Calling Robert Harris Re. Oswald's Part in the Mob Plot

[BT George]

Bob,

As I said in our last thread, my time is limited again nowadays, but I was
wondering about something.

It's been quite some time since I saw the portion of your "Attack in
Dealey Plaza" video that might have covered it. However, your theories
seem to entail Oswald being taken into a Mob shooting plot to kill JFK; it
seem with the intention that he end up being the fall guy. (E.g., Why
else let him use an unsuppressed high powered rifle?)

Would you mind clarifying a little as to what you think his role was in
the plot and how, when, and where the Mob recruited him for it?

BT George

[cmikes]

I don't know what Bob's response will be, but I had a few questions
myself. The motorcade route was announced on Tuesday, Nov 19. So before
that date, the Mob wouldn't have any idea where to be stationed to shoot
at JFK in Dallas. So assuming the Mob read the Dallas paper first thing
Tuesday morning, that gives them two days to recruit Oswald since
otherwise he would be useless to a conspiracy, scout out the sewer grate
to shoot from, find out that one of their people had a meeting with his
parole office that day and that the parole officer would be alright with
someone firing a shot at JFK from their window. I don't remember Bob, do
you have a grassy knoll shot also? That would be another person to
recruit and set up, plus gather all the guns and other equipment they
would need, with some of the guns having to be fitted with silencers, of
course.

Wow, if only the Mob could have been as efficient in trying to take out
Castro.

[Robert Harris]

BT George wrote:
> Bob,
>
> As I said in our last thread, my time is limited again nowadays,
> but I was wondering about something.
>
> It's been quite some time since I saw the portion of your "Attack in
> Dealey Plaza" video that might have covered it. However, your theories
> seem to entail Oswald being taken into a Mob shooting plot to kill JFK; it
> seem with the intention that he end up being the fall guy. (E.g., Why
> else let him use an unsuppressed high powered rifle?)
>
> Would you mind clarifying a little as to what you think his role was in
> the plot

Probably, to shoot Kennedy.

"and how, when, and where the Mob recruited him for it?

That was at Marcello's brother's restaurant in New Orleans.

A good book on the subject is, "Legacy of Secrecy".





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

cmikes wrote:
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>> As I said in our last thread, my time is limited again nowadays, but I was
>>
>> wondering about something.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's been quite some time since I saw the portion of your "Attack in
>>
>> Dealey Plaza" video that might have covered it. However, your theories
>>
>> seem to entail Oswald being taken into a Mob shooting plot to kill JFK; it
>>
>> seem with the intention that he end up being the fall guy. (E.g., Why
>>
>> else let him use an unsuppressed high powered rifle?)
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you mind clarifying a little as to what you think his role was in
>>
>> the plot and how, when, and where the Mob recruited him for it?
>>
>>
>>
>> BT George
>
> I don't know what Bob's response will be, but I had a few questions
> myself. The motorcade route was announced on Tuesday, Nov 19. So before
> that date, the Mob wouldn't have any idea where to be stationed to shoot
> at JFK in Dallas. So assuming the Mob read the Dallas paper first thing
> Tuesday morning, that gives them two days to recruit Oswald

Marcello said Oswald was recruited long before that, in New Orleans at a
meeting at his brother's restaurant.

> since
> otherwise he would be useless to a conspiracy

That is not correct. His usefulness would be in shooting Kennedy and
more importantly, his phony, communist legend which would link him to
Castro, who they hoped to blame for the crime.

> scout out the sewer grate
> to shoot from, find out that one of their people had a meeting with his
> parole office that day and that the parole officer would be alright with
> someone firing a shot at JFK from their window.

Suggestion: Never, ever, ever believe anything which is posted by
someone who changes his alias more often that his underwear:-)

Braden was on the third floor of the Daltex during the shooting, which
was nowhere near his parole officer's office.

As for selecting sniper locations, I doubt that Oswald was given that
task, although if he was, he probably could have done it during a lunch
hour.

> I don't remember Bob, do
> you have a grassy knoll shot also?

