Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
An Open Letter To Fellow JFK Researchers Concerning The "Oswald
448 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
Jun 9, 2015, 10:58:30 PM6/9/15
to
I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
all around poor Ralph.
Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
invariably elicit when reading it)....
--------------------------
[E-MAIL QUOTE ON:]
June 6, 2015
An Open Letter to Fellow JFK Researchers Concerning the Oswald Innocence
Campaign:
My name is James Norwood, and I was a member of the Oswald Innocence
Campaign (OIC) for several years. On March 11, 2015, I assumed the
position of Chair of the group. At that time, I attempted to get to know
the members on a personal basis and to understand the workings of the OIC
organization. Recently, I have stepped down from my position due to
differences in philosophy with the founder, Ralph Cinque. I am no longer
a member of this group. At this time, I wish to share my views on the
Oswald Innocence Campaign.
During my tenure as Chair, the OIC's webpage listed 51 Senior Members
along with their photos and biographical profiles. But Mr. Cinque could
only locate e-mail addresses for 34 out of 51 members. This means that 17
members (33 1/3%) are not only non-active, but impossible to contact.
Additionally, in the group's e-mail forum, only a handful of the Senior
Members ever participated in the discussions. Without a critical mass of
active members, the OIC is comprised primarily of a gallery of names and
photos. I understand that several of the members are in failing health
and are physically unable to participate. And, to be fair, I have
experienced several stimulating e-mail conversations, but, in each
instance, there were only three or four members sharing their views. If
it is impossible even to contact by e-mail up to one-third of the
membership and only several members regularly engage in discussions, then
this organization is functionally non-existent.
Mr. Cinque has dictated the content of the OIC home page with his
single-minded purpose of presenting amateur photo analyses. The seemingly
endless diagrams of photo and film frame images are based on the premise
that the photos are fake. But there is no evidence presented that even
remotely suggests where the films and photos were altered, who altered
them, and a what time the alterations occurred. Based on my scrutiny of
the OIC's home page, the theory of Altgens6 photo alteration is not
persuasive, and, after years of debate on the internet, it has never been
taken seriously by even a fraction of the JFK research community.
Mr. Cinque also maintains a personal blog and a facebook page. He posts
daily internet commentaries that have recently expanded well beyond the
purview of the JFK assassination into such conspiracy theories as the
death of Osama bin Laden. As apparent in the two website titles, Mr.
Cinque gives the impression that his personal opinions reflect the OIC
organization as a whole. The OIC blog site is entitled "Oswald in the
Doorway: The Blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign." The OIC facebook
page is entitled, "Oswald Innocence Campaign: Community." I am troubled
that the subjective views of Mr. Cinque are being presented in the guise
of the OIC community, when in fact, the opinions belong to Mr. Cinque
alone with no group consensus whatsoever. Many of the postings of Mr.
Cinque are part of his ongoing personal quarrels on the internet. There is
no disclaimer indicating that his views do not represent those of the
organization as a whole. I have ethical concerns about a solitary writer
engaging in nonstop, profanity-laced verbal jousting that gives the
impression that Mr. Cinque's views are representative of the OIC members
in general.
On May 26, I sent a proposal to Mr. Cinque for a new direction of the OIC
away from Altgens6 photo alteration and into the more general area of
studies of the JFK assassination and Oswald. My proposal, which included
the draft of a revised Mission Statement, was categorically rejected by
Mr. Cinque, who invited me to step down as Chair and to exit the
organization. Due to (a) the narrow focus and unpersuasive content of the
present OIC homepage, (b) Mr. Cinque's misrepresentation of his personal
postings on the blog/facebook pages, (c) the inability to contact a third
of the Senior Members, and (d) a host of other issues, I am unable to
recommend the Oswald Innocence Campaign to any serious researcher of the
JFK assassination.
If you would like clarification on any of the points I have raised above,
please contact me at: Lav...@comcast.net
Respectfully submitted,
James Norwood
P.S. Starting on June 6, I sent four cordial e-mail requests to Mr.
Cinque to post my letter above on the OIC blog and facebook pages. While
these two blogs clearly imply that they are "community" websites, Mr.
Cinque nonetheless refused to post my letter. I even revised the letter
for him with the goal of eliminating any personal innuendo. I tried to
make the letter both objective and useful as constructive criticism for
the OIC. Yet, Mr. Cinque still refused to post the letter.
It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
all around poor Ralph.
Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
invariably elicit when reading it)....
--------------------------
[E-MAIL QUOTE ON:]
June 6, 2015
An Open Letter to Fellow JFK Researchers Concerning the Oswald Innocence
Campaign:
My name is James Norwood, and I was a member of the Oswald Innocence
Campaign (OIC) for several years. On March 11, 2015, I assumed the
position of Chair of the group. At that time, I attempted to get to know
the members on a personal basis and to understand the workings of the OIC
organization. Recently, I have stepped down from my position due to
differences in philosophy with the founder, Ralph Cinque. I am no longer
a member of this group. At this time, I wish to share my views on the
Oswald Innocence Campaign.
During my tenure as Chair, the OIC's webpage listed 51 Senior Members
along with their photos and biographical profiles. But Mr. Cinque could
only locate e-mail addresses for 34 out of 51 members. This means that 17
members (33 1/3%) are not only non-active, but impossible to contact.
Additionally, in the group's e-mail forum, only a handful of the Senior
Members ever participated in the discussions. Without a critical mass of
active members, the OIC is comprised primarily of a gallery of names and
photos. I understand that several of the members are in failing health
and are physically unable to participate. And, to be fair, I have
experienced several stimulating e-mail conversations, but, in each
instance, there were only three or four members sharing their views. If
it is impossible even to contact by e-mail up to one-third of the
membership and only several members regularly engage in discussions, then
this organization is functionally non-existent.
Mr. Cinque has dictated the content of the OIC home page with his
single-minded purpose of presenting amateur photo analyses. The seemingly
endless diagrams of photo and film frame images are based on the premise
that the photos are fake. But there is no evidence presented that even
remotely suggests where the films and photos were altered, who altered
them, and a what time the alterations occurred. Based on my scrutiny of
the OIC's home page, the theory of Altgens6 photo alteration is not
persuasive, and, after years of debate on the internet, it has never been
taken seriously by even a fraction of the JFK research community.
