote several decades
ago. It was an oxymoron then and it is still one today. Conspiracy by
definition is a crime committed by two or more people in collusion with
one another. If Oswald was the lone assassin, and it is a near certainty
that he was, there was no conspiracy.

> But my problem with lone nut advocates has always
> been their denial of the coverups regarding Oswald and the assassination.
> Occasionally I stumble across a couple that are actually reasonable and do
> acknowledge the coverups the of the CIA but it is few and far between. I
> think it speaks in part of the bigger problem we are having even today.
>

I acknowledge that the CIA withheld information from the WC about covert
operations they were engaging in but that is not an acknowledgement that
those operations had anything to do with the JFK assassination or that
they were in collusion with Oswald to assassinate JFK. It requires an
assumption to believe that since there is no evidence that was the
case.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
> > > > > researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
> > > > > the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
> > > > > evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?
> > > >
> > > > It isn`t a matter of having information available, it is a matter of
> > > > weighing it a reasonable manner.
> > >
> > > Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?
> >
> > The "dog ate me evidence" excuse. When you disregard what is known and
> > in evidence in favor of what you think might exist somewhere it shows you
> > are playing silly games.
>
> Why do you keep saying things like "assume" and "might exist?" I can only
> come to the conclusion you are not serious or haven't really researched
> into the coverups of the CIA on the matter if you can't even acknowledge
> their coverups or their withholding of these documents I have stated.
> Again, try to look for the missing documents for yourself and see what you
> find. Your logic is wildly baffling to me. What serious LN advocate, in
> good faith, can say the CIA is not withholding these documents? I
> challenge ANY to step forward and do so.
>

When you can establish that the information the CIA withheld from the WC
was pertinent to the assassination of JFK, get back to us. Until then it
is nothing more than an assumption on your part.

> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Clearly I must have missed something ...
> > > >
> > > > Clearly you have.
> > >
> > > Yes I missed your denial of the evidence I posted. Usually you deny
> > > vehemently. Yet you don't have much to say about the evidence I have
> > > presented now... I admit I find myself taken aback. Is this normal for
> > > you?
> >
> > I don`t fight the tarbaby much anymore. When you say things like "What
> > about this?" or "Why did this person say this?" it means two things. You
> > are going to like your explanation for these things better than any I
> > could offer and that they too weak to take you to the destinations you are
> > desperately trying to get to.
>
> Tarbaby.... interesting... does your frustration stem from me actually
> providing evidence of CIA coverup that you can't refute or from you just
> not really having any explanations to offer at all? You say I am going to
> like my explanation of things better than any you could offer. Well then
> by all means bud, explain away. What are YOUR explanations for why the CIA
> covered up what it knew about Oswald? I'm all ears. We'll let the readers
> decide if your explanation is good enough. Considering you didn't even
> know what documents the CIA was withholding, I would say that would
> probably be the best place for you to start if you want to have any
> serious discussion regarding the evidence. Fire away bud.
>

The question isn't whether the CIA withheld information from the WC but
whether any of that information was pertinent to the JFK assassination.
You have provided no evidence of the latter. Only your guesses. And even
if your guess is right that the CIA withheld information that was
pertinent to the WC investigation, even that doesn't establish that they
had foreknowledge of the assassination or that they were in cahoots with
Oswald.

The things that have been uncovered do nothing to establish the validity of things you have only assumed.

> >
> > Operation Northwoods was just a document outlining objectives. Then it
> > got kicked down to the people who devise ways of achieving these
> > objectives. They sent a memorandum outlining what they came up with. It is
> > what you get when you ask soulless idiots to brainstorm.
>
> Do you understand that those "soulless idiots" would have been able to
> make it a reality had JFK only approved it. THAT'S how close they were to
> making it a reality. The Bay of Pigs happened behind JFK's back... guess
> what soulless idiots came up with that idea? The same soulless idiots that
> got caught for Watergate. The same ones that have been implicated in the
> JFK assassination. But that is another topic for another thread entirely.
>

The Bay of Pigs did not happen behind JFK's back. It was planned while Ike
was still President. JFK learned of it upon assuming the presidency and he
gave the go ahead for the operation, a decision he quickly came to
regret.