I seriously doubt it. I go into detail about the sniper locations in
this presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Seriously, check it out. If nothing else, you might find things that are
vulnerable to attack.

> That would be another person to
> recruit and set up, plus gather all the guns and other equipment they
> would need, with some of the guns having to be fitted with silencers, of
> course.

That sounds like a big hassle. I'm sure that's why the mob never planned
any hits:-)

>
> Wow, if only the Mob could have been as efficient in trying to take out
> Castro.

They were in on that too. Sadly, Castro was a lot more paranoid that JFK.





Robert Harris

[bigdog]

And it was just an incredible piece of luck that the the guy they
recruited to be their patsy just happened to work at a place overlooking
the motorcade route. What are the odds?

[Tom Ross Lee]

6 billion to 0ne.

[Peter Makres]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:23:16 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

Well you know, BG..."they" got him the job at the TSBD. It was quickly
arranged, given Oswald's hire date. But it was before the motorcade route
was announced. "They" were clairvoyant, as well.

[Robert Harris]

Not all that low. The motorcade went through the heart of the city,
including the downtown section.

It really is irrelevant though. If the motorcade took a different route,
what was to stop the killers (including Oswald) from going somewhere
else, to shoot Kennedy?





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Silly argument.

Oswald applied to other places first and might as easily have been
working elsewhere if they had accepted him.

An even sillier argument is that the killers (probably including Oswald)
would never have shot JFK if the motorcade had taken a different route.

They would have just set up the attack elsewhere.

What is it about this case that makes people's (on both sides) brains
shut down??





Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

Don't give Charnin any ideas...

[BT George]

Bigdog said:

And it was just an incredible piece of luck that the the guy they
recruited to be their patsy just happened to work at a place overlooking
the motorcade route. What are the odds?

BT says:

Well since BD and others are already heading down the path I was
contemplating, I'll use his remarks to ask Bob to expound on how this
"fortuitous" N.O. recruitment dovetailed with Oswald just "happening" to
be employed at the right plan at the right time on 11-22-63? Blind luck
or did they somehow "move" him into position?

BT George

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:23:16 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

The job was acquired from information provided by Ruth Paine, who said
she got it from a neighbor, Linnie May Randle. Later Randle denied
strongly that she had mentioned a job at all to Paine. It was found that
Paine also knew of a better job, but never mentioned it to Oswald. Ruth
Paine was under suspicion for a long time.

Oswald was accepted for work at the TSBD by Roy Truly, who oddly enough
had brought a Mauser rifle in to his office that day to show someone.

Chris

[mainframetech]

It would be wise to consider a Grassy Knoll shot among others. Jerrol
Custer (X-ray technician at Bethesda) made an X-ray of the head of JFK
from the side and said that he saw a cone of fragments that began from the
small entry wound above the right ear and on the right temple in the
hairline, and expanded toward the BOH of JFK, and blew it out. The
prosectors (except Finck) avoided talking about it all through the
autopsy, but Tom Robinson saw it, as well as James Jenkins and others:

"Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK's head, but also
recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right
temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this
quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and
commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins
the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a
bullet might have caused this hole."

From:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/james-jenkins-revelations-from-a-witness-to-jfks-autopsy/

Custer's statements are here on page 101:
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Straw man argument. Are you also going to claim that they changed the
motorcade route to take JFK within a few feet of Oswald? Maybe you think
they had to put JFK that close because Oswald had missed Walker at only
120 feet.

[mainframetech]

Ruth Paine told Oswald about the job at the TSBD, and she has said that
she heard about it from a friend of hers, Linnie May Randle. But Randle
strongly denied that she knew there was a job there, and that she had said
nothing to Paine other than that it was a place to try. Ruth Paine was
suspected of having connections to the CIA.