Mr. Cinque also maintains a personal blog and a facebook page. He posts
daily internet commentaries that have recently expanded well beyond the
purview of the JFK assassination into such conspiracy theories as the
death of Osama bin Laden. As apparent in the two website titles, Mr.
Cinque gives the impression that his personal opinions reflect the OIC
organization as a whole. The OIC blog site is entitled "Oswald in the
Doorway: The Blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign." The OIC facebook
page is entitled, "Oswald Innocence Campaign: Community." I am troubled
that the subjective views of Mr. Cinque are being presented in the guise
of the OIC community, when in fact, the opinions belong to Mr. Cinque
alone with no group consensus whatsoever. Many of the postings of Mr.
Cinque are part of his ongoing personal quarrels on the internet. There is
no disclaimer indicating that his views do not represent those of the
organization as a whole. I have ethical concerns about a solitary writer
engaging in nonstop, profanity-laced verbal jousting that gives the
impression that Mr. Cinque's views are representative of the OIC members
in general.
On May 26, I sent a proposal to Mr. Cinque for a new direction of the OIC
away from Altgens6 photo alteration and into the more general area of
studies of the JFK assassination and Oswald. My proposal, which included
the draft of a revised Mission Statement, was categorically rejected by
Mr. Cinque, who invited me to step down as Chair and to exit the
organization. Due to (a) the narrow focus and unpersuasive content of the
present OIC homepage, (b) Mr. Cinque's misrepresentation of his personal
postings on the blog/facebook pages, (c) the inability to contact a third
of the Senior Members, and (d) a host of other issues, I am unable to
recommend the Oswald Innocence Campaign to any serious researcher of the
JFK assassination.
If you would like clarification on any of the points I have raised above,
please contact me at: Lav...@comcast.net
Respectfully submitted,
James Norwood
P.S. Starting on June 6, I sent four cordial e-mail requests to Mr.
Cinque to post my letter above on the OIC blog and facebook pages. While
these two blogs clearly imply that they are "community" websites, Mr.
Cinque nonetheless refused to post my letter. I even revised the letter
for him with the goal of eliminating any personal innuendo. I tried to
make the letter both objective and useful as constructive criticism for
the OIC. Yet, Mr. Cinque still refused to post the letter.
Mark Florio
Jun 10, 2015, 9:26:20 PM6/10/15
to
apparently hold responsible, reputable positions--could associate with the
OIC. His email sheds light. One thing I would add. We should thank
Norwood for speaking out. Mark.
bigdog
Jun 10, 2015, 10:39:23 PM6/10/15
to
continue his quixotic quest.
Robert Harris
Jun 11, 2015, 11:59:06 AM6/11/15
to
David Von Pein wrote:
> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> all around poor Ralph.
>
> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
> invariably elicit when reading it)....
It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent sniper's
> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> all around poor Ralph.
>
> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
> invariably elicit when reading it)....
nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and nutters
have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In this
case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed his story.
Do you want to rely on Dr. Guinn's HSCA testimony? That would be great,
except for the tiny detail that the FBI switched out all of the
"bullet-lead fragments" in the archives.
"Dr. GUINN - The particular little pieces that they analyzed, I could
just as well have analyzed over again, but the pieces that were brought
out from the Archives--which reportedly, according to Mr. Gear, were the
only bullet-lead fragments from this case still present in the
Archives--did not include any of the specific little pieces that the FBI
had analyzed. Presumably those are in existence somewhere, I am sure
nobody threw them out, but where they are, I have no idea."
Read this part again, David. It's a biggie.
"the *ONLY* bullet-lead fragments from this case still present in the
Archives--did not include any of the specific little pieces that the FBI
had analyzed."
Consider CE-842, David. Guinn never got a chance to test the little
fragments that Audrey Bell placed in that plastic container, and handed
over to FBI agents.
Or any of the lead fragments found on the floorboard and seats of the limo.
Why do you suppose Hoover's boys had to switch out all of those
fragments, David? Dr. Guinn gives us another clue:
"Dr. GUINN - Well, it was rather interesting because both Dr. John
Nichols and I felt that activation analysis of the bullet-lead specimens
in the President Kennedy case should be done, and he in particular was
trying to persuade J. Edgar Hoover, first, and later Clarence Kelley,
that these things should be done. He made no progress with them, and
then quite accidentally there turned up in the Archives a letter from J.
Edgar Hoover to J. Lee Rankin, in July 1964, stating that indeed the FBI
had made activation analysis measurements on these samples. Until then,
this fact was totally unknown to us, so, therefore, after that we
requested the results, because, the letter didn't give any numerical
results; it just said that the analyses had been done and the results
were generally inconclusive. This again took quite some time, and it was
only finally, under the amended Freedom of Information Act, that Dr.
Nichols was able to obtain the some 70 pages of raw data copied out of
the FBI records, from the FBI. I then took all of those data and
recalculated them from scratch."
Strange, isn't it, that the FBI refused to release any data regarding
their own tests, until they were forced to, by amendments to the Freedom
of Information Act? And we have no proof that what they finally turned
over was the real thing.
Of course, only crazy conspiracy kooks would be concerned that the FBI
switched out virtually all the relevant fragments and did everything in
it's power, to coverup the results of it's tests.
If I had to bet my life on it, I would say that Oswald was involved in
the assassination, but that is not a certainty. And just because Cinque
posts ridiculous arguments, doesn't mean Oswald shot JFK.
There is *NO* legitimate, verifiable evidence which I am aware of, that
proves he did.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Jun 11, 2015, 1:51:21 PM6/11/15
to
apparently McAadams approves of your tactic of making personal attacks.
That's very heartening.
Bud
Jun 11, 2015, 1:57:50 PM6/11/15
to
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:58:30 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
with their crazy ideas.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 11, 2015, 6:11:39 PM6/11/15
to
Professor Norwood gets one thing SLIGHTLY wrong, though.
One of the listed senior OIC members, in the person of Jack White (RIP),
is ACTUALLY dead.
Surely a DAMNING indictment of Cinque and OIC tactics, I would have
thought.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where SENIOR OIC MEMBER Mark Lane lied!
Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!
Anthony Marsh
Jun 12, 2015, 3:11:35 PM6/12/15
to
On 6/11/2015 11:59 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
>> all around poor Ralph.
>>
>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so
>> downright
>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would
>> be of
>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
>
> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent sniper's
> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and nutters
> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In this
> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed his story.
