First Floor and 6th Floor

[BOZ]

"And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?

DAVID VON PEIN

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html

[Steve M. Galbraith]

How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If
he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth with
Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.

In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must
be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time
of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at
the time.

So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?

We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that
they pulled it off. No details are needed.

And so it goes.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:

Does Mr. DiEugenio believe Garrison's allegations that Oswald, Shaw and
Ferrie and others conspired to kill JFK and that, as Garrison claimed,
Oswald brought the rifle to the building and yet also believe that Oswald
was totally innocent of any involvement in the assassination?

Yes, Garrison said that Oswald was left to take responsibility for the act
- i.e., a "patsy"; but he also believed that Oswald was "in" on the act
from its inception. Of course, Garrison (and I guess DiEugenio) believe
that Shaw, using the alias Clay Bertrand, tried to hire an attorney (Dean
Andrews) to defend Oswald. I wouldn't consider that abandoning Oswald.

Furthermore, does he believe that these three oddballs - Ferrie, Shaw and
Oswald - hatched this idea at a party in New Orleans (with people around
them listening to them discuss the idea!) and then somehow got the CIA,
DPD, Pentagon and dozens of others to go along with it?

Are their any limits to the credulity of some in the conspiracy crowd?

[donald willis]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 6:12:40 PM UTC-7, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>
> How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If
> he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth with
> Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.
>
> In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must
> be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time
> of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at
> the time.
>
> So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?
>

This is the problem I myself solved by placing Oswald upstairs....

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Right, but you believe he was a willing participant to some degree in the
assassination.

For those who think he was completely innocent, had no knowledge
whatsoever in any plot, how would the framers know where he would be? And
that he could be framed? It seems to me that we're talking about factors
that simply couldn't be controlled.

And even if he was ordered to be on the sixth floor or domino room, how
could they be sure he did so? That others weren't with him?

Forget about whether all of these people would conspire to do something so
evil and essentially be quite afterwards (unless one believes the E.
Howard Hunt "confession"): just consider the logistics and complexity of
what is being suggested? I simply do not believe this was possible.

[Anthony Marsh]

So what if Junior and Harold saw Oswald in the Domino Room, they could
be paid to say they never saw him?

Two colleagues, James Jarman and Harold Norman, place him there no
more than seven minutes before the shooting.

That's cutting it a little close to get up to the sixth floor, retrieve
the rifle and build the sniper's nest. If the motorcade had been on
time, the limo would already have passed the TSBD while Oswald was in
the Domino Room and saw Junior and Harold walking in.

The Nazis like to LIE about what if Ruby was a minute later.
So what if the motorcade was on time? Do you think Oswald had a way to
delay the motorcade to give him time to get ready?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/11/2019 9:12 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>
> How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If
> he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth with
> Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.
>

Silly. These are spiesm dude. How did the people who framed Dreyfus know
where he would be when they framed him?

OK, maybe they didn't have cell phones back then, but maybe they had
walkie-talkies.

> In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must
> be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time
> of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at
> the time.
>

Oswald was very frameable. They knew that he owned a rifle and had shot
at General Walker. And his FPCC chapter and his trip to Mexico.

> So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?
>
> We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that
> they pulled it off. No details are needed.
>

You are silly. You claim that no conspiracy can ever happen. How did the
Watergate burglars know that the cleaning crew would not be back and were
done for the day and that the guard had already made his rounds? This is
spy stuff. Way beyond you.

> And so it goes.
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

How come you never ask the same questions about Watergate or the Dreyfus
affair? And don't even look into the Boston bookies case.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think that no conspiracies ever happen? You live in your own
Pollyanna World where nothing bad ever happens.

[donald willis]

On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 9:55:51 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:
> > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
> >
>
> So what if Junior and Harold saw Oswald in the Domino Room, they could
> be paid to say they never saw him?
>
> Two colleagues, James Jarman and Harold Norman, place him there no
> more than seven minutes before the shooting.

Well, their PRESENCE there placed him there, if everyone is telling the
truth. I'm not sure that ANYONE is, in this case, but I myself have made
this same 7-minute argument. (Based on Norman's testifying that the two
started back into the building after hearing that the motorcade was moving
onto, I think, Main St.) This scenario also does not give Williams much
time to hear N&J below & get from the 6th to the 5th floor in time to be
at his window--the latter the one verifiable fact in this scenario....

What am I saying? The witness details are part of a sort of kaleidoscope,
and where that kaleidoscope stops determines what happened, or might have
happened. But the kaleidoscope never seems to stop....

dcw

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Your answer to my questions is a classic "they can do anything" conspiracy
response. Plus the typical Dreyfus and this and that and "Don't you
believe in conspiracies?" responses that have nothing to do with the issue
on the table.

It's exactly my point with some of conspiracy advocates: when we challenge
you for specifics we get handwaving and distractions.

[bigdog]

On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:55:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:
> > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
> >
>
> So what if Junior and Harold saw Oswald in the Domino Room, they could
> be paid to say they never saw him?
>
> Two colleagues, James Jarman and Harold Norman, place him there no
> more than seven minutes before the shooting.
>

Nonsense. See below. Both saw him earlier in the morning. Not during
lunch.

> That's cutting it a little close to get up to the sixth floor, retrieve
> the rifle and build the sniper's nest. If the motorcade had been on
> time, the limo would already have passed the TSBD while Oswald was in
> the Domino Room and saw Junior and Harold walking in.
>

From Jarman's WC testimony:

Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Oswald that morning?
Mr. JARMAN - I did.
Mr. BALL - When?
Mr. JARMAN - I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly what time
it was.
Mr. BALL - Oh, approximately. Nine, ten?
Mr. JARMAN - It was around, it was between eight and nine, I would say.
Mr. BALL - Between 8 and 9?
Mr. JARMAN - Between 5 minutes after 8 and 9.
Mr. BALL - You had him correct an order?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to him again that morning?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning.
Mr. BALL - About what time?
Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe.
Mr. BALL - Where were you when you talked to him?
Mr. JARMAN - In between two rows of bins.
Mr. BALL - On what floor?
Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor.
Mr. BALL - And what was said by him and by you?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the
window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the
corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that
morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told
him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back
again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to him again?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - What time did you quit for lunch?
Mr. JARMAN - It was right about 5 minutes to 12.
Mr. BALL - What did you do when you quit for lunch?
Mr. JARMAN - Went in the rest room and washed up.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you
Mr. JARMAN - Went and got my sandwich and went up in the lounge and got me
a soda pop.
Mr. BALL - Where is the lounge?
Mr. JARMAN - On the second floor.
Mr. BALL - On the second floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then where did you go after you got your soda pop?
Mr. JARMAN - Came back and went down to the window.
Mr. BALL - What window?
Mr. JARMAN - Where Oswald and I was talking.
Mr. BALL - Where?
Mr. JARMAN - Between those two rows of bins.
Mr. BALL - Where Oswald and you had been talking?
Mr. BALL - What did you do there?
Mr. JARMAN - I was eating part of my sandwich there, and then I came back
out and as I was walking across the floor I ate the rest of it going toward
the domino room.
Mr. BILL. You say you ate the rest of it when?
Mr. JARMAN - Walking around on the first floor there.
Mr. BALL - Did you sit down at the window when you ate part of. your
sandwich?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I was standing.
Mr. BALL - And did you have the pop in your hand, too?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes; I had a sandwich in one hand and pep in the other.
Mr. BALL - You say you wandered around, you mean on the first floor?
Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor.
Mr. BALL - Were you with anybody when you were at the window? Did you talk
to anybody?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I did not.
Mr. BALL - Were you with anybody when you were walking around finishing
your sandwich?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I wasn't, I was trying to get through so I could get out
on the street.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Lee Oswald?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I didn't.

The last time Jarman saw Oswald was between 9:30 and 10:00. He did return
to the domino room at lunch time bud did NOT see Oswald at that time.

From Norman's testimony:
Mr. BALL. What time did you get to work on the morning of November the 22d?
Mr. NORMAN. I got there I would say about 5 minutes of 8 o'clock, 5 minutes
until 8 in the morning.
Mr. BALL. You weren't late?
Mr. NORMAN. No; I wasn't.
Mr. BALL. Did you see Lee Oswald when you got to work?
Mr. NORMAN. No; I don't recall seeing him when I got to work.
Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of
that.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mr. NORMAN. Over in the bins by the windows, I mean looking out, you know,
at Elm Street, towards Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. NORMAN. The first.
Mr. BALL. Looking out on Elm through windows, is that right?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir. I was looking out the window. He happened to come by
to fill orders.
Mr. BALL. Did he say anything to you?
Mr. NORMAN. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. Did you say anything to him?
Mr. NORMAN. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him at any time after that?
Mr. NORMAN. No; no more. I don't recall seeing him any more that day.

Norman estimated he last saw Oswald between 10:00 and 10:15, on the first
floor. Very close to Jarman's estimate. Neither saw him any time during
the noon hour.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 12:57:48 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 9:55:51 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:
> > > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
> > >
> >
> > So what if Junior and Harold saw Oswald in the Domino Room, they could
> > be paid to say they never saw him?
> >
> > Two colleagues, James Jarman and Harold Norman, place him there no
> > more than seven minutes before the shooting.
>
> Well, their PRESENCE there placed him there, if everyone is telling the
> truth. I'm not sure that ANYONE is, in this case, but I myself have made
> this same 7-minute argument. (Based on Norman's testifying that the two
> started back into the building after hearing that the motorcade was moving
> onto, I think, Main St.) This scenario also does not give Williams much
> time to hear N&J below & get from the 6th to the 5th floor in time to be
> at his window--the latter the one verifiable fact in this scenario....
>

The motorcade was moving very slowly down the crowded Main St. The crowds
were overflowing into the street at some points. Greer actually opened the
car door part way to force the people back.