"One other close associate of Lee and Marina Oswald was Ruth Paine, a
Quaker housewife who befriended Marina and gave her a place to live when
she and Lee were separated, who got Oswald the job at the Book Depository,
and in whose house much of the incriminating evidence was found. Ruth's
sister, it turns out, worked for the CIA under Air Force cover. Was Ruth a
"babysitter" for Marina, as some suspect? In 1968, Marina told the Orleans
Parish Grand Jury why she had cut off contact with Ruth after the
assassination: "I was advised by Secret Service not to be connected with
her, seems like she was.....not connected.....she was sympathizing with
the CIA. She wrote letters over there and they told me for my own
reputation, to stay away."


From:
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_CIA_and_the_JFK_Assassination

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:25:35 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:19:13 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> BT George wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Bob,
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> As I said in our last thread, my time is limited again nowadays,
>
> >>
>
> >>> but I was wondering about something.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> It's been quite some time since I saw the portion of your "Attack in
>
> >>
>
> >>> Dealey Plaza" video that might have covered it. However, your theories
>
> >>
>
> >>> seem to entail Oswald being taken into a Mob shooting plot to kill JFK; it
>
> >>
>
> >>> seem with the intention that he end up being the fall guy. (E.g., Why
>
> >>
>
> >>> else let him use an unsuppressed high powered rifle?)
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Would you mind clarifying a little as to what you think his role was in
>
> >>
>
> >>> the plot
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Probably, to shoot Kennedy.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "and how, when, and where the Mob recruited him for it?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That was at Marcello's brother's restaurant in New Orleans.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> A good book on the subject is, "Legacy of Secrecy".
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > And it was just an incredible piece of luck that the the guy they
>
> > recruited to be their patsy just happened to work at a place overlooking
>
> > the motorcade route. What are the odds?
>
>
>
> Not all that low. The motorcade went through the heart of the city,
> including the downtown section.
>

At the time Oswald took his job at the TSBD, nobody even knew there was
going to be a motorcade. Originally, JFK's Texas trip was going to be a
one day affair and wouldn't have allowed enough time for a motorcade. It
was only after the White House agreed to spread the 4 city tour over two
days that Connally dropped his objection to the motorcade.

> It really is irrelevant though. If the motorcade took a different route,
> what was to stop the killers (including Oswald) from going somewhere
> else, to shoot Kennedy?
>

All kinds of logistical problems with that idea, never mind that Oswald
couldn't drive and would have had to conceal his rifle and smuggle it into
some other building where he would have been a perfect stranger. You can't
just set up a sniper's nest any old place and not be discovered. You would
need a secure hidden place somewhere along the motorcade route and you
can't just go anywhere to rent that kind of space.

The motorcade route wasn't announced until the previous Monday. Are you
seriously going to propose that Oswald was going to be the
hit-man/fall-guy no matter where your conspirators learned the motorcade
was going to be routed?

The timing of the announcement of the motorcade route coupled with the
fact Oswald had been hired at the TSBD about a month earlier indicates
this was not a plan that had been in the works for some time but simply a
crime of opportunity. Had another site been selected for the luncheon that
would have caused the motorcade route not to pass within rifle range of
the TSBD, it is unlikely most of us would have ever heard of LHO. He
probably would have tried to take out some other lower level target and
been nothing but a local police story. It was random chance the brought
JFK with range of Oswald's Carcano and he didn't miss his chance to become
somebody.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:25:56 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> What is it about this case that makes people's (on both sides) brains
> shut down??

Actually, that has only happened on one side.

[Bud]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:47:48 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:23:16 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:19:13 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > BT George wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Bob,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > As I said in our last thread, my time is limited again nowadays,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > but I was wondering about something.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > It's been quite some time since I saw the portion of your "Attack in
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Dealey Plaza" video that might have covered it. However, your theories
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > seem to entail Oswald being taken into a Mob shooting plot to kill JFK; it
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > seem with the intention that he end up being the fall guy. (E.g., Why
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > else let him use an unsuppressed high powered rifle?)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Would you mind clarifying a little as to what you think his role was in
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > the plot
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Probably, to shoot Kennedy.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > "and how, when, and where the Mob recruited him for it?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > That was at Marcello's brother's restaurant in New Orleans.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > A good book on the subject is, "Legacy of Secrecy".
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And it was just an incredible piece of luck that the the guy they
>
> >
>
> > recruited to be their patsy just happened to work at a place overlooking
>
> >
>
> > the motorcade route. What are the odds?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The job was acquired from information provided by Ruth Paine, who said
>
> she got it from a neighbor, Linnie May Randle. Later Randle denied
>
> strongly that she had mentioned a job at all to Paine.