> >
> > > It defiles
> > > mine. And guess who was largely responsible for Operation Northwoods being
> > > stopped from going into effect? Take a wild guess... or have you forgotten
> > > that as well?
> >
> > Who asked for ideas about how to start a war with Cuba?
>
> JFK and RFK wanted ideas about how to start war with Cuba. Not stupidities
> that employed treason or the killing of American civilian lives by our own
> government. Do you really think for even a second that's what they wanted
> when he asked for ideas?
>

Do you know of the parameters the Kennedys gave to the people from whom
they asked for ideas. It's like the line from Forest Gump. They asked for
a box of chocolates not knowing what they would get.

> >
> >
> > > > It just doesn`t work to say that since something exists that means your
> > > > ideas in this case are valid. Showing the Rodney King beating does not
> > > > implicate a cop in a completely different case of alleged police abuse.
> > >
> > > Agreed Conpletely. Could not agree more with that statement. EXCEPT that
> > > it DOES show the limits certain agencies and high ranking officials within
> > > our government were willing to go at that time.
> >
> > This was the Cold War, dirty tricks abound. There is a huge difference
> > between operations against your country`s enemies and killing an American
> > President.
>
> What about killing your own Citizens?... that's how desperate it seems
> some people were. JFK WAS the enemy of the CIA. What's the cry we're
> hearing from the Trump haters? "He's not my president!" Same cry many have
> used for the presidents before him. Do you think JFK was the CIA's
> president? Of course not. They were all threatened by him. Their ways of
> life. Their jobs. Their illegal activities. Their fun and games. All were
> to be taken away and they more than likely knew he would try to dismantle
> them after what happened at the Bay of Pigs. Does anyone seriously refute
> this?
>

So what's your point. That the CIA didn't like JFK. Lots of groups and
individuals didn't like JFK. That doesn't make any of them complicit in
his murder. We only have evidence of one guy being complicit. Everything
else is suspicions, assumptions, and guesses, all of which come up empty
in the evidence department.

> >
> > > If they could do this...
> > > why could they not be capable of doing that? Cops CAN brutalize people and
> > > many have. That does not mean all do. But because some of them can and
> > > have, it means we must not overlook the possibility of them being brutal
> > > in other alleged cases of police brutality.
> >
> > It means it must be shown in a case by case basis.
>
> EXACTLY!!! And that is EXACTLY what we are doing here!!! FINALLY some
> sense at last!
>

What you want to do is assume because there was malfeasance in one case
there must have been malfeasance in another unrelated cased. That makes no
sense.

Just because the CIA was guilty of somethings doesn't lead to the
conclusion that they were guilty of everything.

So far, neither you nor anyone else has provided any credible evidence
that the CIA was complicit in the assassination of JFK. If and when you
are ever able to do that, you will become someone worth listening to.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. You're thinking of the WC defenders on the HSCA who said that
it was just a coincidence that 2 lone nut assassins just happened to
pick the same time and place.

>> Which given the evidence is not completely
>> unreasonable to say. But my problem with lone nut advocates has always
>> been their denial of the coverups regarding Oswald and the assassination.
>> Occasionally I stumble across a couple that are actually reasonable and do
>> acknowledge the coverups the of the CIA but it is few and far between. I
>> think it speaks in part of the bigger problem we are having even today.
>
> Not to belabor these points but what conspiracy hobbyists represent
> information to be and what it actually is often differ, and assigned
> motivations are not established motivations.
>
> Someone in the CIA could take actions or say things with the purpose of protecting the agency that look like cover-up from the outside looking in even if the CIA had nothing to do with the assassination.

Oh, I see. YOU can say that, but when I say exactly the same thing you
get to call me a kook?

>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
>>>>>> researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
>>>>>> the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
>>>>>> evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn`t a matter of having information available, it is a matter of
>>>>> weighing it a reasonable manner.
>>>>
>>>> Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?
>>>
>>> The "dog ate me evidence" excuse. When you disregard what is known and
>>> in evidence in favor of what you think might exist somewhere it shows you
>>> are playing silly games.
>>
>> Why do you keep saying things like "assume" and "might exist?"
>
> Because you said...
>
> "Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?"
>
> "covered up" indicates information you do not have for examination.