> What am I saying? The witness details are part of a sort of kaleidoscope,
> and where that kaleidoscope stops determines what happened, or might have
> happened. But the kaleidoscope never seems to stop....
>

There is no kaleidoscope. We can take what witnesses say and use other
evidence to confirm or refute what they have said. I believe most/all
witnesses told us what they remembered to the best of their ability but
most people don't have the ability to remember details perfectly so we
have look at each part of these witness statements to determine if they
are accurate. In some cases they are, in some they are not, and in some we
can't determine for certain it they are right or wrong.

[Greg Parker]

Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they
had?

It wasn't made "well in advance" but even Wade initially claimed it had to
have been planned weeks or months in advance. That of course was prior to
the requested switch to a LN scenario.

Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick
that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the
African-American workers instead. But Oswald didn't phone in sick, nor
were his actions controlled. He was deliberately allowed to leave by Truly
and then reported missing. Once DPD got a sniff of Oswald's ties to the
Soviet Union, the plotters knew they could rely in the them to do whatever
it took to nail him.

If the Darnell or Weigman films had been immediately available. If they
had not been blurry and clearly showed Oswald on the steps, and the films
were shown on TV before they could be suppressed, Oswald is released and
they frame someone else from that building. Or claim Oswald was a lookout
and the shooter escaped. A conspiracy of two losers instead of one.

DVP's ploy is no different to many others... always pretending there are
only two choices in any question - and only he/they get to say what those
choices are. Here, it is either one patsy in a massive conspiracy, or one
lone nut.

It's a false dichotomy and it's about time some of you started trying to
win your arguments without relying on such cheap tactics. It is not any
way to find the truth. You ARE interested in the truth, aren't you?

Imagine if all law enforcement agencies only ever considered two
diametrically opposite scenarios? Wouldn't that be a joke? Of course it
would. Just like DVP's posts are a joke when they rely on this method.

[Greg Parker]

You forgot this:

Mr. BALL. Where were you when you ate your lunch?
Mr. NORMAN. In the domino room, as I recall.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you at that time?
Mr. NORMAN. I can't remember who ate in the lunchroom, I mean the domino
room, with me.
Mr. BALL. Did some other employees eat there?
Mr. NORMAN. I think there was someone else in there because we usually
played dominoes in there but that particular day we didn't play that
morning.


A non-domino player in there? Who could that be?

No questions from Ball if the man was black or white? No description asked
for? Do you think these questions would not have been asked by a defense
lawyer in court? Was it to avoid defense questions like these ot could not
go to court... and why Marguerite's request to have her son represented in
the hearings was denied?

We know the whereabouts of every laborer during this time. Piper and
Dougherty ate together. Lovelady and Frazier went outside. Jarman ate
pacing the first floor, West ate at his table. Givens left the building as
did Arce, Williams and the all the others.

Who does that leave?

And Who did Oswald name as having lunch at the same time as him?

[Greg Parker]

On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 12:12:40 PM UTC+11, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>
> How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If
> he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth with
> Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.
>
> In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must
> be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time
> of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at
> the time.

You know that is not the way police frame anyone, Steve. They kept him
away from legal counsel, hammered him with questions, lied to him,
presented false evidence to him, took his palm-print just prior to doing
the paraffin test, ensuring a positive result on the hands, intimidated
witnesses, allowed witnesses to view line-ups together, had older, better
dressed police personnel in line-ups and on and on.

If the cops and FBI were so cocksure they had the case cinched, why was
Lovelady saying everyone was so relieved when he ID'd himself in the
Altgen's frame? Could it be because Oswald was telling them in the
interrogations that he was out on the steps?

I will say again for the umpteenth time - they didn't care where Oswald
was or what he did. He was "frameable" so long as he turned up for work
and was not clearly shown in any films to be elsewhere. If he didn't turn
up, or left to go to lunch somewhere else, they frame someone else in the
building. No shortage of potential there.

The most important thing was to break him and get a confession (as they
did with numerous innocent people before and after Oswald). When that
failed, he was executed without trial.

> So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?
>
> We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that
> they pulled it off. No details are needed.
>
> And so it goes.

What don't you understand about police frames that needs explaining?

Were you even aware that the cops took palm prints with invisible ink pads
in Fritz's office with way for Oswald to remove the iron nitrates prior to
the paraffin tests.... which look for such nitrates as "proof" of firing a
weapon?

And how lucky was it that the palm prints were taken just prior to day
"finding" one on the rifle that the FBI would deny they could see?

The case is getting so bad for your fellow LNer's, some are jumping ship
and going for limited hangouts.

Hickey did it? LOL

[donald willis]

Okay, for you, there's no kaleidoscope.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/17/2019 1:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:55:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
>>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
>>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
>>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
>>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
>>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>>>
>>
>> So what if Junior and Harold saw Oswald in the Domino Room, they could
>> be paid to say they never saw him?
>>
>> Two colleagues, James Jarman and Harold Norman, place him there no
>> more than seven minutes before the shooting.
>>
>
> Nonsense. See below. Both saw him earlier in the morning. Not during
> lunch.
>

They may and seen him and did not want to give him an alibi.
Are you saying that no one saw Oswald?

>> That's cutting it a little close to get up to the sixth floor, retrieve
>> the rifle and build the sniper's nest. If the motorcade had been on
>> time, the limo would already have passed the TSBD while Oswald was in
>> the Domino Room and saw Junior and Harold walking in.
>>
>
> From Jarman's WC testimony:
>
> Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Oswald that morning?
> Mr. JARMAN - I did.
> Mr. BALL - When?
> Mr. JARMAN - I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly what time
> it was.
> Mr. BALL - Oh, approximately. Nine, ten?
> Mr. JARMAN - It was around, it was between eight and nine, I would say.
> Mr. BALL - Between 8 and 9?
> Mr. JARMAN - Between 5 minutes after 8 and 9.

Gee, that makes a lot of sense. NOT!

Sometime in the morning has nothing to do with the time of the
assassination.

[David Von Pein]

GREG PARKER SAID:

Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they
had?

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

So you think your made-up conspirators (aka: the unknown/unseen "they")
actually had MULTIPLE "patsies" lined up to be framed for the murders of
both JFK and Officer Tippit on 11/22/63?

Such a "Multi-Patsy" scenario, of course, would have made it DOUBLY (or
triply?) difficult for the patsy-framers that day. Keeping just ONE guy
where they needed him to be in order for him to be conveniently framed
would be a hard enough chore. But you're now suggesting that the
make-believe "they" had more than one such patsy ready to go on November
22. (That's hilarity at its finest, Greg.)

Care to go out on a limb and tell us WHO the second patsy was supposed to
be on 11/22? And was there a third one waiting in the wings on "stand by"
status as well?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Framing+Multiple+Patsies

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/was-all-of-this-evidence-planted.html

[David Von Pein]

GREG PARKER SAID:

Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick
that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the
African-American workers instead.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Greg. And the DPD could have also called up "Patsies For All
Occasions, Inc." (located on Commerce Street in downtown Dallas) and
ordered two or three more back-up patsies (just in case Wesley Frazier,
Joe Molina, or one of the African-American TSBD workers didn't work out as
the #2 patsy behind Oswald).

In other words, according to Greg Parker, it seems that all the Dallas
Police Department had to do was snap their collective fingers
and---Voila!---a patsy is born! Nothing to it at all. It's as simple as
moving bishops and pawns around a chess board. Right, Greg?

And let me ask this----

If Depository employee Joe Molina *had* been utilized as a "back-up patsy"
by the DPD (or FBI or Secret Service or whoever), just exactly how do you
think that frame-up would have been accomplished on 11/22/63? Would they
have (somehow) quickly created a new set of fake documents to show that it
was really Molina, instead of Lee Oswald, who owned the C2766 Carcano
rifle (which is the rifle that all reasonable people *know* killed
President Kennedy)? Or would "they" have framed Molina using a different
weapon entirely?

And how on Earth could the DPD have possibly "framed" Joe Molina for the
murder of J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street? Would the crooked cops have been
able to get Ted Callaway and Helen Markham and Barbara Davis and Virginia
Davis and all of the other "I Saw Oswald" witnesses to somehow say they
saw Joe R. Molina instead?!

In other words, how could all of that "OSWALD KILLED JFK & TIPPIT"
evidence that we currently have piled up against the door in this case
somehow get turned into "MOLINA KILLED JFK & TIPPIT" evidence?

And just SAYING it could easily be done isn't going to cut it.