>
> Do you want to rely on Dr. Guinn's HSCA testimony? That would be great,
> except for the tiny detail that the FBI switched out all of the
> "bullet-lead fragments" in the archives.
>
So finally after 45 years you admit that you are an alterationist.
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
>> all around poor Ralph.
>>
>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so
>> downright
>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would
>> be of
>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
>
> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent sniper's
> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and nutters
> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In this
> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed his story.
>
> Do you want to rely on Dr. Guinn's HSCA testimony? That would be great,
> except for the tiny detail that the FBI switched out all of the
> "bullet-lead fragments" in the archives.
>
Have you graduated to a Fetzerite?
Anthony Marsh
Jun 12, 2015, 3:24:31 PM6/12/15
to
bigdog
Jun 12, 2015, 9:48:28 PM6/12/15
to
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> > It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> > all around poor Ralph.
> >
> > Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> > campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> > murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> > ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> > some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
> > invariably elicit when reading it)....
>
> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent sniper's
> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and nutters
> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In this
> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed his story.
>
Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was the
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> > It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> > all around poor Ralph.
> >
> > Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> > campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> > murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> > ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> > some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
> > invariably elicit when reading it)....
>
> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent sniper's
> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and nutters
> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In this
> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed his story.
>
shooter on the 6th floor. Pretend it doesn't exist. Conspiracy theorists
have been doing that for decades. Why stop now?
Allan G. Johnson
Jun 12, 2015, 9:54:20 PM6/12/15
to
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:58:30 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
Committee playbook on how to form a vast local organization.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 13, 2015, 10:31:35 AM6/13/15
to
Equal Rights for the Walking Dead!
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 13, 2015, 11:52:36 PM6/13/15
to
facto OIC member:
http://www.oswald-innocent.com/
No wonder Norwood couldn't find any relevant contact details for so many
OIC members!
Astounded Regards,
mainframetech
Jun 14, 2015, 12:59:24 AM6/14/15
to
and it was a conspiracy.
Chris
Robert Harris
Jun 17, 2015, 11:57:46 PM6/17/15
to
He probably was up there, but you can't prove it to save your life.
You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Jun 17, 2015, 11:58:32 PM6/17/15
to
I'm afraid you need to accuse Guinn of being an alterationist, and "Mr.
Gear" at the National Archives.
You should also hurl that accusation at John Connally, Henry Wade, Bobby
Nolan, Audrey Bell, Daryl Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, and a lot of others.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Jun 18, 2015, 9:01:39 PM6/18/15
to
that SOMEONE did. He didn't name Frazier.
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>
bigdog
Jun 20, 2015, 8:40:53 PM6/20/15
to
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> >>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> >>> all around poor Ralph.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> >>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> >>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> >>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> >>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
> >>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
> >>
> >> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent sniper's
> >> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and nutters
> >> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In this
> >> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed his story.
> >>
> >
> > Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was the
> > shooter on the 6th floor.
>
>
> What forensic evidence?
>
Really, Bob. You mean other than his fingerprints in the sniper's nest,
> bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> >>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> >>> all around poor Ralph.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> >>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> >>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> >>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> >>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
> >>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
> >>
> >> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent sniper's
> >> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and nutters
> >> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In this
> >> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed his story.
> >>
> >
> > Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was the
> > shooter on the 6th floor.
>
>
> What forensic evidence?
>
the rifle that was found on the sixth floor, his palm print on the rifle,
his finger and palm print on the paper bag, the spent shells that were
fired by the rifle, the recovered bullets that were fired by the rifle,
the fibers on the rifle that matched his shirt and a paper trail as well
as photos that established the rifle was his. Gee, other than that, there
isn't much.
> He probably was up there, but you can't prove it to save your life.
>
> You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 22, 2015, 12:20:27 PM6/22/15
to
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 22, 2015, 9:49:23 PM6/22/15
to
The probability that someone else did it is vanishingly small.
That doesn't stop those who for reason *want* to doubt from clinging to
that 0.0000001 percent chance and claiming that Oswald's guilt is not
"proven."
bigdog
Jun 22, 2015, 9:50:01 PM6/22/15
to
before and have no doubt you will do it again but I'll try anyway. If the
above evidence plus the identification of Oswald by an eyewitness is not
enough to convince you he fired the shots, what the hell would it take.
What is missing from the body of evidence that you think should be there
that would convince you he was the shooter. Or are you just going to
adamently refuse to accept his guilt no matter how much evidence is
presented.
Bud
Jun 23, 2015, 10:22:11 AM6/23/15
to
On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:20:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
BOZ
Jun 23, 2015, 5:27:57 PM6/23/15
to
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:58:30 AM UTC+9, David Von Pein wrote:
> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> all around poor Ralph.
>
> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
> invariably elicit when reading it)....
> Was Norwood's email altered?
> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> all around poor Ralph.
>
> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
> invariably elicit when reading it)....
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2015, 11:28:02 AM6/24/15
to
The best proof is you WC defenders saying that no one would ever include
Oswald in a conspiracy. So once we proved it was a conspiracy, that
ruled out Oswald.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2015, 11:28:25 AM6/24/15
to
Oh wait, the photographer forgot to put film in his camera. Now, isn't
that convenient? The official WH photographer would have gotten the best
picture from the SS car, but he was kicked out.
Doesn't matter to you anyway. I show you the photo of the grassy knoll
shooter and you claim you can't see anything. Like Sgt. Schultz.
> What is missing from the body of evidence that you think should be there
> that would convince you he was the shooter. Or are you just going to
> adamently refuse to accept his guilt no matter how much evidence is
> presented.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2015, 11:28:45 AM6/24/15
to
mainframetech
Jun 25, 2015, 12:51:53 AM6/25/15
to
see Oswald on TV twice the night before going to a lineup. His vision was
so good, that it far exceeded a boy 10 feet away from him, ho was unable
to see all the detail that Brennan saw. Brennan was prepped.
As well, we have proof now that the timings won't allow Oswald to be
anywhere but in the lunchroom during the shooting.
Chris
mainframetech
Jun 25, 2015, 12:52:31 AM6/25/15
to
out the 6th floor window at JFK. Yep, the rifle was Oswald's, but he may
have brought it in to sell or trade or whatever, and certainly not to
shoot the president. He hadn't even practiced with the rifle, and just
threw it in the garage rolled up in a blanket. And to top it off, we've
proven through discussion that Oswald was in the lunchroom throughout the
shooting.