Wrong. We found the photos which they had destroyed.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you still don't know the difference between an official CIA operation
and a rogue operation.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

She/he wants to talk about everything except Oswald's behavior on the day
before and day of the assassination. I haven't read a single sentence yet
discussing that.

It's all of this "Look over here at this awful thing! And over there? And
what about this?"

Saying the CIA or Pentagon advocated or did horrible things (of course a
lot of these things were pushed on them by the Kennedys; but never mind:
let's all sing "Camelot") is not evidence that they were involved in the
assassination. It should be obvious but apparently it's not. This really
is the world view of most of the conspiracy people, the sort of leftist
ideologically motivated ones: "they" did all of these awful things - or
thought of doing them; therefore these same awful people killed JFK.

[Ace Kefford]

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

I prefer the Chosen One!

[Chosen Ten]

Are they always in this much denial Mr. Marsh?

[Bud]

Not that farfetched. We know that Oswald lucked out having a front row
seat from his workplace and that the grassy knoll is one of the few places
along the motorcade route a person who didn`t have access to a building
could fire from unimpeded.

> >> Which given the evidence is not completely
> >> unreasonable to say. But my problem with lone nut advocates has always
> >> been their denial of the coverups regarding Oswald and the assassination.
> >> Occasionally I stumble across a couple that are actually reasonable and do
> >> acknowledge the coverups the of the CIA but it is few and far between. I
> >> think it speaks in part of the bigger problem we are having even today.
> >
> > Not to belabor these points but what conspiracy hobbyists represent
> > information to be and what it actually is often differ, and assigned
> > motivations are not established motivations.
> >
> > Someone in the CIA could take actions or say things with the purpose of protecting the agency that look like cover-up from the outside looking in even if the CIA had nothing to do with the assassination.
>
> Oh, I see. YOU can say that, but when I say exactly the same thing you
> get to call me a kook?

People would look more favorably on you if you said more reasonable
things.

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
> >>>>>> researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
> >>>>>> the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
> >>>>>> evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It isn`t a matter of having information available, it is a matter of
> >>>>> weighing it a reasonable manner.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?
> >>>
> >>> The "dog ate me evidence" excuse. When you disregard what is known and
> >>> in evidence in favor of what you think might exist somewhere it shows you
> >>> are playing silly games.
> >>
> >> Why do you keep saying things like "assume" and "might exist?"
> >
> > Because you said...
> >
> > "Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?"
> >
> > "covered up" indicates information you do not have for examination.
>
> Wrong. We found the photos which they had destroyed.

Did you find the food that they ate also?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Sorry, you're the one unwilling to explain to us how Operation Northwoods
or this or that action by the CIA is related to the assassination.

Every time someone asks you to connect the dots you're nowhere to be
found.

As I said, anyone can summon the spirits from the vasty deep. Making them
come is your problem.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

By the way, Mr. Marsh doesn't believe Oswald was working for the CIA.

Neither does John Newman.

You say Oswald was "associated" with the CIA and then throw out a bunch of
names of people who don't believe Oswald was "associated" with the CIA.

I don't believe Morley does either; although who knows what he thinks
nowadays.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, they have to be in order to join the club and get their decoder ring.

>>>> Roman: ???Yeah, I mean I???m signing off on something that I
>>>> know isn???t true.???

[Anthony Marsh]

>>>>> Roman: ???Yeah, I mean I???m signing off on something that I
>>>>> know isn???t true.???

I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the intelligence
community because you never had any contact with it. I did. My father was
an NSA officer who worked every day with the CIA. That did not make him a
CIA officer, as he proved in court. He was what they call the LIAISON. NSA
and CIA often have joint operations.