Not true, of course...

Mr. BALL. Was there some conversation at that time about her husband Lee
Oswald?

Mrs. RANDLE. Well, they had--it was just general knowledge in the
neighborhood that he didn't have a job and she was expecting a baby. Of
course. I didn't know where he was or anything. And of course you know just
being neighborly and everything, we felt sorry for Marina because her baby
was due right away as we understood it, and he didn't have any work, so they
said, so it was just--
Mr. BALL. Mrs. Paine told you that Lee didn't have any work?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I suppose. It was just in conversation.
Mr. BALL. Marina didn't take part in the conversation?
Mrs. RANDLE. No. She couldn't. So far as I know, she couldn't speak.
Mr. BALL. You and Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Paine talked about it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was there anything said then about the Texas School Book
Depository as a place he might get a job?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't
know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley
had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We
listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live in
a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much of
an education can find work.

So, it was among one of the places that we mentioned. We mentioned several
others, and Mrs. Paine said that well, he couldn't apply for any of the
jobs that would require driving because he couldn't drive, and it was just
in conversation that you might talk just any day and not think a thing on
earth about it. In fact, I didn't even know that he had even tried any place
that we mentioned.
Mr. BALL. What were some of the other places mentioned?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I remember two of them. Mrs. Roberts entered into the
conversation and, of course, she is more familiar with the place than I am.
It was Manor Bakeries which was a home delivery service.
Then there was this Texas Gypsum which makes sheet rock and things like
that, and we mentioned because Wesley had tried those places that I
mentioned those.
Mr. BALL. And then you also mentioned the Texas Book Depository?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I didn't know there was a job opening over there.
Mr. BALL. But did you mention it?
Mrs. RANDLE. But we said he might try over there. There might be work over
there because it was the busy season but I didn't have any previous
knowledge that there was any job opening.
Mr. BALL. Did you later learn that Lee had applied for a job?
Mrs. RANDLE. She told me, Mrs. Paine told me, later that he had applied for
the job, and had gotten the job and she thanked us for naming the places
and things like that.

> It was found that
>
> Paine also knew of a better job, but never mentioned it to Oswald. Ruth
>
> Paine was under suspicion for a long time.

Not by anyone who matters.

>
>
> Oswald was accepted for work at the TSBD by Roy Truly, who oddly enough
>
> had brought a Mauser rifle in to his office that day to show someone.

Not true, of course. Warren Caster brought a couple rifles into the TSBD
on the 20th. Try to get something right.

>
>
> Chris

[John McAdams]

OK, Mainframe, some buff book or web site published (and you accepted)
a gross mischaracterization (pretty much an outright lie) about
Randle's testimony.

So from what book or web site did you get the nonsense you posted?

Will you be skeptical of that source in the future?

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

[cmikes]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:04:45 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> cmikes wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 29, 2014 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>
> >> Bob,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> As I said in our last thread, my time is limited again nowadays, but I was
>
> >>
>
> >> wondering about something.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It's been quite some time since I saw the portion of your "Attack in
>
> >>
>
> >> Dealey Plaza" video that might have covered it. However, your theories
>
> >>
>
> >> seem to entail Oswald being taken into a Mob shooting plot to kill JFK; it
>
> >>
>
> >> seem with the intention that he end up being the fall guy. (E.g., Why
>
> >>
>
> >> else let him use an unsuppressed high powered rifle?)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Would you mind clarifying a little as to what you think his role was in
>
> >>
>
> >> the plot and how, when, and where the Mob recruited him for it?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> BT George
>
> >
>
> > I don't know what Bob's response will be, but I had a few questions
>
> > myself. The motorcade route was announced on Tuesday, Nov 19. So before
>
> > that date, the Mob wouldn't have any idea where to be stationed to shoot
>
> > at JFK in Dallas. So assuming the Mob read the Dallas paper first thing
>
> > Tuesday morning, that gives them two days to recruit Oswald
>
>
>
> Marcello said Oswald was recruited long before that, in New Orleans at a
>
> meeting at his brother's restaurant.
>

So you're theory is that Oswald was recruited earlier and that it was just
a massive coincidence that JFK rode in a motorcade right past his place of
employment?