Talk is mighty cheap. But most conspiracy theorists seem to thrive on such
inexpensive chatter.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1314.html

[bigdog]

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 9:02:00 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 12:13:11 PM UTC+11, BOZ wrote:
> > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>
> Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they
> had?
>
> It wasn't made "well in advance" but even Wade initially claimed it had to
> have been planned weeks or months in advance. That of course was prior to
> the requested switch to a LN scenario.
>
> Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick
> that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the
> African-American workers instead. But Oswald didn't phone in sick, nor
> were his actions controlled. He was deliberately allowed to leave by Truly
> and then reported missing. Once DPD got a sniff of Oswald's ties to the
> Soviet Union, the plotters knew they could rely in the them to do whatever
> it took to nail him.
>

They would have to have a guy without an alibi. How did they know they
would have such a guy? How would they know the alternate patsy would bring
a package in to work? Would the alternate patsy have a paper trail tying
him to the rifle found on the 6th floor? Did you think through the
ramifications of having an alternate patsy?

> If the Darnell or Weigman films had been immediately available. If they
> had not been blurry and clearly showed Oswald on the steps, and the films
> were shown on TV before they could be suppressed, Oswald is released and
> they frame someone else from that building. Or claim Oswald was a lookout
> and the shooter escaped. A conspiracy of two losers instead of one.
>
> DVP's ploy is no different to many others... always pretending there are
> only two choices in any question - and only he/they get to say what those
> choices are. Here, it is either one patsy in a massive conspiracy, or one
> lone nut.
>

There is only one choice that makes sense and is supported by evidence.
Oswald did it. If you free yourself from the bonds of evidence, you can
construct just about any scenario you like.

> It's a false dichotomy and it's about time some of you started trying to
> win your arguments without relying on such cheap tactics. It is not any
> way to find the truth. You ARE interested in the truth, aren't you?
>

It is time conspiracy hobbyists actually started providing evidence for
their beliefs. It's only been 55 years. So far the only credible evidence
points to Oswald alone.

> Imagine if all law enforcement agencies only ever considered two
> diametrically opposite scenarios? Wouldn't that be a joke? Of course it
> would. Just like DVP's posts are a joke when they rely on this method.

All JFK conspiracy theories are imaginary. There's no evidence to support
them.

Of course you have an opportunity to prove me wrong. Simply provide such
evidence. Specifically list the three best pieces of evidence that someone
other than Oswald took part in the crime.

1._______________________

2._______________________

3._______________________

Note I am not asking you for reasons why you don't believe the LN
scenario. I am asking for hard evidence that someone other than Oswald was
guilty.

[bigdog]

The claim was made that Norman and Jarman placed Oswald in the domino room
seven minutes before the assassination. The passages I provided refute
that. Both said they saw Oswald in the domino room earlier that morning
and both said they didn't see him again after that.

>
> A non-domino player in there? Who could that be?
>
> No questions from Ball if the man was black or white? No description asked
> for? Do you think these questions would not have been asked by a defense
> lawyer in court? Was it to avoid defense questions like these ot could not
> go to court... and why Marguerite's request to have her son represented in
> the hearings was denied?
>

What difference does it make who else might have been in the domino room?
It wasn't Oswald and therefore there is no alibi for Oswald being
elsewhere just before the shooting.

> We know the whereabouts of every laborer during this time. Piper and
> Dougherty ate together. Lovelady and Frazier went outside. Jarman ate
> pacing the first floor, West ate at his table. Givens left the building as
> did Arce, Williams and the all the others.
>
> Who does that leave?
>
> And Who did Oswald name as having lunch at the same time as him?

Two guys who both denied seeing him during the noon hour.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 9:10:10 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 12:12:40 PM UTC+11, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
> >
> > How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If
> > he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth with
> > Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.
> >
> > In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must
> > be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time
> > of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at
> > the time.
>
> You know that is not the way police frame anyone, Steve. They kept him
> away from legal counsel,

Not true. The president of the Dallas bar association offered to find
legal counsel for Oswald but the offer was refused. That was done even
though this pre-dated the Miranda ruling which required that suspects be
offered legal counsel during questioning.

> hammered him with questions, lied to him,

Such as?

> presented false evidence to him,

Such as?

took his palm-print just prior to doing
> the paraffin test, ensuring a positive result on the hands,

His palm print was taken at the funeral home after he was killed.

> intimidated
> witnesses, allowed witnesses to view line-ups together, had older, better
> dressed police personnel in line-ups and on and on.
>

You seem to have bought into all the popular myths.

> If the cops and FBI were so cocksure they had the case cinched, why was
> Lovelady saying everyone was so relieved when he ID'd himself in the
> Altgen's frame? Could it be because Oswald was telling them in the
> interrogations that he was out on the steps?
>

I would have been significant if it was Oswald in the Altgens photo but
because it was not, it became moot.

> I will say again for the umpteenth time - they didn't care where Oswald
> was or what he did. He was "frameable" so long as he turned up for work
> and was not clearly shown in any films to be elsewhere. If he didn't turn
> up, or left to go to lunch somewhere else, they frame someone else in the
> building. No shortage of potential there.
>

Only one employee owned the rifle found in the TSBD and which fired the
recovered shells and bullets.

> The most important thing was to break him and get a confession (as they
> did with numerous innocent people before and after Oswald). When that
> failed, he was executed without trial.
>

He was murdered. It was not an execution.

>
> > So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?
> >
> > We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that
> > they pulled it off. No details are needed.
> >
> > And so it goes.
>
> What don't you understand about police frames that needs explaining?
>
> Were you even aware that the cops took palm prints with invisible ink pads
> in Fritz's office with way for Oswald to remove the iron nitrates prior to
> the paraffin tests.... which look for such nitrates as "proof" of firing a
> weapon?
>

Now that's a new one. Invisible ink pads. Where do you guys get this
stuff?

> And how lucky was it that the palm prints were taken just prior to day
> "finding" one on the rifle that the FBI would deny they could see?
>

They weren't. They didn't have a palm print for Oswald. They needed a
sample to compare to the palm print on the rifle so they went to the
funeral home to obtain one.

> The case is getting so bad for your fellow LNer's, some are jumping ship
> and going for limited hangouts.
>
> Hickey did it? LOL

The Hickey-did-it theory has been around a long time and is as silly as
anything the conspiracy hobbyists have dreamed up. It too is not supported
by any credible evidence. Most LNs still hold to the explanation given by
the WC in 1964. It has stood the test of time without any revisions
necessary.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:

> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>

How did the conspirators know that Dreyfus wouldn't discover their plot
and destroy it? Why do you think they call it Intelligence?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/17/2019 9:10 PM, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 12:12:40 PM UTC+11, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
>>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
>>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
>>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
>>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
>>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>>
>> How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If
>> he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth with
>> Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.
>>
>> In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must
>> be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time
>> of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at
>> the time.
>
> You know that is not the way police frame anyone, Steve. They kept him
> away from legal counsel, hammered him with questions, lied to him,
> presented false evidence to him, took his palm-print just prior to doing
> the paraffin test, ensuring a positive result on the hands, intimidated
> witnesses, allowed witnesses to view line-ups together, had older, better
> dressed police personnel in line-ups and on and on.
>

Some of that is true, but don't go too far. The DPD did not know to frame
Oswald BEFORE the shooting. And the DPD was not that smart. They had
failed to identify the Walker bullet. The paraffin test only indicated
that Oswald had fired his revolver and they had enough witnesses and
physical evidence for the Tippit shooting.

> If the cops and FBI were so cocksure they had the case cinched, why was
> Lovelady saying everyone was so relieved when he ID'd himself in the
> Altgen's frame? Could it be because Oswald was telling them in the
> interrogations that he was out on the steps?
>

No, that was physically impossible. Looking like is not the same as
being the same.

> I will say again for the umpteenth time - they didn't care where Oswald
> was or what he did. He was "frameable" so long as he turned up for work

It would even work if he didn't show up for work.
The real shooter sneaks in and kills Kennedy and when they look for
Oswald they find that he had killed himself by shooting himself in the
back of the head 2 times and then jumping into a lake.

> and was not clearly shown in any films to be elsewhere. If he didn't turn
> up, or left to go to lunch somewhere else, they frame someone else in the
> building. No shortage of potential there.
>
> The most important thing was to break him and get a confession (as they
> did with numerous innocent people before and after Oswald). When that
> failed, he was executed without trial.
>

That was their usual pattern. That is why the press wanted to SEE Oswald
at the midnight press conference. To make sure that the DPD wasn't beating
a confession out of him before they helped him commit suicide. Fritz
already had a confession typed up and told Buell Frazier to sign it.

[Anthony Marsh]

A Southern boy qho refuses to play Dominoes in Texas? Sounds like a dirty
Communist to me. Did Oswald know how to play anything?

> No questions from Ball if the man was black or white? No description asked
> for? Do you think these questions would not have been asked by a defense
> lawyer in court? Was it to avoid defense questions like these ot could not
> go to court... and why Marguerite's request to have her son represented in
> the hearings was denied?
>

No legal standing.
They sent in the President of the local bar to ask Oswald if he wanted a
lawyer, but Oswald said he didn't want any local lawyer.

> We know the whereabouts of every laborer during this time. Piper and

No, we don't. Where was Givens? The police put out an APB on GIVENS.

> Dougherty ate together. Lovelady and Frazier went outside. Jarman ate
> pacing the first floor, West ate at his table. Givens left the building as
> did Arce, Williams and the all the others.
>

WHO ate the chickens up on the fifth and sixth floor?

> Who does that leave?
>

Lots of people.

> And Who did Oswald name as having lunch at the same time as him?
>
>

I don't think he said lunch, just that he saw them walk by.