After he left the NSA he continued to work with the CIA, but was never a
CIA agent. You can call him a contract consultant if you don't know the
correct terminology. It's called the Old Boy Network. We've gone over this
1,000 times before about Clay Shaw and you guys misuse terms to create
false arguments. OK, we stipulate that Clay Shaw was not a CIA officer.
But you guys can't even admit what is in his official CIA 201 file, that
he was a contact, an informant. You don't dare admit the simplest little
fact in fear that the kooks will claim it as proof that he was a CIA agent
and therefore the mastermind of the JFK assassination. Just gather up your
courage and admit simple facts. Gravity exists.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why should she know the highly classified information when even you
don't? She's just asking questions and you refuse to answer them.

> As I said, anyone can summon the spirits from the vasty deep. Making them
> come is your problem.
>

Be careful what you wish for.

[Chosen Ten]

It's actually not. I have never said that. And that's not my frame of
logic. Your attempt to generalize my rational in a predictably dismissive
manner is exasperating. Well amusing really... Allow me to clarify for you
since there seems to be some confusion on your end.

My reasoning is simple; because of their numerous misdeeds in other cases,
their coverups into the assassination should be more closely looked into
and transparency must be demanded if it is not freely given by the CIA as
there is no sensible justification for their continued withholding of
certain documents such as the Nosenko files and LHO's 201 and others. It
is absolutely not fair to judge them on this case because of their history
and behavior on other cases. In that case I agree with Bud and everyone
else here I would hope. But as the government institution that they are,
they MUST NOT be above immunity as they have been so many times before if
justice is ever to be found for this case. The ferocity of the LN
advocates dismissal of the CIAs coverups is disturbing given how hard they
try place the guilt on LHO given the less than absolute evidence proving
his guilt of killing the president. I stated this before to Mr. Mcadams
but you did not seem to grasp that. There are serious questions to ask of
LHO's actions after the assassination that implicate him. But I have
always maintained, the CIA, like Oswald, implicated themselves through
their own actions. The majority of LN advocates I have seen in here are
willing to go to whatever lengths to claim LHO was guilty based on
compelling but less than absolute evidence, but then turn a blind eye,
even make up excuses, for the CIA's actions when similar compelling but
less than absolute evidence is shown indicating the CIA's guilt of
coverups regarding LHO and the assassination.

>
> I'll dig out my Shakespeare quotes again:
>
> Glendower:
> I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
>
> Hotspur:
> Why, so can I, or so can any man;
> But will they come when you do call for them?

To which I would respond to you, good sir, with Edmund Burke. Not quite as
flowery as Shakespeare but short, appropriate, and straight on the mark
all the same.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do
nothing."

>
> Conspiracy advocates think by "calling spirits from the vasty deep", by
> saying conspiracies happen, that the government did them, mentioning
> Operation Mongoose or some other plan that that is somehow evidence that
> JFK was killed by the same group of people. I don't know why they insist
> on thinking that this is an argument; but they do.

That has never been my argument but you have convinced yourself that it
is. My argument is one of accountability and responsibility on a case by
case basis.

>

> Apparently it's the "these are bad people" and they are willing to do bad
> things. Okay, let's stipulate Hoover was bad. You can't just call the
> spirit of Hoover you have to make him appear.
>
> This they cannot do.

I already did. I called forth the evidence of CIA coverup in the form of
the spirit of Jane Roman and all I got were excuses, casual dismissals,
and claims of manipulation. Well... that's not entirely fair... I only got
that from one source. From the rest... only silence. I wonder why... I
then called upon the evidence of the withholding of documents on the part
of the CIA. And again, all I got were excuses and silence. Not a single
one of the LN advocates so far has had the courage it seems to openly
denounce the CIA on this matter. Only to make excuses for them. They don't
ask WHY. They just say ok. Castro plots. Sources and methods. National
security. Who knows. Who cares? Not like we need them anyways. Why should
we care?

My favorite came from Bud. "The ways of bureaucracies are often
inexplicable to normal men..." -Bud 2017 That's what I'm up against... as
if that's a good explanation for their coverups. Next i called upon the
spirits of past CIA agents but their claims are untrue, lack credibility,
and... huh? What should I expect next but more denial and excuses? If
something is untrue then it's untrue. I'm not afraid of being proved
wrong. But We need accountability. You want to talk about LHO's guilt and
evidence against him? Fine. I'll join in at the table for that. But the
double standard between the acceptance of the evidence against LHO and the
CIA astonishes me.