>
> > since
>
> > otherwise he would be useless to a conspiracy
>
>
>
> That is not correct. His usefulness would be in shooting Kennedy and
>
> more importantly, his phony, communist legend which would link him to
>
> Castro, who they hoped to blame for the crime.
>
>

When he was "recruited", there wasn't even a Dallas trip planned or any
indication that one would happen. What, was Marcello going to fly Oswald
to Washington?

> > scout out the sewer grate
>
> > to shoot from, find out that one of their people had a meeting with his
>
> > parole office that day and that the parole officer would be alright with
>
> > someone firing a shot at JFK from their window.
>
>
>
> Suggestion: Never, ever, ever believe anything which is posted by
>
> someone who changes his alias more often that his underwear:-)
>
>
>
> Braden was on the third floor of the Daltex during the shooting, which
>
> was nowhere near his parole officer's office.
>

How did Braden's parole officer react to him bringing a rifle to his
meeting? And what, did Braden say, "Excuse me for a few minutes, I have
to go shoot the President?"

>
> As for selecting sniper locations, I doubt that Oswald was given that
>
> task, although if he was, he probably could have done it during a lunch
>
> hour.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't remember Bob, do
>
> > you have a grassy knoll shot also?
>
>
>
> I seriously doubt it. I go into detail about the sniper locations in
>
> this presentation:
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
>
>
> Seriously, check it out. If nothing else, you might find things that are
>
> vulnerable to attack.
>
>
>
> > That would be another person to
>
> > recruit and set up, plus gather all the guns and other equipment they
>
> > would need, with some of the guns having to be fitted with silencers, of
>
> > course.
>
>
>
> That sounds like a big hassle. I'm sure that's why the mob never planned
>
> any hits:-)
>

Actually, even IF your theory was correct, the mob never did plan any hits
like this. Mob hits, at least by the American Mob, were always up close
and personal, with pistols at close range and preferably in a secluded
spot. Can you cite any mob attacks in America that involved rifles at a
medium range in a very public place with hundreds of witnesses?

There's also the fact that in America, the mob very rarely assassinated
public figures or cops. They realized that it was almost never worth it
because of the amount of attention and heat it brought down on them. It
was a standing rule in the mob that they needed approval from their
national council to even take out a regular beat cop or local public
official, and we're supposed to believe that they put together a plan in
two days to kill the President of the United States?

[Anthony Marsh]

Connally advised against a motorcade because he was worried about
radical right protestors staging an incident.

>> It really is irrelevant though. If the motorcade took a different route,
>> what was to stop the killers (including Oswald) from going somewhere
>> else, to shoot Kennedy?
>>
>
> All kinds of logistical problems with that idea, never mind that Oswald
> couldn't drive and would have had to conceal his rifle and smuggle it into

Who said that Oswald couldn't drive? He was getting lessons. Just not
having a driver's license does not mean you can't drive. You need to get
out into the real world some time.

> some other building where he would have been a perfect stranger. You can't
> just set up a sniper's nest any old place and not be discovered. You would

You don't need to set up a sniper's nest.

> need a secure hidden place somewhere along the motorcade route and you
> can't just go anywhere to rent that kind of space.
>
> The motorcade route wasn't announced until the previous Monday. Are you
> seriously going to propose that Oswald was going to be the
> hit-man/fall-guy no matter where your conspirators learned the motorcade
> was going to be routed?

It HAS to go through Dealey Plaza.

[Lanny]

Not only that, but they gave the job to a "non-family-member," certified
screw-up who was already 0-for-1 in the political assassination game?