>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/17/2019 9:01 PM, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 12:13:11 PM UTC+11, BOZ wrote:
>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>
> Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they
> had?
>

The one and only guy they had arrested. But they were going to charge
him with being part of an "International Communist Conspiracy." The
local police did not have the authority to go arrest people in another
country.

> It wasn't made "well in advance" but even Wade initially claimed it had to
> have been planned weeks or months in advance. That of course was prior to
> the requested switch to a LN scenario.
>

No, they have teams ready to go on a moment's notice.

> Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick

They had to frame a radical to make sure the motive would be from the left.

> that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the
> African-American workers instead. But Oswald didn't phone in sick, nor

Point of order. Does he HAVE to call in sick?
Could Marina call in for him?

> were his actions controlled. He was deliberately allowed to leave by Truly

Truly vouched for him.

> and then reported missing. Once DPD got a sniff of Oswald's ties to the
> Soviet Union, the plotters knew they could rely in the them to do whatever
> it took to nail him.

Well, they got it directly from Oswald.

>
> If the Darnell or Weigman films had been immediately available. If they
> had not been blurry and clearly showed Oswald on the steps, and the films
> were shown on TV before they could be suppressed, Oswald is released and
> they frame someone else from that building. Or claim Oswald was a lookout
> and the shooter escaped. A conspiracy of two losers instead of one.
>

No, they don't. You don't have a Prayer man with that theory.

> DVP's ploy is no different to many others... always pretending there are
> only two choices in any question - and only he/they get to say what those
> choices are. Here, it is either one patsy in a massive conspiracy, or one
> lone nut.
>

Who said massive? That is the typical strawman argument.
It only takes 2 shooters and 2 backup men.

> It's a false dichotomy and it's about time some of you started trying to
> win your arguments without relying on such cheap tactics. It is not any
> way to find the truth. You ARE interested in the truth, aren't you?
>

Are you in the right newsgroup? This is the cover-up newsgroup led by
the WC defenders who lie about everything.

> Imagine if all law enforcement agencies only ever considered two
> diametrically opposite scenarios? Wouldn't that be a joke? Of course it
> would. Just like DVP's posts are a joke when they rely on this method.
>
>
>

There is a lot of straw where he lives.

[Greg Parker]

You once again demonstrate that the only way you can debate is by putting
words in the mouths of others and "debating" what you wish they had said.

Let me spell it out for you. The frame was so shoddy, it could have had
only limited pre-planning, if any at all. If there was any "patsy"
pre-planning, it was in having potential patsies in other parts of the
motorcade. Russell McLarry might be one example.

If they had to rely on framing someone inside the TSBD and they were
unable to use Oswald for whatever reason, I suspect that the next in line
was probably Givens.

The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do
what they do best - make (up) a case against their suspect.

Your desperation in trying to twist this into a complicated multi-level
conspiracy involving a cast of thousands won't work with me friend.

It was your garden variety DPD frame which just happen to be applied in
the biggest case of the 20th century.

[Greg Parker]

There you go, off and running and debating your own strawmen. Right on
cue.

How on Earth how on Earth How on Earth... yikes but your're a broken
record full of one one-liners ready to trot out for all occasions.

Here you assume I believe the conspiracy BS that Tippit was killed as part
of the plot. Banish that from your head and argue about what I actually
say... not what OTHERS say.

The so-called Tippit time-line which is used to "show" him running around
like a headless chicken looking for someone, is every bit as false as the
BS that Oswald shot either man. Get a grip. Learn to read. Learn to focus
and reply only to what is said and we'll get along just fine.

[donald willis]

Yes. Markham, Davis & Davis did not see Oswald anyway.

[donald willis]

bigdog was apparently there and DID see who Norman saw. Who was it, bd??

[Greg Parker]

He claims he told Oswald that he could get any attorney he wanted and the
DPD would assist with it. A lie.

> > presented false evidence to him,
>
> Such as?

The Hidell ID that suddenly appeared on Saturday and that no arresting
officer mentioned him having in initial written reports as being in his
wallet as claimed when arrested.

> took his palm-print just prior to doing
> > the paraffin test, ensuring a positive result on the hands,
>
> His palm print was taken at the funeral home after he was killed.

You seem to have brought into the CT myth about mysterious agents arriving
at the funeral home to surreptitiously obtain a palm print.

Why would they do that when Hicks and Barnes took 2 or 3 prints of his
right palm?

Mr. BARNES. I obtained palm prints from Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do this?
Mr. BARNES. Immediately before we made---no, immediately after, I am sorry,
immediately after we made the paraffin test.
Mr. BELIN. I would assume you did it afterwards?
Mr. BARNES. That is right. It was after we made the tests.

intimidated
> > witnesses, allowed witnesses to view line-ups together, had older, better
> > dressed police personnel in line-ups and on and on.
> >
>
> You seem to have bought into all the popular myths.

Myths? witnesses are on record as saying they were intimidated, including
government officials about the number of shots they heard through to Buell
Frazier who said Fritz was going to punch him if he did not sign a
confession. Witnesses testified that they viewed line-ups with other
witnesses. We know who was in the line-ups with Oswald and again,
witnesses testified that Oswald stood out from the others because of
clothing, age, height.

Myths!!! Jeezus H Krist, you lot are like Marina - just spout whatever
floats into yer liddle heads.

> > If the cops and FBI were so cocksure they had the case cinched, why was
> > Lovelady saying everyone was so relieved when he ID'd himself in the
> > Altgen's frame? Could it be because Oswald was telling them in the
> > interrogations that he was out on the steps?
> >
>
> I would have been significant if it was Oswald in the Altgens photo but
> because it was not, it became moot.

So why the relief described by Lovelady for something now moot... and that
they had already "proven" to their satisfaction, just couldn't be true?
Please explain. I'm sure it'll be fascinating.

> > I will say again for the umpteenth time - they didn't care where Oswald
> > was or what he did. He was "frameable" so long as he turned up for work
> > and was not clearly shown in any films to be elsewhere. If he didn't turn
> > up, or left to go to lunch somewhere else, they frame someone else in the
> > building. No shortage of potential there.
> >
>
> Only one employee owned the rifle found in the TSBD and which fired the
> recovered shells and bullets.

You cling to that lift raft buddy. It's full of holes, but if you paddle
hard enough, it may yet get you to shore!

> > The most important thing was to break him and get a confession (as they
> > did with numerous innocent people before and after Oswald). When that
> > failed, he was executed without trial.
> >
>
> He was murdered. It was not an execution.

Someone phoned the night before warning that Oswald would be shot during
the transfer. The person who took the call, Billy Grammer, recognized the
voice as that of Jack Ruby. Similar calls were taken by the FBI and
Sheriff's office. The caller also said the warning was partly to ensure
the safety of police. That too, fits with it being the cop-loving Ruby.
The call to the DPD was deep-sixed, but they could not deep-six the other
calls so they were forced to come up with a plan to ensure Oswald's safe
transfer. That plan was left to Fritz. We see the result live on TV
---Fritz moves forward a few yards ahead of the man he is supposed to be
protecting and who he knows has been threatened with execution during the
transfer --- with this resulting in Ruby getting a clear shot. In my
opinion, Ruby was making the phone calls hoping it would force such strict
transfer procedures that he could not carry out the shooting.

> >
> > > So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?
> > >
> > > We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that
> > > they pulled it off. No details are needed.
> > >
> > > And so it goes.
> >
> > What don't you understand about police frames that needs explaining?
> >
> > Were you even aware that the cops took palm prints with invisible ink pads
> > in Fritz's office with way for Oswald to remove the iron nitrates prior to
> > the paraffin tests.... which look for such nitrates as "proof" of firing a
> > weapon?
> >
>
> Now that's a new one. Invisible ink pads. Where do you guys get this
> stuff?
>
> > And how lucky was it that the palm prints were taken just prior to day
> > "finding" one on the rifle that the FBI would deny they could see?
> >
>
> They weren't. They didn't have a palm print for Oswald. They needed a
> sample to compare to the palm print on the rifle so they went to the
> funeral home to obtain one.

Hahahahaha!!!!! Too funny! A LNer falling a CT myth!

> > The case is getting so bad for your fellow LNer's, some are jumping ship
> > and going for limited hangouts.
> >
> > Hickey did it? LOL
>
> The Hickey-did-it theory has been around a long time and is as silly as
> anything the conspiracy hobbyists have dreamed up. It too is not supported
> by any credible evidence. Most LNs still hold to the explanation given by
> the WC in 1964. It has stood the test of time without any revisions
> necessary.

"Credible" evidence = evidence used in the framing like getting iron
nitrates on someone's hands during the process of getting palm prints
needed to claim one was found on the rifle AND so that the nitrates would
give a positive reading for the paraffin tests.

Yeah... very credible... as credible as the false confession tortured out
of by Fritz so that Wade could send him to electric chair.

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

Yes sir, you professional LNers (as opposed to us hobbyist CTs) sure know
which horse to back. Fritz - a man mountain of pure virtue and integrity.

[Greg Parker]

Then you should be able to name who it was since there is sufficient
information about the movements and whereabouts of everyone else.

While you're at it, you might also explain how Oswald knows the movements
of these two when he should be on the 6th floor setting up.