> > He probably was up there, but you can't prove it to save your life.
> >
>
> Not to people who lack common sense.
>
> > You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
>
> <chuckle>. Oh wait. You were being serious.
anyone.
Chris
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 25, 2015, 1:03:09 AM6/25/15
to
all the hard evidence, also points to Oswald and nobody else.
Bud
Jun 25, 2015, 11:28:53 AM6/25/15
to
> Then walking UP to the lunch room.
> The best proof is you WC defenders saying that no one would ever include
> Oswald in a conspiracy. So once we proved it was a conspiracy, that
> ruled out Oswald.
bigdog
Jun 25, 2015, 2:40:45 PM6/25/15
to
assassin. Everything is there. You guys will always invent excuses to
dismiss each and every piece of damning evidence of Oswald's guilt. No
amount of proof is good enough for you. You prefer your fantasies to the
reality.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 25, 2015, 10:51:40 PM6/25/15
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 25, 2015, 11:50:33 PM6/25/15
to
shooter was a black man?
tom...@cox.net
Jun 26, 2015, 10:47:10 AM6/26/15
to
==== ACCORDING TO THE FBI AGENT WHO INPECTED THAT RIFLE ON SATURURDY
MORNING IT WAS NOT FIRED ON FRIDAY "THE BARREL WAS "FOULED WITH DUST,
DIRT AND LEAD AND THE BET WAY TO CLEAN IT WAS TO FIRE A ROUND THROUGH IT"
! ! ! SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/more__testimony_of_robert_a.htm
PAGE 395
===========================================================================
===
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
tom...@cox.net
Jun 26, 2015, 10:48:56 AM6/26/15
to
===== EVERY BIT OF WHAT YOU JUST LISTED I CAN PROVE IS "BOGUS" ! ! !
===========================================================================
====
> >>> None of that proves it was Oswald firing the shots.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd say it proves it well beyond a *reasonable* doubt.
> >> The probability that someone else did it is vanishingly small.
> >
> > Because you are biased.
> >
>
> No, but I forgot to mention that the circumstantial evidence, as well as
> all the hard evidence, also points to Oswald and nobody else.
>
> >> That doesn't stop those who for reason *want* to doubt from clinging
> >> to that 0.0000001 percent chance and claiming that Oswald's guilt is
> >> not "proven."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> He probably was up there, but you can't prove it to save your life.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not to people who lack common sense.
> >>>>
> >>>>> You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
> >>>>
> >>>> <chuckle>. Oh wait. You were being serious.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd say it proves it well beyond a *reasonable* doubt.
> >> The probability that someone else did it is vanishingly small.
> >
> > Because you are biased.
> >
>
> No, but I forgot to mention that the circumstantial evidence, as well as
> all the hard evidence, also points to Oswald and nobody else.
>
> >> That doesn't stop those who for reason *want* to doubt from clinging
> >> to that 0.0000001 percent chance and claiming that Oswald's guilt is
> >> not "proven."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> He probably was up there, but you can't prove it to save your life.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not to people who lack common sense.
> >>>>
> >>>>> You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
> >>>>
> >>>> <chuckle>. Oh wait. You were being serious.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
tom...@cox.net
Jun 26, 2015, 3:46:41 PM6/26/15
to
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:20:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 6/20/2015 8:40 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris
> > > wrote:
> > >> bigdog wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>>>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James
> > >>>>> Nor=
> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:20:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 6/20/2015 8:40 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris
> > > wrote:
> > >> bigdog wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>>>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James
> wood.
> > >>>>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is
> > >>>>> crumb=
> > >>>>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is
> ling
> > >>>>> all around poor Ralph.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an
> > >>>>> "=
> > >>>>> all around poor Ralph.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an
> OIC"
> > >>>>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously
> > >>>>> committ=
> > >>>>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously
> ed two
> > >>>>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so
> > >>>>> do=
> > >>>>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so
> wnright
> > >>>>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting
> > >>>>> woul=
> > >>>>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting
> d be of
> > >>>>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles
> > >>>>> it =
> > >>>>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles
> will
> > >>>>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent
> > >>>> snipe=
> > >>>>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent
> r's
> > >>>> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and
> > >>>> nut=
> > >>>> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and
> ters
> > >>>> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In
> > >>>> t=
> > >>>> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In
> his
> > >>>> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed
> > >>>> his =
> > >>>> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed
> story.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
> > >>> the shooter on the 6th floor.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> What forensic evidence?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Really, Bob. You mean other than his fingerprints in the sniper's
> > > nest, the rifle that was found on the sixth floor, his palm print on
> > > the rifl=
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
> > >>> the shooter on the 6th floor.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> What forensic evidence?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Really, Bob. You mean other than his fingerprints in the sniper's
> > > nest, the rifle that was found on the sixth floor, his palm print on
> e,
> > > his finger and palm print on the paper bag, the spent shells that
> > > were fired by the rifle, the recovered bullets that were fired by the
> > > rifle, the fibers on the rifle that matched his shirt and a paper
> > > trail as wel=
> > > his finger and palm print on the paper bag, the spent shells that
> > > were fired by the rifle, the recovered bullets that were fired by the
> > > rifle, the fibers on the rifle that matched his shirt and a paper
> l
> > > as photos that established the rifle was his. Gee, other than that,
> > > the=
> > > as photos that established the rifle was his. Gee, other than that,
> re
> > > isn't much.
> > >
> >=20
> > None of that proves it was Oswald firing the shots.
> >=20
> > >> He probably was up there, but you can't prove it to save your life.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Not to people who lack common sense.
> > >
> > >> You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
> > >
> > > <chuckle>. Oh wait. You were being serious.
>
> Not to people who lack common sense. I know you've dodged this question
> before and have no doubt you will do it again but I'll try anyway. If the
> above evidence plus the identification of Oswald by an eyewitness is not
> enough to convince you he fired the shots, what the hell would it take.
> What is missing from the body of evidence that you think should be there
> that would convince you he was the shooter. Or are you just going to
> adamently refuse to accept his guilt no matter how much evidence is
> presented.
===========================================================================
> > >>
> > >
> > > Not to people who lack common sense.
> > >
> > >> You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
> > >
> > > <chuckle>. Oh wait. You were being serious.