Yeah, that's who I would have picked.

[mainframetech]

John McAdams,

Gee! I'm surprised that you didn't recognize the link I posted with
the quote in the post you seemed to dislike. Here it is:

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_CIA_and_the_JFK_Assassination

Are you now saying that the Mary Ferrell website is "...some buff book

or web site published (and you accepted) a gross mischaracterization

(pretty much an outright lie)"? I doubt the Mary Ferrell workers would
appreciate your running down their site. They seem to try for objectivity
and honesty.

Now for the first part of my post that you didn't like. I said:

"Ruth Paine told Oswald about the job at the TSBD, and she has said that
she heard about it from a friend of hers, Linnie May Randle. But Randle
strongly denied that she knew there was a job there, and that she had said
nothing to Paine other than that it was a place to try. Ruth Paine was
suspected of having connections to the CIA."

Here's Linnie Mae Randle's WC testimony:

"Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I
didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful,
Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one.
We listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live
in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much
of an education can find work. So, it was among one of the places that we
mentioned."

Find the testimony here:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm

You'll see that I mostly followed what Linnie Mae said. From the
context, I got the word 'strongly', but everything else was NOT said by
me, but by Linnie Mae. You will note also that I didn't quote Linnie Mae
for the last entence of that paragraph. I made a statement that went like
this:

"Ruth Paine was suspected of having connections to the CIA."

That was not Linnie Mae talking, as you can see, it is me. I then
followed my comment about Ruth Paine and the CIA with the quote from the
Ferrell site that explained my comment.

I had told you I got most of my information from testimony, or
trustworthy sites, but you wanted to prove I used some silly conspiracy
sites. I told you you were wrong. Now I've proved it. I wonder if you
will say anything in response to this post of mine, after all the
accusations you've made about me?

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 1 Sep 2014 12:36:22 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:58:29 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 31 Aug 2014 23:55:03 -0400, Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, Mainframe, some buff book or web site published (and you accepted)
>>
>> a gross mischaracterization (pretty much an outright lie) about
>>
>> Randle's testimony.
>>
>>
>>
>> So from what book or web site did you get the nonsense you posted?
>>
>>
>>
>> Will you be skeptical of that source in the future?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

>John McAdams,
>
> Gee! I'm surprised that you didn't recognize the link I posted with
>the quote in the post you seemed to dislike. Here it is:
>
>https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_CIA_and_the_JFK_Assassination
>
> Are you now saying that the Mary Ferrell website is "...some buff book
>or web site published (and you accepted) a gross mischaracterization
>(pretty much an outright lie)"? I doubt the Mary Ferrell workers would
>appreciate your running down their site. They seem to try for objectivity
>and honesty.
>

Yes, Mary Ferrell is a buff website. The secondary source essays on
the site have a strong conspiracy bias.

And you believed the false and misleading assertion in one of them.

> Now for the first part of my post that you didn't like. I said:
>
>"Ruth Paine told Oswald about the job at the TSBD, and she has said that
>she heard about it from a friend of hers, Linnie May Randle. But Randle
>strongly denied that she knew there was a job there, and that she had said
>nothing to Paine other than that it was a place to try. Ruth Paine was
>suspected of having connections to the CIA."
>
> Here's Linnie Mae Randle's WC testimony:
>
>"Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I
>didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful,
>Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one.
>We listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live
>in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much
>of an education can find work. So, it was among one of the places that we
>mentioned."
>
> Find the testimony here:
>http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
>
> You'll see that I mostly followed what Linnie Mae said. From the
>context, I got the word 'strongly', but everything else was NOT said by
>me, but by Linnie Mae.

Adding "strongly" wasn't an accurate rendering of the testimony. You
could not have gotten that from the context unless you had an agenda.

The only discrepancy between Paine and Randle was that Paine
remembered that "Mrs. Randle mentioned that her younger brother,
Wesley Frazier thought they needed another person at the Texas School
Book Depository where Wesley worked."

Randle said she didn't mention "needing another person."

That's a trivial discrepancy, and it was dishonest of the Mary Farrell
site to claim otherwise.