I was specific in my retorts to Mr. Mcadams. Perhaps I was not specific
enough? I will be more than glad to clarify if need be.

With Regards, ChosenTen

[Chosen Ten]

Protecting the agency from what after 53 years? It doesn't just LOOK like
coverup. It IS coverup. Coverup on how much they knew about Oswald prior
to the assassination.

> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Correct me if I am wrong. I was not made aware you spoke for all academic
> > > > > > researchers looking into the JFK investigation now Mr. Mcadams... but do
> > > > > > the researchers we are discussing not base most of their claims on
> > > > > > evidence from CIA primary sources and official documents directly?
> > > > >
> > > > > It isn`t a matter of having information available, it is a matter of
> > > > > weighing it a reasonable manner.
> > > >
> > > > Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?
> > >
> > > The "dog ate me evidence" excuse. When you disregard what is known and
> > > in evidence in favor of what you think might exist somewhere it shows you
> > > are playing silly games.
> >
> > Why do you keep saying things like "assume" and "might exist?"
>
> Because you said...
>
> "Ah... but can you reasonably weigh evidence that has been covered up?"
>
> "covered up" indicates information you do not have for examination.

Correct. We don't have the Nosenko interrogation files or Oswald's 201 or
Joannidess files, hunt files etc etc for examinations , but we know they
exist. We can't reasonably weigh them because the CIA refuses to open them
up for the public viewing but due to the nature of what they contain we
can make reasonable arguments of what they contain and why they are being
witheld.

>
> > I can only
> > come to the conclusion you are not serious or haven't really researched
> > into the coverups of the CIA on the matter if you can't even acknowledge
> > their coverups or their withholding of these documents I have stated.
> > Again, try to look for the missing documents for yourself and see what you
> > find. Your logic is wildly baffling to me. What serious LN advocate, in
> > good faith, can say the CIA is not withholding these documents? I
> > challenge ANY to step forward and do so.
>
> I certainly never took that position.

Indeed. Yet you did not even know which documents were being witheld.

This has to be one of the most jaw droppingly ignorant comments you have
ever stated to me personally. Arrogant is probably the better word. And
you expect other people reading your assessments to take them seriously?
Do you think the evidence of what is known on the JFK assassination
revolves around your knowledge of it? You would have heard about it by
now... What a preposterously ridiculous and presumptuous thing to say.
Like you heard about Operation Stargate before the CIA formally admitted
to it right? Like you knew about Operation Mockingbird before the family
jewels came out or what files the CIA was withholding related to the JFK
assassination before they admitted to it? Like you knew about their
coverups? And you still have done nothing to reaffirm or even establish
your beliefs on why the CIA covered up what it knew about Oswald. Instead
you choose the easy way out. Deflecting the question and saying you would
have heard by now if it was leading anywhere. Well, where exactly have you
been hearing things from? Perhaps that might have something to do with
what you have heard and haven't heard. Instead of just trying to hear
things why don't you actually take a significant step forward and do some
hands on researching into the main source yourself as others have? Try
filling out a FOIA request form on the documents the CIA is withholding
pertaining to the Nosenko files or Oswald's 201 or the Joannidess files.
See what response you get.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >I'm sure there are some other
> > > > > > academic researchers that would beg to differ with your statement...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ironic Side note: "Academic Scholars" don't usually teach about MKultra,
> > > > > > Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods or Operation Mockingbird in your
> > > > > > average history classes either but does that make their existences any
> > > > > > less real?
> > > > >
> > > > > "real" in what way? What part of Operation Northwoods was ever
> > > > > implemented?
> > > >
> > > > It didn't have to be implemented for the formulation of it to be real.
> > >
> > > So it was "really" just talk.
> >
> > Does the fact that it never became implemented make its implications any
> > less grave and serious to you ?
>
> Of course. Does the phrase "Actions speak louder than words" mean
> anything to you.