>
> Not to people who lack common sense. I know you've dodged this question
> before and have no doubt you will do it again but I'll try anyway. If the
> above evidence plus the identification of Oswald by an eyewitness is not
> enough to convince you he fired the shots, what the hell would it take.
> What is missing from the body of evidence that you think should be there
> that would convince you he was the shooter. Or are you just going to
> adamently refuse to accept his guilt no matter how much evidence is
> presented.
=== CORBETT;
YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO
BWARE THAT YOUR STARWITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN NEEDED "IMMUNITY" TO APPEAR
BEFORE THE HSCA ! ! ! MAKING HIM TOTALLY UNCREDIBLE AS A WITNESS !
====================================================================
bigdog
Jun 26, 2015, 7:56:30 PM6/26/15
to
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 27, 2015, 9:11:36 AM6/27/15
to
conspiracy until I scrutinized the evidence.
Bud
Jun 27, 2015, 10:04:56 PM6/27/15
to
bigdog
Jun 27, 2015, 10:06:30 PM6/27/15
to
committing the act in order to prove he is guilty?
> Oh wait, the photographer forgot to put film in his camera. Now, isn't
> that convenient? The official WH photographer would have gotten the best
> picture from the SS car, but he was kicked out.
was the only one who located the shooter in time to see even the last shot
fired. Dillard was too late. Why do you think the WH photographer would
have found the shooter any sooner?
> Doesn't matter to you anyway. I show you the photo of the grassy knoll
> shooter and you claim you can't see anything. Like Sgt. Schultz.
>
your mind's eye.
> > What is missing from the body of evidence that you think should be there
> > that would convince you he was the shooter. Or are you just going to
> > adamently refuse to accept his guilt no matter how much evidence is
> > presented.
> >
>
> How about actually presenting evidence instead of destroying it?
>
guilt presented? The body of evidence is so complete that the only thing
you could come up with that is "missing" is photographic evidence of
Oswald firing the shots. As if there is any realistic expectation that we
would should have that.
mainframetech
Jun 28, 2015, 2:04:16 PM6/28/15
to
Chris
mainframetech
Jun 28, 2015, 2:04:51 PM6/28/15
to
The evidence is thin, and Oswald has been shown to have been in the
lunchroom seen by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm, while '2 men' with a rifle
were seen at 12:15pm in the window of the TSBD, and you can be sure they
didn't leave their 'nest' position while JFK was on his way to Dealey
Plaza. So Oswald couldn't get to that window if he wanted to.
Soon after the shooting, Oswald was again seen in the lunchroom, as he
was BEFORE the shooting.
Chris
bigdog
Jun 29, 2015, 2:16:07 PM6/29/15
to
12:15.
> Soon after the shooting, Oswald was again seen in the lunchroom, as he
> was BEFORE the shooting.
>
he wouldn't have been seen by Baker.
tom...@cox.net
Jun 29, 2015, 2:20:42 PM6/29/15
to
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:28:25 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 6/22/2015 9:50 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:20:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > >> On 6/20/2015 8:40 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris
> > >>> wrote=
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:28:25 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 6/22/2015 9:50 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:20:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > >> On 6/20/2015 8:40 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris
> :
> > >>>> bigdog wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris
> > >>>>> wrot=
> > >>>> bigdog wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris
> e:
> > >>>>>> David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James
> > >>>>>>> N=
> > >>>>>> David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James
> orwood.
> > >>>>>>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is
> > >>>>>>> cru=
> > >>>>>>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is
> mbling
> > >>>>>>> all around poor Ralph.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of
> > >>>>>>> an=
> > >>>>>>> all around poor Ralph.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of
> "OIC"
> > >>>>>>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously
> > >>>>>>> commi=
> > >>>>>>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously
> tted two
> > >>>>>>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and
> > >>>>>>> so =
> > >>>>>>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and
> downright
> > >>>>>>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting
> > >>>>>>> wo=
> > >>>>>>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting
> uld be of
> > >>>>>>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles
> > >>>>>>> i=
> > >>>>>>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles
> t will
> > >>>>>>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent
> > >>>>>> sni=
> > >>>>>>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent
> per's
> > >>>>>> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and
> > >>>>>> n=
> > >>>>>> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and
> utters
> > >>>>>> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are.
> > >>>>>> In=
> > >>>>>> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are.
> this
> > >>>>>> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed
> > >>>>>> hi=
> > >>>>>> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed
> s story.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
> > >>>>> th=
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
> e
> > >>>>> shooter on the 6th floor.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What forensic evidence?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Really, Bob. You mean other than his fingerprints in the sniper's
> > >>> nes=
> > >>>>> shooter on the 6th floor.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What forensic evidence?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Really, Bob. You mean other than his fingerprints in the sniper's
> t,
> > >>> the rifle that was found on the sixth floor, his palm print on the
> > >>> ri=
> > >>> the rifle that was found on the sixth floor, his palm print on the
> fle,
> > >>> his finger and palm print on the paper bag, the spent shells that
> > >>> wer=
> > >>> his finger and palm print on the paper bag, the spent shells that
> e
> > >>> fired by the rifle, the recovered bullets that were fired by the
> > >>> rifl=
> > >>> fired by the rifle, the recovered bullets that were fired by the
> e,
> > >>> the fibers on the rifle that matched his shirt and a paper trail as
> > >>> w=
> > >>> the fibers on the rifle that matched his shirt and a paper trail as
> ell
> > >>> as photos that established the rifle was his. Gee, other than that,
> > >>> t=
> > >>> as photos that established the rifle was his. Gee, other than that,
> here
> > >>> isn't much.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> None of that proves it was Oswald firing the shots.
> > >>
> > >>>> He probably was up there, but you can't prove it to save your
> > >>>> life.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Not to people who lack common sense.
> > >>>
> > >>>> You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
> > >>>
> > >>> <chuckle>. Oh wait. You were being serious.
> > >
> > > Not to people who lack common sense. I know you've dodged this
> > > question before and have no doubt you will do it again but I'll try
> > > anyway. If t=
> > >>> isn't much.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> None of that proves it was Oswald firing the shots.
> > >>
> > >>>> He probably was up there, but you can't prove it to save your
> > >>>> life.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Not to people who lack common sense.
> > >>>
> > >>>> You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
> > >>>
> > >>> <chuckle>. Oh wait. You were being serious.