But you bought it.

>You will note also that I didn't quote Linnie Mae
>for the last entence of that paragraph. I made a statement that went like
>this:
>
>"Ruth Paine was suspected of having connections to the CIA."
>
> That was not Linnie Mae talking, as you can see, it is me. I then
>followed my comment about Ruth Paine and the CIA with the quote from the
>Ferrell site that explained my comment.
>

But buffs "suspect" everybody they don't like, so the claim that Ruth
Paine was "suspected" has no significance.

> I had told you I got most of my information from testimony, or
>trustworthy sites, but you wanted to prove I used some silly conspiracy
>sites. I told you you were wrong. Now I've proved it. I wonder if you
>will say anything in response to this post of mine, after all the
>accusations you've made about me?
>

You got taken, Chris.

A dishonest buff site claimed that there was some significant
disparity between the testimony of Randle and Paine, and that it was
somehow sinister.

You bought it.

Just like you buy everything else on buff sites.

You wouldn't even admit that Roger Craig changed his testimony about
the Mauser!

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

[mainframetech]

Of course, we mustn't forget that the route of the motorcade might have
been known to conspirators within the presidential party. They could then
pass it on to Dallas conspirators.

And we must also consider that Oswald might not have even known of the
route of the motorcade until told that morning by a co-worker:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0464-001.gif

Chris

[Peter Makres]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:44:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

bigdog has it right. As Robert Oswald has said: "...It just happened that
way....it was a happenstance of history". As difficult as it may be to
accept, that's the fact of the matter.

These "mob hit Kennedy", "Oswald was set up as a fall guy" make for
fascinating reading, but in practice, upon (even slightly) closer
examination, just fall apart.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't think the Mafia hired Oswald. But the theory would be to pick
someone who could not be linked to them. Did you ever read the CIA
assassination manual? It suggests hiring criminals for plausible
deniability.

[bigdog]

On Monday, September 1, 2014 11:34:14 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > The motorcade route wasn't announced until the previous Monday. Are you
> > seriously going to propose that Oswald was going to be the
> > hit-man/fall-guy no matter where your conspirators learned the motorcade
> > was going to be routed?
>
> It HAS to go through Dealey Plaza.
>

What crap. It didn't have to go anywhere. If another site had been chosen,
it could have been routed elsewhere. And even if that was through Dealey
Plaza, it could have stayed on Main St. which would have made it a much
more difficult shot. The only reason it went down Elm St. was because
that's where the entrance ramp was an I-35 was the fastest way to the
Trade Mart after completing the motorcade through downtown.

It is completely absurd to think that Oswald was placed in the TSBD for
the purpose of him either being a shooter or a patsy in the assassination.
No one could have known at the time he was hired at the TSBD what a golden
opportunity that was going to present. Even more absurd is the notion that
Marcello recruited Oswald while he was living in New Orleans to carry out
a hit in Dallas at some unknown later date. The killing of JFK was simply
a crime of opportunity carried out by one man who had no idea what fate
was about to deal him until he learned about it earlier in the week,
probably through the newspaper.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yes, that's what he's saying.
And it would be far from the first sign.

The foundation's site looks (much!) better than most, but it's a buff site.

And I thought everybody knew that.

> I doubt the Mary Ferrell workers would
> appreciate your running down their site.

Of course they wouldn't. The truth hurts.

They seem to try for objectivity
> and honesty.

And you think that that's what you strive for too, right?

>
> Now for the first part of my post that you didn't like. I said:
>
> "Ruth Paine told Oswald about the job at the TSBD, and she has said that
> she heard about it from a friend of hers, Linnie May Randle.

This is from your reply to Bigdog. John posted before this appeared.

He is responding to your phrasing your point this way, earlier:

"Later Randle denied strongly that she had mentioned a job at all to
Paine."

Which can be construed to mean something different than what you write
here:

> But Randle
> strongly denied that she knew there was a job there, and that she had said
> nothing to Paine other than that it was a place to try. Ruth Paine was
> suspected of having connections to the CIA."