Ok. Actions speak louder to you. Why then do you refuse to see how the
CIA's actions of covering up and misleading the WC, HSCA, and others on
their interest what they knew about Oswald before the assassination is a
huge red flag? Why do you not openly denounce their actions relating to
this case? Do you advocate that they release these documents for which
there is no sensible reason for withholding anymore or do you not? What do
they have to fear from transparency after all these years?

What? Ignorance? But surely you would have heard of it by now? The CIA or
FBI or any agency within the government could make plans to murder you to
get others to go to war but if they never went through with it would you
just say, "oh well... they were just plans. They never went into effect.
So what?" These were the people running our country tasked with protecting
us behind the scenes. Does this not bother you?

>
> > >
> > > Operation Northwoods was just a document outlining objectives. Then it
> > > got kicked down to the people who devise ways of achieving these
> > > objectives. They sent a memorandum outlining what they came up with. It is
> > > what you get when you ask soulless idiots to brainstorm.
> >
> > Do you understand that those "soulless idiots" would have been able to
> > make it a reality had JFK only approved it.
>
> They were tasked to do an immoral thing, start a war and blame it on
> another country. What do you think you are going to get? Lets see you
> spitball some courses of action that aren`t horrid.
>
> > THAT'S how close they were to
> > making it a reality.
>
> I doubt any were anywhere close to being implemented. Most were
> implausible and stupid on the face of them.

Do you believe our government is above implausible and stupid operations?
Operation Stargate? Does Watergate ring any bells? How about MKUltra?

>
>
> > The Bay of Pigs happened behind JFK's back...
>
> Then he should have been impeached.

Really? Ok. Impeach JFK for not knowing the CIA would go into the Bay of
Pigs behind his back. What punishment then would you suggest for the CIA
since they actually went in there in the first place without
authorization? JFK fired Dulles and threatened to disband the CIA. Alas,
he was killed before the latter could be achieved. And who better to head
the list of who should be on the investigating commission into his death
than Allen Dulles? Am I right?

Impeach JFK. That's the train of thought you employ? Interesting logic...
Are you consistent with it? Do you believe Reagan should have also been
impeached because of the Iran Contra Scandal since it happened behind his
back?

I was referring more to the planning of it than them actually doing it.

>
> > that's how desperate it seems
> > some people were. JFK WAS the enemy of the CIA. What's the cry we're
> > hearing from the Trump haters? "He's not my president!" Same cry many have
> > used for the presidents before him. Do you think JFK was the CIA's
> > president? Of course not. They were all threatened by him. Their ways of
> > life. Their jobs. Their illegal activities. Their fun and games. All were
> > to be taken away and they more than likely knew he would try to dismantle
> > them after what happened at the Bay of Pigs. Does anyone seriously refute
> > this?
>
> How does one refute the musings of a conspiracy hobbyist?

The same way you do with any other person. With well thought logical
reasonable arguments supported by hard evidence.

To you perhaps. Believe what you will.

>
> > (Not
> > that that's saying much I know but still...mainstream media)I know this
> > might shock you but... *leans in slightly closer to whisper stunning
> > revelation* we've known about this for quite some time now. It's not a
> > novel idea. Just one most LN advocates don't want to acknowledge because
> > it clashes with their theory that LHO was a LN.
>
> By all means, show the CIA conspiring with Oswald.

That has never been my stance nor have I ever advocated that being my
stance. I have always maintained that beceause of the CIA's coverups of
certain documents and misdirections regarding how much they knew about
Oswald before the assassination, it leads us to question WHY they are
still withholding these documents that have no sensible reason to be
witheld 53 years after the fact. I have stated that it could be perhaps
due to embarrassment on the part of the CIA or it could be something more
sinister. Perhaps Oswald was a CIA asset as I advocate. There is a huge
difference between saying that and saying Oswald conspired with the CIA to
kill Kennedy. I believe that there is enough compelling evidence that
suggests LHO was a CIA asset to take up that stance. But even if he was
not, there are still serious questions to be asked of the CIA regarding
their coverups of how much they knew about him prior to the assassination.
Fair enough?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

You keep repeating this mantra about how the CIA "covered up" its
monitoring of Oswald and conclude from that that Oswald was "associated"
with the CIA.