>
> > We know the whereabouts of every laborer during this time. Piper and
> > Dougherty ate together. Lovelady and Frazier went outside. Jarman ate
> > pacing the first floor, West ate at his table. Givens left the building as
> > did Arce, Williams and the all the others.
> >
> > Who does that leave?
> >
> > And Who did Oswald name as having lunch at the same time as him?
>
> Two guys who both denied seeing him during the noon hour.

LOL. Of course they did. They knew what was good for them.

[Greg Parker]

Oswald had an alibi. It was deep-sixed.

How would they know the alternate patsy would bring
> a package in to work? Would the alternate patsy have a paper trail tying
> him to the rifle found on the 6th floor? Did you think through the
> ramifications of having an alternate patsy?

Two witnesses to a package, Yu think the couldn't find two witnesses for someone else with a package? Hell, people have been crispy fried on the say so of a single witness.

> > If the Darnell or Weigman films had been immediately available. If they
> > had not been blurry and clearly showed Oswald on the steps, and the films
> > were shown on TV before they could be suppressed, Oswald is released and
> > they frame someone else from that building. Or claim Oswald was a lookout
> > and the shooter escaped. A conspiracy of two losers instead of one.
> >
> > DVP's ploy is no different to many others... always pretending there are
> > only two choices in any question - and only he/they get to say what those
> > choices are. Here, it is either one patsy in a massive conspiracy, or one
> > lone nut.
> >
>
> There is only one choice that makes sense and is supported by evidence.
> Oswald did it. If you free yourself from the bonds of evidence, you can
> construct just about any scenario you like.
>
> > It's a false dichotomy and it's about time some of you started trying to
> > win your arguments without relying on such cheap tactics. It is not any
> > way to find the truth. You ARE interested in the truth, aren't you?
> >
>
> It is time conspiracy hobbyists actually started providing evidence for
> their beliefs. It's only been 55 years. So far the only credible evidence
> points to Oswald alone.

It's about time the LN pros start reading up on Innocence Project cases
and and in particular, those that have come out of Dallas County.

As for evidence... Hosty's newly found notes. Now you poo poo that
evidence and go back to pretending it doesn't exist. As you do eith every
new bit of evidence.

If you guys are not getting paid, you should be. For the pros you are.

>
> > Imagine if all law enforcement agencies only ever considered two
> > diametrically opposite scenarios? Wouldn't that be a joke? Of course it
> > would. Just like DVP's posts are a joke when they rely on this method.
>
> All JFK conspiracy theories are imaginary. There's no evidence to support
> them.

LOL You're the one teetering in Lala land. Please tell me all about the
conspiracy theory I have been putting forward.

I have been picking apart the police case. That you can't tell the
difference between that, and a "conspiracy theory" shows what a "pro" you
are.

> Of course you have an opportunity to prove me wrong. Simply provide such
> evidence. Specifically list the three best pieces of evidence that someone
> other than Oswald took part in the crime.
>
> 1._______________________
>
> 2._______________________
>
> 3._______________________
>
> Note I am not asking you for reasons why you don't believe the LN
> scenario. I am asking for hard evidence that someone other than Oswald was
> guilty.

Din't know, don't care. That's for the Justice System to work out. My
focus is showing who DIDN'T do it, not who did. I know that makes life
difficult for you, to the point where you need to invent conspiracies to
knock down... but oh well. That's life.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

As I've said before, it seems the general conspiracist view is that "they"
can do nearly anything. Frame anyone they wanted, plant any evidence they
wanted; anything. No limits at all. Yet some also say it was a "small
conspiracy." I don't understand their thinking at all.

Whenever we ask for logistics or details on how they pulled this off -
like how did they know Oswald was even in the building and alone at the
time JFK passed in front of it, i.e., he could be framed - we get the
"they just did." Yes, but how, please?

Even if he wasn't, "they" would just coerce witnesses who were with him to
lie and say they weren't with him. Or "they" would just frame Molina or
Norman or someone else.

And "they" would be confident that everyone would go along with this
BEFORE they pulled this off; and then suppress this afterwards for half a
century or more. So it's not only a coup but one kept secret for decades
later.

Sorry, that is just not possible at all. But the conspiracist response is,
"Yes it is because they did it."

Round and round we go.."ignorant armies clash by night."

[Anthony Marsh]

Either they lied or they were wrong. Same difference.

>
>>
>> A non-domino player in there? Who could that be?
>>
>> No questions from Ball if the man was black or white? No description asked
>> for? Do you think these questions would not have been asked by a defense
>> lawyer in court? Was it to avoid defense questions like these ot could not
>> go to court... and why Marguerite's request to have her son represented in
>> the hearings was denied?
>>
>
> What difference does it make who else might have been in the domino room?
> It wasn't Oswald and therefore there is no alibi for Oswald being
> elsewhere just before the shooting.
>
>> We know the whereabouts of every laborer during this time. Piper and
>> Dougherty ate together. Lovelady and Frazier went outside. Jarman ate
>> pacing the first floor, West ate at his table. Givens left the building as
>> did Arce, Williams and the all the others.
>>
>> Who does that leave?
>>
>> And Who did Oswald name as having lunch at the same time as him?
>
> Two guys who both denied seeing him during the noon hour.
>
>

So what. Not seeing him is not proof that he didn't exist.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/18/2019 8:57 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> GREG PARKER SAID:
>
> Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they
> had?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> So you think your made-up conspirators (aka: the unknown/unseen "they")
> actually had MULTIPLE "patsies" lined up to be framed for the murders of
> both JFK and Officer Tippit on 11/22/63?
>
> Such a "Multi-Patsy" scenario, of course, would have made it DOUBLY (or
> triply?) difficult for the patsy-framers that day. Keeping just ONE guy
> where they needed him to be in order for him to be conveniently framed
> would be a hard enough chore. But you're now suggesting that the
> make-believe "they" had more than one such patsy ready to go on November
> 22. (That's hilarity at its finest, Greg.)
>
> Care to go out on a limb and tell us WHO the second patsy was supposed to
> be on 11/22? And was there a third one waiting in the wings on "stand by"
> status as well?
>

Ridiculous. Do you know the names of all the assassins that the CIA has
ever used and who is still on call and ready?

You ask for insider information that most people would not even know
about.

[Anthony Marsh]

No one planned to murder Tippit. That was jusst Oswald's paranoia.
The theory was only about killing Kennedy.
If they couldn't get Oswald they would use someone else elsewhere.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/18/2019 11:49 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 9:02:00 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
>> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 12:13:11 PM UTC+11, BOZ wrote:
>>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
>>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
>>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
>>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
>>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
>>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>>
>> Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they
>> had?
>>
>> It wasn't made "well in advance" but even Wade initially claimed it had to
>> have been planned weeks or months in advance. That of course was prior to
>> the requested switch to a LN scenario.
>>
>> Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick
>> that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the
>> African-American workers instead. But Oswald didn't phone in sick, nor
>> were his actions controlled. He was deliberately allowed to leave by Truly
>> and then reported missing. Once DPD got a sniff of Oswald's ties to the
>> Soviet Union, the plotters knew they could rely in the them to do whatever
>> it took to nail him.
>>
>
> They would have to have a guy without an alibi. How did they know they

If they were good enough to have several assassins on call, they would be
smart enough to arrange for multiple shooter, they would be smart enough
to control them.

> would have such a guy? How would they know the alternate patsy would bring
> a package in to work? Would the alternate patsy have a paper trail tying
> him to the rifle found on the 6th floor? Did you think through the
> ramifications of having an alternate patsy?

Np need fot the shooter to be seen bring in the package.

[Mark]

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 10:09:23 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/17/2019 9:01 PM, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 12:13:11 PM UTC+11, BOZ wrote:
> >> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> >> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> >> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> >> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> >> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> >> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> >>
> >> DAVID VON PEIN
> >>
> >> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
> >
> > Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they
> > had?
> >
>
> The one and only guy they had arrested. But they were going to charge
> him with being part of an "International Communist Conspiracy." The
> local police did not have the authority to go arrest people in another
> country.
>
> > It wasn't made "well in advance" but even Wade initially claimed it had to
> > have been planned weeks or months in advance. That of course was prior to
> > the requested switch to a LN scenario.
> >
>
> No, they have teams ready to go on a moment's notice.
>
> > Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick
>
> They had to frame a radical to make sure the motive would be from the
> left.
>

There it is. Tony you're one of many left-wing CTs who cannot allow
yourself to believe left-winger Oswald killed JFK. He has to be a patsy to
take the fall for the Left. Evidence has nothing to do with it, it's
politics.

Of course to believe so you have to re-frame a cautious, thoughtful,
moderate-liberal president into a Marsh-like extremist. It'll never work.
Standing in your way are the historical facts of Kennedy's political life.

The Kennedys had tried to take out Castro, and a mean, mentally-disheveled
Marxist--on his own--retaliated on behalf of his hero. And made his
delusions of grandeur come true: He was going down in history. Mark

[David Von Pein]

> Markham, Davis & Davis did not see Oswald anyway.

Who did they see then, Donald?

[David Von Pein]

So, then, you agree with me that Oswald killed Tippit?

(I'd be astonished if Greg's answer is "Yes" to the above inquiry.)

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, like I said before, you think the cops could (and would!) just snap
their fingers and come up with an instant patsy on a moment's notice.

You don't even seem to realize how silly and utterly ridiculous this
statement of yours is....