> > >
> > > Not to people who lack common sense. I know you've dodged this
> > > question before and have no doubt you will do it again but I'll try
> he
> > > above evidence plus the identification of Oswald by an eyewitness is
> > > no=
> > > above evidence plus the identification of Oswald by an eyewitness is
> t
> > > enough to convince you he fired the shots, what the hell would it
> > > take.
> >=20
> > > enough to convince you he fired the shots, what the hell would it
> > > take.
> > You don't have even that. How about a film or a photo?
>
> I see. So you now think it is necessary to have the murderer on camera
> committing the act in order to prove he is guilty?
>
> > Oh wait, the photographer forgot to put film in his camera. Now,
> > isn't=20 that convenient? The official WH photographer would have
>
> I see. So you now think it is necessary to have the murderer on camera
> committing the act in order to prove he is guilty?
>
> > Oh wait, the photographer forgot to put film in his camera. Now,
> > gotten the best=
> =20
> > picture from the SS car, but he was kicked out.
>
> Why would you think he would have gotten a picture of the shooter?
> Brennan was the only one who located the shooter in time to see even the
> last shot fired. Dillard was too late. Why do you think the WH
> photographer would have found the shooter any sooner?
>
> > Doesn't matter to you anyway. I show you the photo of the grassy
> > knoll=20 shooter and you claim you can't see anything. Like Sgt.
>
> Why would you think he would have gotten a picture of the shooter?
> Brennan was the only one who located the shooter in time to see even the
> last shot fired. Dillard was too late. Why do you think the WH
> photographer would have found the shooter any sooner?
>
> > Doesn't matter to you anyway. I show you the photo of the grassy
> >Schultz. =20
>
> You've showed a picture of the GK. There is no shooter there. That's in
> your mind's eye.
>
> > > What is missing from the body of evidence that you think should be
> > > ther=
> You've showed a picture of the GK. There is no shooter there. That's in
> your mind's eye.
>
> > > What is missing from the body of evidence that you think should be
> e
> > > that would convince you he was the shooter. Or are you just going to
> > > adamently refuse to accept his guilt no matter how much evidence is
> > > presented.
> > >
> >=20
> > > that would convince you he was the shooter. Or are you just going to
> > > adamently refuse to accept his guilt no matter how much evidence is
> > > presented.
> > >
> > How about actually presenting evidence instead of destroying it?
> >=20
>
> Are you seriously going to say there hasn't been evidence of Oswald's
> guilt presented? The body of evidence is so complete that the only thing
> you could come up with that is "missing" is photographic evidence of
> Oswald firing the shots. As if there is any realistic expectation that we
> would should have that.
===========================================================================
> Are you seriously going to say there hasn't been evidence of Oswald's
> guilt presented? The body of evidence is so complete that the only thing
> you could come up with that is "missing" is photographic evidence of
> Oswald firing the shots. As if there is any realistic expectation that we
> would should have that.
== I'VE TOLD YOU REPEATEDLY CORBETT;
YOU NEED TO READ THE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY FROM THE COMMISSION'S 26
VOLUMES ! ! ! IT WAS "NOT" OSWALD'S RIFLE
IT WAS "NOT" OSWALD'S PISTOL
THAT RIFLE CE-139 WAS "NOT" FIRED ON 11/22/63 ! ! !
OSWALD DID "NOT SHOOT ANYBODY ON 11/22/63 ! ! !
===========================================================================
tom...@cox.net
Jun 29, 2015, 3:10:39 PM6/29/15
to
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > is crumbling all around poor Ralph.
> > > absurd, and so downright ridiculous, that I thought this latest round
> > > of OIC infighting would be of some interest to the aaj members (if
> > > only for the many chuckles it will invariably elicit when reading
> > > it)....
> >
> > It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent sniper's
> > In this case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed
> > his story.
> >
>
> Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was the
> shooter on the 6th floor. Pretend it doesn't exist. Conspiracy theorists
> have been doing that for decades. Why stop now?
===========================================================================
======= YOU ALWAYS NEGLECT TO DETERMINE WHICH ONES HAVE READ THE OFFICIAL
EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY AND, WHICH ONES HAVEN'T READ THEM CORBETT ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====
> On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > David Von Pein wrote:
> > > I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James
> > > Norwood. It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC
> > David Von Pein wrote:
> > > I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James
> > > is crumbling all around poor Ralph.
> > >
> > > Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an
> > > Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an
> > > "OIC" campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously
> > > committed two murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so
> > > absurd, and so downright ridiculous, that I thought this latest round
> > > of OIC infighting would be of some interest to the aaj members (if
> > > only for the many chuckles it will invariably elicit when reading
> > > it)....
> >
> > It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent sniper's
> > nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and
> > nutters have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are.
> > In this case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed
> > his story.
> >
>
> Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was the
> shooter on the 6th floor. Pretend it doesn't exist. Conspiracy theorists
> have been doing that for decades. Why stop now?
===========================================================================
======= YOU ALWAYS NEGLECT TO DETERMINE WHICH ONES HAVE READ THE OFFICIAL
EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY AND, WHICH ONES HAVEN'T READ THEM CORBETT ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====
tom...@cox.net
Jun 29, 2015, 10:55:56 PM6/29/15
to
===== baker is a lying s o b but, as you've never read the 26 volumes,
you don't know that ! ! !
===========================================================================
tom...@cox.net
Jul 11, 2015, 5:40:03 PM7/11/15
to
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > >> David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James
> > >>> Norwo=
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:59:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > >> David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James
> od.
> > >>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is
> > >>> crumbli=
> > >>> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is
> ng
> > >>> all around poor Ralph.
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an
> > >>> "OI=
> > >>> all around poor Ralph.
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an
> C"
> > >>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously
> > >>> committed=
> > >>> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously
> two
> > >>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so
> > >>> down=
> > >>> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so
> right
> > >>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting
> > >>> would =
> > >>> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting
> be of
> > >>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it
> > >>> wi=
> > >>> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it
> ll
> > >>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
> > >>
> > >> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent
> > >> sniper'=
> > >>> invariably elicit when reading it)....
> > >>
> > >> It has not been proven that he was the shooter in the apparent
> s
> > >> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and
> > >> nutte=
> > >> nest, David. You only have one witness who placed him there, and
> rs
> > >> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In
> > >> thi=
> > >> have been telling us for decades, how unreliable witnesses are. In
> s
> > >> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed his
> > >> st=
> > >> case, your witness becomes even more dubious because he changed his
> ory.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was the
> > > shooter on the 6th floor.