This is your calling of the spirits. But they don't come.

Even in the most conspiratorial interpretation of Jane Roman's comments
there is no evidence that the CIA was "associated" with Oswald. It shows
that CI was interested in what Oswald was doing, who he was. It would be a
shock to learn they weren't interested. He had gone to the Soviet Union
and returned. They wanted to know who he was and what he was doing here.

Let's do this one at a time. Here's a question for you: what does John
Newman - who you cited - say about Oswald and the CIA?

[Chosen Ten]

Perhaps it is because you are too busy quoting Shakespeare instead of
actually trying to understand my arguments. Operation Northwoods is just
one example of the mindset of many people in the government agencies at
that time around the assassination. The children in today's schools are
not generally taught about the darker aspects of our nation's history. But
by all means, go ahead. Ask away any question you have and I shall explain
my mindset and reasoning with evidence to support that reasoning on the
matter of the assassination.

>
> Every time someone asks you to connect the dots you're nowhere to be
> found.

Did I not just answer Mr. Mcadam's responses individually? Who else has
asked me to connect the dots? Where were you when we were discussing the
Jane Roman interview? I most certainly did not hear any feedback from you
then. You have a daily life as well as I (I hope). These responses take
quite some time out of my daily life. If I missed any questions from you
specifically feel free to call me out on it so I can address them. Looking
back through the comments though, it seems you were mostly content with
comparing me to Mark Lane, trying to explain my rationale with
preconceived notions and references to leftist ideologically motivated
conspiracy theorists (I found that one particularly amusing), and quoting
Shakespeare. Nothing to actually do with the evidence being discussed at
hand.

>
> As I said, anyone can summon the spirits from the vasty deep. Making them
> come is your problem.

I summoned the spirit of Jane Roman and you summoned the spirit of
crickets. At least Mr. Mcadams has a certain viewpoint on the matter
(Albeit his logic does not make sense to me) What's yours?

[John McAdams]

In fact, Jane Roman denounced the way Morley and Newman used the
interview in a letter she wrote to the Washington Post.

Here is the draft of the letter. The POST didn't publish he final
version.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/Jane_Roman.pdf

Essentially, Morley and Newman manipulated an old woman, showing her a
document she didn't remember, and then misrepresenting what she said.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Chosen Ten]

Neither of them has to believe Oswald was a CIA asset or agent to
understand why the CIA's misdirections and coverups brings up huge red
flags in this case. That the CIA was covering up and lying to the WC and
HSCA about how much they had on Oswald is pretty much unquestionable now.
Now the burden falls to us to find out exactly WHY. Without transparency
from the CIA though, all we can really come to for now are well educated
reasonable guesses based off of the available evidence.

>
> You say Oswald was "associated" with the CIA and then throw out a bunch of
> names of people who don't believe Oswald was "associated" with the CIA.

If you had actually been paying attention instead of finding ways to
incorporate Shakespeare into the dialouge you would understand why those
names came up in the first place...

LET ME BE CLEAR.... I listed them as names of people who acted as
secondary sources for me in examining evidence of the CIA's coverups. Such
as the interview with Jane Roman, the withholding of certain documents,
and other points that the CIA lied about or covered up. So do not get that
confused with me stating them as sources for me coming to my own personal
conclusion that LHO could possibly have been a CIA asset. Even so, which
of them would deny that LHO had associations with CIA assests? Was LHO not
associated with George DeMohrenschildt? Did he not have public clashes
with CIA funded DRE operatives? Did he not know David Ferrie? (I guess
whether or not Ferrie was a CIA asset depends on who you ask) Either way
you failed to understand why I brought up those names in the first place.
I would quote it for you but it's open for you to see if you actually
wanted to open your eyes and read. Nothing has been censored. To his
credit, Mr. Mcadams has been an excellent sport and has never censored me
or anything I have said thus far regardless of my differences of opinion.
A noble gesture.

>
> I don't believe Morley does either; although who knows what he thinks
> nowadays.

Why don't you ask him?