[donald willis]

Oswald's knowing this, and the supposed movements of N&J are found only, I
believe, in the unrecorded O interviews. Do we trust Fritz, Kelley, &
Bookhout? Bookhout, whose solo report on the first interview diverges
wildly from the report he co-signed with Hosty? Fritz, who could neither
confirm nor deny that he picked up the hulls in the depository? Kelley?
Well--guilt by association....

dcw

[donald willis]

How newly? Newer than his book? Where could I find them (if they're not
in the book)?

dcw

[donald willis]

Okay, okay, I will say, O was most probably either a shooter or with a
shooter, upstairs. I based my former belief that O was downstairs when
N&J entered from the back & went up... based it on Bookhout's reports on
the O interviews. Now I trust that O was probably a shooter, but I
mistrust all the O interview reports, except the first with Hosty....
Bookhout & co. were misleading EVERYONE....

dcw

[donald willis]

'bout time we got a little Literature around here.

Seriously, that was one of the cooler poems we were directed to in English
Lit....

[donald willis]

They saw the man with Tippit's revolver, either Scoggins or Callaway.

[Bud]

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 9:02:00 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 12:13:11 PM UTC+11, BOZ wrote:
> > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>

> Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they
> had?

You can imagine there were as many as you like. You can`t show even one.

> It wasn't made "well in advance" but even Wade initially claimed it had to
> have been planned weeks or months in advance.

What did Wade base this on? If Wade said something that implicated
Oswald you would demand to know what he based it on, if it something you
like the sound of you don`t question it.

> That of course was prior to
> the requested switch to a LN scenario.
>

> Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick
> that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the
> African-American workers instead.

Of course, "they" can do anything at any time. Teams ready to sneak into
Frazier house (with his sister home), steal his rifle and plant it on the
6th floor of his work. A bag to hold the rifle with Frazier`s fingerprints
on it. A witness to say they saw Frazier go into work with a long package.
Not one of these contingency plans, but many. Teams everywhere to do
everything you imagine, and then you will of course claim it was a small
conspiracy with a handful of operatives. Yet operatives everywhere, ready
to confiscate film and spent bullets, and plant evidence at a moments
notice. An operative with a golf bag full of rifles at the ready to frame
any number of people.

> But Oswald didn't phone in sick, nor
> were his actions controlled. He was deliberately allowed to leave by Truly
> and then reported missing. Once DPD got a sniff of Oswald's ties to the
> Soviet Union, the plotters knew they could rely in the them to do whatever
> it took to nail him.

It must be this way, because this is what your fantastic ideas require.
If your ideas require them to know something that was unknowable, they
did.

> If the Darnell or Weigman films had been immediately available. If they
> had not been blurry and clearly showed Oswald on the steps, and the films
> were shown on TV before they could be suppressed, Oswald is released and
> they frame someone else from that building. Or claim Oswald was a lookout
> and the shooter escaped. A conspiracy of two losers instead of one.

This is a favorite hobby of conspiracy advocates, reverse engineering
events to what is known after the fact. A lot harder to do beforehand.
What if they do through the framing of Oswald and a week or two later some
exonerating evidence shows up, after they went "all in" with the BY photo
and framing him for Tippit?

> DVP's ploy is no different to many others... always pretending there are
> only two choices in any question - and only he/they get to say what those
> choices are. Here, it is either one patsy in a massive conspiracy, or one
> lone nut.

You are advancing the idea of a patsy framed by a massive conspiracy.

> It's a false dichotomy and it's about time some of you started trying to
> win your arguments without relying on such cheap tactics. It is not any
> way to find the truth. You ARE interested in the truth, aren't you?

Not much interested in tales forged through fantasy and imagination.

> Imagine if all law enforcement agencies only ever considered two
> diametrically opposite scenarios?

They worked forward from the available information, just like what
happened in this case. They don`t sit around for decades trying to figure
out how there can be all this information indicating a person`s guilt, and
that person somehow be innocent of the crime.

[Bud]

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 9:08:38 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 4:54:00 AM UTC+11, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:55:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > > On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:
> > > > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > > > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > > > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > > > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > > > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > > > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN
> > > >
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
> > > >
> > >

> A non-domino player in there? Who could that be?
>
> No questions from Ball if the man was black or white?

It seems Norman had only a vague impression of someone being there.

> No description asked
> for?

He doesn`t seem positive there was even someone there.

> Do you think these questions would not have been asked by a defense
> lawyer in court?

You assume all unknown information would be helpful to Oswald`s case.
You do this because the known information is so unhelpful to Oswald`s
case.

> Was it to avoid defense questions like these ot could not
> go to court... and why Marguerite's request to have her son represented in
> the hearings was denied?

Because he was dead, and wasn`t being tried for murder.

I assume Oswald would have pled guilty had it went to trail, so any
representation would not follow his wishes anyway.

> We know the whereabouts of every laborer during this time. Piper and
> Dougherty ate together.

News to me.

In Dougherty`s testimony, he says he came down and wanted to go out front, but the steps were too crowed...

Mr. BALL - Did you know that the President was going to pass in a
motorcade that noon.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, they said something about it.
Mr. BALL - Did you intend to go out and watch him?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I would have loved to have went out and watched him
but the steps were so crowded---there was no way in the world I could get
out there.

Interestingly Jarman give the same reason for going around to the back
to enter the building...

Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; there was too many people standing on the stairway
so we decided to go around.
Mr. BALL - You went in the back door?

Since he couldn`t get out, he ate in the Domino room. But I don`t see
Doughery saying he ate with anyone. In his testimony he says he went back
up to work on the fifth floor after eating, heard a shot and came back
down down to the first floor, and *then* talked to Piper.

> Lovelady and Frazier went outside. Jarman ate
> pacing the first floor, West ate at his table. Givens left the building as
> did Arce, Williams and the all the others.
>
> Who does that leave?
>
> And Who did Oswald name as having lunch at the same time as him?

Some accounts have him saying he ate with the colored guys.

[Bud]

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 9:10:10 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 12:12:40 PM UTC+11, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:

> > On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > > being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > > assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > > apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > > around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > > planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
> >

> > How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If
> > he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth with
> > Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.
> >
> > In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must
> > be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time
> > of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at
> > the time.
>
> You know that is not the way police frame anyone, Steve.

It has never been done in the way conspiracy advocates say it was done
to Oswald.

> They kept him
> away from legal counsel,

They put a microphone in front of him and allowed him to say anything he
liked to the whole world. Is this how you frame someone?

> hammered him with questions,

Imagine that, questioning a murder suspect.

> lied to him,

How so?

Not that it is wrong to do so, they are under no obligation to be
perfectly honest with crime suspects.

> presented false evidence to him,

Such as?

And it isn`t wrong to do this, either. They will often claim that
someone`s partner in crime is ratting them out to get a suspect to come
clean.

> took his palm-print just prior to doing
> the paraffin test, ensuring a positive result on the hands,

How so?

> intimidated
> witnesses,

Show a witness who was made to give information to make Oswald look
guilty that the witness knew was false.

> allowed witnesses to view line-ups together,

Where there rules against this in 1960s Dallas?

> had older, better
> dressed police personnel in line-ups and on and on.

It wasn`t a fashion show, they were there to pick out the man they saw.

> If the cops and FBI were so cocksure they had the case cinched, why was
> Lovelady saying everyone was so relieved when he ID'd himself in the
> Altgen's frame?

Perhaps they knew that there was some people who were so desperate to
believe Oswald was innocent that they would cling to anything.

> Could it be because Oswald was telling them in the
> interrogations that he was out on the steps?

Where does it appear that Oswald said he was out on the steps?

> I will say again for the umpteenth time - they didn't care where Oswald

> was or what he did. He was "frameable" so long as he turned up for work
> and was not clearly shown in any films to be elsewhere.

Your ideas have many, many people betting their lives on it. Their
reputations. The disgrace of their families. They had everything you can
imagine riding on their ability to successfully pull this off.

> If he didn't turn
> up, or left to go to lunch somewhere else, they frame someone else in the
> building. No shortage of potential there.

Easy peasy. *They* can do anything your ideas require.

> The most important thing was to break him and get a confession (as they
> did with numerous innocent people before and after Oswald).

So even a confession would be good enough for you. Nor would I imagine a
photo of Oswald shooting. The bar is so high it isn`t even in sight.

But is it really reasonable to believe that all the indications of
Oswald`s guilt could exist and him be innocent?

> When that
> failed, he was executed without trial.

So was Tippit. So was Kennedy.

> > So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?
> >
> > We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that
> > they pulled it off. No details are needed.
> >
> > And so it goes.
>
> What don't you understand about police frames that needs explaining?

This is the OJ defense all over again. Make the cops the bad guys to
cover up the crimes of your obviously guilty client.

> Were you even aware that the cops took palm prints with invisible ink pads

How can they find them?

> in Fritz's office with way for Oswald to remove the iron nitrates prior to
> the paraffin tests.... which look for such nitrates as "proof" of firing a
> weapon?

Nitrates on the hands is not proof of firing a weapon.

> And how lucky was it that the palm prints were taken just prior to day
> "finding" one on the rifle that the FBI would deny they could see?

It was removed before they got the rifle.