> >=20
> > >>
> > >
> > > Way to go, Bob. Ignore all the forensic evidence that Oswald was the
> > > shooter on the 6th floor.
> >=20
> > What forensic evidence?
> >=20
>
> Really, Bob. You mean other than his fingerprints in the sniper's nest,
> the rifle that was found on the sixth floor, his palm print on the rifle,
> his finger and palm print on the paper bag, the spent shells that were
> fired by the rifle, the recovered bullets that were fired by the rifle,
> the fibers on the rifle that matched his shirt and a paper trail as well
> as photos that established the rifle was his. Gee, other than that, there
> isn't much.
>
> Really, Bob. You mean other than his fingerprints in the sniper's nest,
> the rifle that was found on the sixth floor, his palm print on the rifle,
> his finger and palm print on the paper bag, the spent shells that were
> fired by the rifle, the recovered bullets that were fired by the rifle,
> the fibers on the rifle that matched his shirt and a paper trail as well
> as photos that established the rifle was his. Gee, other than that, there
> isn't much.
>
> > He probably was up there, but you can't prove it to save your life.
> >=20
>
> Not to people who lack common sense.
>
> > You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
>
> <chuckle>. Oh wait. You were being serious.
===========================================================================
> Not to people who lack common sense.
>
> > You can't even prove that the rifle was fired that day.
>
> <chuckle>. Oh wait. You were being serious.
==== testimony from fbi agent Robert frazier states rthat the rifle in
question was "not" fired on Friday 11/22/63 ! ! ! you don't know that
because you are unfamiliar with the official evidence/testimony from the
commission's 26 volumes ! ! !
tims...@gmail.com
Jul 12, 2015, 1:51:01 PM7/12/15
to
would he know whether it was fired on 11/22/63 or not, tomnln?
Robert Frazier ALSO says that *steel jacketed* is a term commonly used to
describe a rifle bullet, tomnln.
Why don't you quote him on THAT little matter, tomnln?!!
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
jfkdis...@gmail.com
Jul 12, 2015, 5:25:07 PM7/12/15
to
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:58:30 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> all around poor Ralph.
>
> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
>
> [E-MAIL QUOTE ON:]
>
> June 6, 2015
>
> An Open Letter to Fellow JFK Researchers Concerning the Oswald Innocence
> Campaign:
>
> My name is James Norwood, and I was a member of the Oswald Innocence
> Campaign (OIC) for several years. On March 11, 2015, I assumed the
> position of Chair of the group. At that time, I attempted to get to know
> the members on a personal basis and to understand the workings of the OIC
> organization. Recently, I have stepped down from my position due to
> differences in philosophy with the founder, Ralph Cinque. I am no longer
> a member of this group. At this time, I wish to share my views on the
> Oswald Innocence Campaign.
>
> During my tenure as Chair, the OIC's webpage listed 51 Senior Members
> along with their photos and biographical profiles. But Mr. Cinque could
> only locate e-mail addresses for 34 out of 51 members. This means that 17
> members (33 1/3%) are not only non-active, but impossible to contact.
> Additionally, in the group's e-mail forum, only a handful of the Senior
> Members ever participated in the discussions. Without a critical mass of
> active members, the OIC is comprised primarily of a gallery of names and
> photos. I understand that several of the members are in failing health
> and are physically unable to participate. And, to be fair, I have
> experienced several stimulating e-mail conversations, but, in each
> instance, there were only three or four members sharing their views. If
> it is impossible even to contact by e-mail up to one-third of the
> membership and only several members regularly engage in discussions, then
> this organization is functionally non-existent.
>
> Mr. Cinque has dictated the content of the OIC home page with his
> single-minded purpose of presenting amateur photo analyses. The seemingly
> endless diagrams of photo and film frame images are based on the premise
> that the photos are fake. But there is no evidence presented that even
> remotely suggests where the films and photos were altered, who altered
> them, and a what time the alterations occurred. Based on my scrutiny of
> the OIC's home page, the theory of Altgens6 photo alteration is not
> persuasive, and, after years of debate on the internet, it has never been
> taken seriously by even a fraction of the JFK research community.
>
> Mr. Cinque also maintains a personal blog and a facebook page. He posts
> daily internet commentaries that have recently expanded well beyond the
> purview of the JFK assassination into such conspiracy theories as the
> death of Osama bin Laden. As apparent in the two website titles, Mr.
> Cinque gives the impression that his personal opinions reflect the OIC
> organization as a whole. The OIC blog site is entitled "Oswald in the
> Doorway: The Blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign." The OIC facebook
> page is entitled, "Oswald Innocence Campaign: Community." I am troubled
> that the subjective views of Mr. Cinque are being presented in the guise
> of the OIC community, when in fact, the opinions belong to Mr. Cinque
> alone with no group consensus whatsoever. Many of the postings of Mr.
> Cinque are part of his ongoing personal quarrels on the internet. There is
> no disclaimer indicating that his views do not represent those of the
> organization as a whole. I have ethical concerns about a solitary writer
> engaging in nonstop, profanity-laced verbal jousting that gives the
> impression that Mr. Cinque's views are representative of the OIC members
> in general.
>
> On May 26, I sent a proposal to Mr. Cinque for a new direction of the OIC
> away from Altgens6 photo alteration and into the more general area of
> studies of the JFK assassination and Oswald. My proposal, which included
> the draft of a revised Mission Statement, was categorically rejected by
> Mr. Cinque, who invited me to step down as Chair and to exit the
> organization. Due to (a) the narrow focus and unpersuasive content of the
> present OIC homepage, (b) Mr. Cinque's misrepresentation of his personal
> postings on the blog/facebook pages, (c) the inability to contact a third
> of the Senior Members, and (d) a host of other issues, I am unable to
> recommend the Oswald Innocence Campaign to any serious researcher of the
> JFK assassination.
>
> If you would like clarification on any of the points I have raised above,
> please contact me at: Lav...@comcast.net
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> James Norwood
>
> P.S. Starting on June 6, I sent four cordial e-mail requests to Mr.
> Cinque to post my letter above on the OIC blog and facebook pages. While
> these two blogs clearly imply that they are "community" websites, Mr.