And if they take prints from Oswald onto something, and then place them
from that something onto the rifle, wouldn`t the prints would be reversed
from what they would be if they were put on from Oswald`s contact with it?
Think of an old typewriter, the keys are reversed, but when they strike,
the image is not reversed. If you were able to transfer that image onto
something else, it would be reversed again.

And how lucky was it that the SN just happened to be covered in the
prints of the person they intended to frame for shooting from there.

> The case is getting so bad for your fellow LNer's, some are jumping ship
> and going for limited hangouts.
>
> Hickey did it? LOL

At least they get Oswald`s involvement correct. LOL

[Bud]

Someone not even in the building during the shooting?

Did Givens even own a rifle?

> The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do
> what they do best - make (up) a case against their suspect.

Your idea seems fantastic and unsupportable. The only thing it seems to
have going for it is that it is what your ideas require.

> Your desperation in trying to twist this into a complicated multi-level
> conspiracy involving a cast of thousands won't work with me friend.

By all means, list all the things you feel were done as part of a
concerted effort to frame Oswald. The first one hundred are on the house.

> It was your garden variety DPD frame which just happen to be applied in
> the biggest case of the 20th century.

To support this claim you would have to show a case where the DPD frames
someone in a way similar to how you suggest Oswald was framed. On your
mark, get set, fail.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 3/16/2019 5:37 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
>
> It's exactly my point with some of conspiracy advocates: when we challenge
> you for specifics we get handwaving and distractions.
>

As Gary Aguilar told me once: You cannot make up this shit.

Steve: You, of all people, talking about specifics, handwaving and
distractions?

Do you want SPECIFICS? How about going to the ONLY legitimate source,
the horse's mouth?

Since none of us is mind reader, has secret cameras, spies or hacks
private communications, we do not really know the specifics of the Kochs
and PBS deal, do we?

I mean, we can make educated, logical arguments, such as:

- Should the Koch brothers be concerned about the Kennedy case? Its
progress? After all, their signature was on the most advanced and viewed
scientific study.

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/PBS-Nova-Cold-Case-JFK-Sponsors.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzqP6QprDWo

So, it is fair to say that YES, they have reasons to be concerned about
the case.

Why, then, in 6 years (a long time in technology and to a minor extent
in Science) they haven't bothered to sponsors a more detailed study, with:

- Coverage of the full building.

- Positioning the shooter in the correct floor and window.

- Using the most advanced dronecopters in addition to the ground based
laser scanner.

- Just for completeness, if I worked for them my recommendation would
be: "The least we (the David Koch Fund for Science) should do is pay for
a permanent, 3D model that people can visit and evaluate themselves"

How is it that a poor slob, immigrant, with zero connections, geek, dirt
poor can do all that for America?

Again, the above are very pertinent questions, I am sure we unanimously
agree but the authoritative reply can only come from these:

https://www.pbs.org
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova
https://www.kochind.com

Heard of e-mail, Galbraith? I have their internal phone numbers as well.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
#FreeRamon'sPosts

[Anthony Marsh]

No, not the cops. The CIA. Look at how many assassins they had ready to
go at a moment's notice.

[Anthony Marsh]

But the Kennedys had not authorized any assassination plots against
Castro.

[19e...@mail.com]

On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>
> DAVID VON PEIN
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html

This actually is an excellent point by Herr Von Pein. If we are to
subscribe to the alternate Patsy idea, and we think that the Tippit murder
was part of the plan, then we have a yuuuge problem explaining how the
alternate patsy could be framed for the Tippit murder. The professional
schemers might be able to come up with something, but blaming Joe Molina
would be impossible. Perhaps there was a plan B for Tippit, too.

But if there was, I don't expect that it will show up in CIA documents, so
Von Pein forces us to blindly speculate, if we wish to defend the
alternate patsy idea. Once Oswald is arrested this is not a problem; he
can be blamed for Tippit, but if Oswald and Frazier had plunged into the
Trinity River on the morning drive, then what would the conspirators have
done? They might have had a plan B. Perhaps Tippit could have been shot at
the TSBD. Yes. Murray Jackson could have sent Tippit to Elm & Houston, and
Captain Fritz could have had him stationed on the 2nd floor, and Molina
and Tippit could have fatally shot each other out in the hall or
somewhere. The Lone Nutters would buy it. They'd believe anything the
Warren Commission told them.

But, I don't think there is a need for an alternate patsy to explain any
of the evidence. This was Plan Oswald. There is no point in speculating
about some other plan, something that didn't even happen. This is a Lone
Nutter ploy, to get you to speculate about things that didn't even happen.
They'd rather talk about that than what did happen. Anything but that!

[donald willis]

He must have worked awfully quietly--none of the 5th-floor witnesses
mentions hearing any noise on the floor with them. And neither Williams
nor Dougherty mentions hearing the other when Williams went down to the
5th floor from the 6th. Two ships passing quietly in the day....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

You erroneously ASSuME that Everyone had to be in on the conspiracy.

The DA's office was ready toc charge Oswald with conspiracy.
But Hoover bl.ocked them.

>> hammered him with questions,
>
> Imagine that, questioning a murder suspect.
>
>> lied to him,
>
> How so?
>
> Not that it is wrong to do so, they are under no obligation to be
> perfectly honest with crime suspects.
>
>> presented false evidence to him,
>
> Such as?
>
> And it isn`t wrong to do this, either. They will often claim that
> someone`s partner in crime is ratting them out to get a suspect to come
> clean.
>
>> took his palm-print just prior to doing
>> the paraffin test, ensuring a positive result on the hands,
>
> How so?
>

I think his idea is that nitrates wouls still be on his hads.
I don't agree with hit theory.

>> intimidated
>> witnesses,
>
> Show a witness who was made to give information to make Oswald look
> guilty that the witness knew was false.
>
>> allowed witnesses to view line-ups together,
>
> Where there rules against this in 1960s Dallas?
>

No, that;s the poitn,

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2019 12:29 PM, Bud wrote:

Using Oswald's rifle frames him.

[Mark]

Sure they didn't. Dream on. Mark

[Bud]

You ok, Tony?

[Anthony Marsh]

I advocared that a long time ago. Make sure that you try for accuracy
down to the wifth of a carbon atom.

[Anthony Marsh]

I dispute than anyone had to work on the 6th just before the shots. It
could have been all set up when they worked on the floors.

> mentions hearing any noise on the floor with them. And neither Williams
> nor Dougherty mentions hearing the other when Williams went down to the
> 5th floor from the 6th. Two ships passing quietly in the day....
>

How do those floors work?

Id doen't look like a person coming down is on the same stairs as a person
going up. It looks separate. There is a wall bwtween the one set of stairs
and the other. So someone coming down from an upper floor would not see
the person coming from the lower floor until they met at tht landing.


> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2019 9:18 PM, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>
> This actually is an excellent point by Herr Von Pein. If we are to
> subscribe to the alternate Patsy idea, and we think that the Tippit murder

NJ. Oswald would have fled the area wether he was s shooter or not.
He was alter by Baker confronting him with a drwawn gun. He had to get
away and find a safe place. If you were being framed for a murder would
you wait around to explain yourself to the cops?

> was part of the plan, then we have a yuuuge problem explaining how the
> alternate patsy could be framed for the Tippit murder. The professional

I reject that out of hand. Tippit was shot only because her stumbled on
Oswald.

> schemers might be able to come up with something, but blaming Joe Molina
> would be impossible. Perhaps there was a plan B for Tippit, too.
>
> But if there was, I don't expect that it will show up in CIA documents, so
Von Pein forces us to blindly speculate, if we wish to defend the

Not blind. Did you nkow that some document are copied and sent to other
banches and agencies?
Do you expect that the CIA laid out its entire plot in s mrmo?

> alternate patsy idea. Once Oswald is arrested this is not a problem; he
> can be blamed for Tippit, but if Oswald and Frazier had plunged into the
> Trinity River on the morning drive, then what would the conspirators have

Well Fritz had already typed up a confession from Frazier before Oswald
was killed.

> done? They might have had a plan B. Perhaps Tippit could have been shot at
> the TSBD. Yes. Murray Jackson could have sent Tippit to Elm & Houston, and
> Captain Fritz could have had him stationed on the 2nd floor, and Molina

Even in the most correup police force not ever officer is corrupt.
Rember Serpico?

> and Tippit could have fatally shot each other out in the hall or
> somewhere. The Lone Nutters would buy it. They'd believe anything the
> Warren Commission told them.
>

Well, not many were stupid enough to fall for the WC story.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/24/2019 10:00 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/22/2019 6:46 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> On 3/16/2019 5:37 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
>>>
>>> It's exactly my point with some of conspiracy advocates: when we
>>> challenge
>>> you for specifics we get handwaving and distractions.
>>>
>>
>> As Gary Aguilar told me once: You cannot make up this shit.
>>
>> Steve: You, of all people, talking about specifics, handwaving and
>> distractions?
>>
>> Do you want SPECIFICS? How about going to the ONLY legitimate source,
>> the horse's mouth?
>>
>> Since none of us is mind reader, has secret cameras, spies or hacks
>> private communications, we do not really know the specifics of the
>> Kochs and PBS deal, do we?
>>
>> I mean, we can make educated, logical arguments, such as:
>>

>> ????- Should the Koch brothers be concerned about the Kennedy case? Its

Yes. It is not ptogress.

What if we fnd that there was a conspiracy someone might look for the
conspirators. And that might lead back to the John Birch Society.
And THAT is the Koch family.

>> progress? After all, their signature was on the most advanced and
>> viewed scientific study.
>>
>> http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/PBS-Nova-Cold-Case-JFK-Sponsors.jpg
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzqP6QprDWo
>>
>> So, it is fair to say that YES, they have reasons to be concerned
>> about the case.
>>
>> Why, then, in 6 years (a long time in technology and to a minor extent
>> in Science) they haven't bothered to sponsors a more detailed study,
>> with:
>>

>> ????- Coverage of the full building.
>>
>> ????- Positioning the shooter in the correct floor and window.
>>
>> ????- Using the most advanced dronecopters in addition to the ground

>> based laser scanner.
>>
>
> I advocared that a long time ago. Make sure that you try for accuracy
> down to the wifth of a carbon atom.
>

>> ????- Just for completeness, if I worked for them my recommendation

[Anthony Marsh]

I have the files, you don't.

[Mark]

Sure you do. Dream on. Mark

[bigdog]

On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 8:50:43 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 3/17/2019 1:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:55:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> >> On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:
> >>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> >>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> >>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> >>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> >>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> >>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> >>>
> >>> DAVID VON PEIN
> >>>
> >>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
> >>>
> >>

> >> So what if Junior and Harold saw Oswald in the Domino Room, they could
> >> be paid to say they never saw him?
> >>
> >> Two colleagues, James Jarman and Harold Norman, place him there no
> >> more than seven minutes before the shooting.
> >>
> >
> > Nonsense. See below. Both saw him earlier in the morning. Not during
> > lunch.
> >
>

> They may and seen him and did not want to give him an alibi.
> Are you saying that no one saw Oswald?
>

Brennan did.

> >> That's cutting it a little close to get up to the sixth floor, retrieve
> >> the rifle and build the sniper's nest. If the motorcade had been on
> >> time, the limo would already have passed the TSBD while Oswald was in
> >> the Domino Room and saw Junior and Harold walking in.
> >>
> >
> > From Jarman's WC testimony:
> >
> > Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Oswald that morning?
> > Mr. JARMAN - I did.
> > Mr. BALL - When?
> > Mr. JARMAN - I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly what time
> > it was.
> > Mr. BALL - Oh, approximately. Nine, ten?
> > Mr. JARMAN - It was around, it was between eight and nine, I would say.
> > Mr. BALL - Between 8 and 9?
> > Mr. JARMAN - Between 5 minutes after 8 and 9.
>

> Gee, that makes a lot of sense. NOT!
>
> Sometime in the morning has nothing to do with the time of the
> assassination.
>

Did you figure that out all by yourself?

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 3/24/2019 9:00 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> I advocated that a long time ago. Make sure that you try for accuracy

> down to the wifth of a carbon atom.
>

Marsh: While you may think that you are being derisive, you are not far
from the facts. The most advanced simulations of cerebrum mechanics and
trauma are done with supercomputers, working 24x7, at the neuron level.
They report things like these among their PhD and postdocs colleagues:

"Hey guys, the bullet finally is exiting the subject's osseous matter.
It is touching the meninges. Soon, in a matter of hours -well, maybe by
tomorrow- we will be touching cerebrum!"

https://phys.org/news/2012-11-traumatic-brain-injury-patients-supercomputer.html

The back snap will be simulated with total precision in term of time and
space (Your infamous "inertia").

Only catch? Some of the people doing those simulations work for the
Sandia National Laboratories, part of the feared (by some, not by me)
MIC. I contacted them and tried for a long time.

Suffice to say that they are as coward as two other groups who shall
remain nameless.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
#FreeRamon'sPosts

========================================
"On 10/11/2018 11:56 PM, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> Naturally the 5th floor boys could hear it very well,
> since it was Harold Norman who was firing the rifle, there.
>

Rest assured that your hypothesis will be put to the closest of
scrutinies.

The 3D model of the cranium will be subjected to detailed analyses with
supercomputers running round the clock (*). One my latest ideas: Can the
cranium cracks be used to resolve with complete certainty this impasse:

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Tangential-Shot-Symmetric.png

From inside the cranium, located at the exact location and angle (**),
you will be able to look at the 5th. floor.


-Ramon
JFK Numbers

(**) Our distances and angles are not for sale, at any price.

(*) Being done as we speak at the Sandia National Laboratories, by my
fellow latino, Alejandro Mota, PhD. After initial enthusiasm, he was
going to talk to his boss and they stopped replying to my e-mails and
answering my phone calls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fIar8Vdx7s [cranium shot]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2OUrnQ3mRU
[See my comment to Alejandro under this videoclip]

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UKUzsE4AAAAJ&hl=en
https://goo.gl/wQpBUU

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/26/2019 2:33 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 8:50:43 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/17/2019 1:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:55:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>>>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
>>>>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
>>>>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
>>>>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
>>>>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
>>>>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>>>>>
>>>>> DAVID VON PEIN
>>>>>
>>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what if Junior and Harold saw Oswald in the Domino Room, they could
>>>> be paid to say they never saw him?
>>>>
>>>> Two colleagues, James Jarman and Harold Norman, place him there no
>>>> more than seven minutes before the shooting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense. See below. Both saw him earlier in the morning. Not during
>>> lunch.
>>>
>>
>> They may and seen him and did not want to give him an alibi.
>> Are you saying that no one saw Oswald?
>>
>
> Brennan did.
>

In the lunch rroom or Dominovroom? I didm't knoe his eyewight was that
good. Could he read the mword Terni on the rifle?

[Anthony Marsh]

Look at my Web site. It's massive. I have every day uploaded files that
no one else had ever seen before.

You have NOTHING. Just personal insults.

[Mark]

Well, OK. If you're saying you have a file that shows "...the Kennedys had
not authorized any assassination plots against Castro" let's see it.

Mark

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:33:19 AM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 8:50:43 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 3/17/2019 1:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:55:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > >> On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:
> > >>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> > >>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> > >>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> > >>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> > >>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> > >>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
> > >>>
> > >>> DAVID VON PEIN
> > >>>
> > >>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> So what if Junior and Harold saw Oswald in the Domino Room, they could
> > >> be paid to say they never saw him?
> > >>
> > >> Two colleagues, James Jarman and Harold Norman, place him there no
> > >> more than seven minutes before the shooting.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Nonsense. See below. Both saw him earlier in the morning. Not during
> > > lunch.
> > >
> >
> > They may and seen him and did not want to give him an alibi.
> > Are you saying that no one saw Oswald?
> >
>
> Brennan did.

Darned if I don't now believe that that may be true. But I still think
those height & weight stats were given to Brennan to "justify" the phony
Sawyer APB. I can just see someone asking him, "How tall do you think the
man in the half-open window six floors up was? How much did he weigh?
What color were his eyes?" Sure....

dcw

[BOZ]

Were you behind the Man of Steele Dossier?

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't ptove a negative that way. The burden of proof is on you when
you make the claim.
But the Rockeflller Committee found that Helms authorized the Castro
plot without orders from JFK.

> Mark
>
>
NYT
Plots Report Draws Attention to Helms

By JOHN M. CREWDSONNOV. 26, 1975
Continue reading the main story
Share This Page

Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times???s print
archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve
these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter,
edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or
other problems. Please send reports of such problems to
archive_...@nytimes.com.
The article as it originally appeared.
View page in TimesMachine
November 26, 1975, Page 10 The New York Times Archives

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25???The Senate Select Intelligence Committee's report on
assassination plots inspired by the Central Intelligence Agency against
foreign leaders has served to refocus attention on the record compiled
by Richard M. Helms, now the American Ambassador to Iran, during much of
his 26???vear career with the agency.

The principal finding concerning Mr. Helms in the committee's long report,
released last week, was that he had failed, while a Deputy Director of the
C.I.A. to inform, agency and White C.I.House superiors of efforts to kill
Prime Minister Fidel Castro of Cuba, something the Senate panel termed
???grave error in judgment.???

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. You have to be pretty crazy to even suggest something like
that.

[BOZ]

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

[BOZ]

I have evidence that proves your real identity is Christopher Steele.

[donald willis]

You mean Christopher Reeve.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/10/2019 9:13 PM, BOZ wrote:
> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>

Who said that? You create phony straw man aguments because you can't
refute what we say.

Do you really think that no one has ever been framed for a crime before?
Don't you know ANYTHING about history?


I don't have Oswald wandering around. I think he was in the Domino Room.


BUT don't try to saddle us with Diugenio or an other kook.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/11/2019 9:12 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:

> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> "And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
>> being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
>> assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
>> apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering
>> around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are
>> planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
>>

>> DAVID VON PEIN
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
>

> How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If

They who? Oh, you mean spies? Like the CIA? How did the Watergate
burglarers know that no on who spot them going in or out? How did the
French intelligence know when to plant the fake incriminating letter in
Dreyfus's room. You are being very childish.

> he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth with
> Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.
>

But they knew he had no alibi and if someone tried to give him one they
would deal with him.

> In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must

You can kill or discredit the alibi.

> be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time
> of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at
> the time.
>

So you think that is beyond the abilities of the CIA?

> So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?
>

Not enormously. You create straw man arguments.

> We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that
> they pulled it off. No details are needed.
>

Did Dreyfus know all the details of how he was framed?

> And so it goes.
>
>


Childish