> Cinque nonetheless refused to post my letter. I even revised the letter
> for him with the goal of eliminating any personal innuendo. I tried to
> make the letter both objective and useful as constructive criticism for
> the OIC. Yet, Mr. Cinque still refused to post the letter.
Contrary to the magical fairytale, Oswald never fired a gun on the day in
question, let alone even know what all the commotion and excitement was
about until *after a fellow coworker explained the president's expected
visit some time later that day. But I guess in a magical world, Oswald
then teleported himself all the way back to Ruth Paine's garage, fetched
his rifle and somehow made it so invisible that Bonnie Ray Williams
couldn't see it standing there as he polished off his lunch...pretty hard
to plan an ambush when you don't even know the intended target is even
coming anywhere near you...but, again, all things are possible with magic,
which this case seems to have lots of.
> I received the following e-mail today (June 9, 2015) from James Norwood.
> It concerns Ralph Cinque and his "OIC". Looks like the OIC is crumbling
> all around poor Ralph.
>
> Of course, as all sensible people realize, the whole notion of an "OIC"
> campaign to promote the innocence of a man who so obviously committed two
> murders on November 22, 1963, is so laughable, so absurd, and so downright
> ridiculous, that I thought this latest round of OIC infighting would be of
> some interest to the aaj members (if only for the many chuckles it will
> invariably elicit when reading it)....
>
> --------------------------
>
>
> [E-MAIL QUOTE ON:]
>
> June 6, 2015
>
> An Open Letter to Fellow JFK Researchers Concerning the Oswald Innocence
> Campaign:
>
> My name is James Norwood, and I was a member of the Oswald Innocence
> Campaign (OIC) for several years. On March 11, 2015, I assumed the
> position of Chair of the group. At that time, I attempted to get to know
> the members on a personal basis and to understand the workings of the OIC
> organization. Recently, I have stepped down from my position due to
> differences in philosophy with the founder, Ralph Cinque. I am no longer
> a member of this group. At this time, I wish to share my views on the
> Oswald Innocence Campaign.
>
> During my tenure as Chair, the OIC's webpage listed 51 Senior Members
> along with their photos and biographical profiles. But Mr. Cinque could
> only locate e-mail addresses for 34 out of 51 members. This means that 17
> members (33 1/3%) are not only non-active, but impossible to contact.
> Additionally, in the group's e-mail forum, only a handful of the Senior
> Members ever participated in the discussions. Without a critical mass of
> active members, the OIC is comprised primarily of a gallery of names and
> photos. I understand that several of the members are in failing health
> and are physically unable to participate. And, to be fair, I have
> experienced several stimulating e-mail conversations, but, in each
> instance, there were only three or four members sharing their views. If
> it is impossible even to contact by e-mail up to one-third of the
> membership and only several members regularly engage in discussions, then
> this organization is functionally non-existent.
>
> Mr. Cinque has dictated the content of the OIC home page with his
> single-minded purpose of presenting amateur photo analyses. The seemingly
> endless diagrams of photo and film frame images are based on the premise
> that the photos are fake. But there is no evidence presented that even
> remotely suggests where the films and photos were altered, who altered
> them, and a what time the alterations occurred. Based on my scrutiny of
> the OIC's home page, the theory of Altgens6 photo alteration is not
> persuasive, and, after years of debate on the internet, it has never been
> taken seriously by even a fraction of the JFK research community.
>
> Mr. Cinque also maintains a personal blog and a facebook page. He posts
> daily internet commentaries that have recently expanded well beyond the
> purview of the JFK assassination into such conspiracy theories as the
> death of Osama bin Laden. As apparent in the two website titles, Mr.
> Cinque gives the impression that his personal opinions reflect the OIC
> organization as a whole. The OIC blog site is entitled "Oswald in the
> Doorway: The Blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign." The OIC facebook
> page is entitled, "Oswald Innocence Campaign: Community." I am troubled
> that the subjective views of Mr. Cinque are being presented in the guise
> of the OIC community, when in fact, the opinions belong to Mr. Cinque
> alone with no group consensus whatsoever. Many of the postings of Mr.
> Cinque are part of his ongoing personal quarrels on the internet. There is
> no disclaimer indicating that his views do not represent those of the
> organization as a whole. I have ethical concerns about a solitary writer
> engaging in nonstop, profanity-laced verbal jousting that gives the
> impression that Mr. Cinque's views are representative of the OIC members
> in general.
>
> On May 26, I sent a proposal to Mr. Cinque for a new direction of the OIC
> away from Altgens6 photo alteration and into the more general area of
> studies of the JFK assassination and Oswald. My proposal, which included
> the draft of a revised Mission Statement, was categorically rejected by
> Mr. Cinque, who invited me to step down as Chair and to exit the
> organization. Due to (a) the narrow focus and unpersuasive content of the
> present OIC homepage, (b) Mr. Cinque's misrepresentation of his personal
> postings on the blog/facebook pages, (c) the inability to contact a third
> of the Senior Members, and (d) a host of other issues, I am unable to
> recommend the Oswald Innocence Campaign to any serious researcher of the
> JFK assassination.
>
> If you would like clarification on any of the points I have raised above,
> please contact me at: Lav...@comcast.net
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> James Norwood
>
> P.S. Starting on June 6, I sent four cordial e-mail requests to Mr.
> Cinque to post my letter above on the OIC blog and facebook pages. While
> these two blogs clearly imply that they are "community" websites, Mr.
> Cinque nonetheless refused to post my letter. I even revised the letter
> for him with the goal of eliminating any personal innuendo. I tried to
> make the letter both objective and useful as constructive criticism for
> the OIC. Yet, Mr. Cinque still refused to post the letter.
Contrary to the magical fairytale, Oswald never fired a gun on the day in
question, let alone even know what all the commotion and excitement was
about until *after a fellow coworker explained the president's expected
visit some time later that day. But I guess in a magical world, Oswald
then teleported himself all the way back to Ruth Paine's garage, fetched
his rifle and somehow made it so invisible that Bonnie Ray Williams
couldn't see it standing there as he polished off his lunch...pretty hard
to plan an ambush when you don't even know the intended target is even
coming anywhere near you...but, again, all things are possible with magic,
which this case seems to have lots of.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 12, 2015, 7:54:00 PM7/12/15
to
You don't know anything because you don't have the HSCA volumes.
0 new messages