"Ruth Paine was suspected" by *whom* "of having connections to the CIA"?

[bigdog]

> Of course, we mustn't forget that the route of the motorcade might have
> been known to conspirators within the presidential party. They could then
> pass it on to Dallas conspirators.
>

Of course you won't tell us who those conspirators were. I guess it was
"they". And of course you can't tell us how they would have known to place
Oswald in the TSBD well before anybody knew there was going to be a
motorcade or where it would go.

>
> And we must also consider that Oswald might not have even known of the
> route of the motorcade until told that morning by a co-worker:
>

I guess it was just luck that he happened to have his rifle and four
bullets with him when he learned that.

[Bud]

So it was Randle who brought up the TSBD as a place for Oswald to try
for a job. Did Ruth Paine use some CIA mind control trick to get her to do
that?

As usual, it isn`t the information that is the problem, it`s the
conspiracy hobbyist looking at the information that is.

[BT George]

Bigdog said:

And it was just an incredible piece of luck that the the guy they
recruited to be their patsy just happened to work at a place overlooking
the motorcade route. What are the odds?

BT says:

Well since BD and others are already heading down the path I was
contemplating, I'll use his remarks to ask Bob to expound on how this
"fortuitous" N.O. recruitment dovetailed with Oswald just "happening" to

be employed at the right place at the right time on 11-22-63? Blind luck

or did they somehow "move" him into position?

BT George

Bump.
Robert?

BT George

[mainframetech]

Very typical John. Your reply is what can be expected from the average
brainwashed LN. You see CTs everywhere that doesn't agree with the WC
concoctions. I'm surprised that you have decided that the Ferrell site is
a conspiracy leaning site. It's too far out for me to see it. They seem
to put up articles that support both major sides of the argument, but you
see CT. I see objective. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong about your
leaning, which is obvious to most folks. And I'm sure you will admit it.

As to how I read a context from the article I quoted, that's an
individual decision, and it's possible with your radical LN leaning you
would not see it the same way as I did.

And once again, as I've done before, I've told you that I have no
problem if Roger Craig tried to go back on his testimony. He was pushed
almost to the limit, and he may have come to the belief there was no way
he could get a decent job if he continued telling the truth. Either way,
I have no problem if you're able to back up your contention, then I'll
accept it. I'm more interested in what Craig did near the beginning of his
effort to tell the truth against the tide.

Let me know...I'll be around.

Chris

[Mark Florio]

Mainframe, whether you believe in Ruth Paine's guilt I don't know, but
CTs have smeared Paine's good name without one bit of evidence for 50
years. Her involvement in a national tragedy was somewhat complicated,
very human and totally innocent. Her story is eloquently told in MRS.
PAINE'S GARAGE by Thomas Mallon, and other places. You gratuitously threw
out there that Paine was "suspected" to have CIA connections. Such a
remark reminds me of what Joseph Welch asked of Joseph McCarthy. But let
me ask you this: Do you believe Ruth Paine was involved in a conspiracy to
murder President Kennedy? Mark Florio.

[Robert Harris]

I do hope John posts this reply. He has been sitting on several, which
I'm sure don't violate the rules, for several days now.

BT, I will tell you what I have been trying to tell your friends. First,
this was not some incredible fluke. The motorcade was intended to pass
through the most heavily populated, commercial part of Dallas. It passed
by literally thousands of peoples' workplaces.

And there was no necessity at all, for it to pass by the depository,
anymore than Gen. Walker needed to pass by the depository. In fact, Dealey
Plaza probably wasn't chosen because Oswald worked there. A good case can
be made, that the Daltex was the main attraction. Dallas Uranium and Oil
seems to have been a scam operation - the kind of thing Jim Braden was
known for. It's not surprising that he was there during the attack.

But regardless, the killers would have simply moved to wherever was
necessary to get the job done.



Robert Harris

[gwmcc...@gmail.com]

CHRIS: And once again, as I've done before, I've told you that I have no

problem if Roger Craig tried to go back on his testimony. He was pushed
almost to the limit, and he may have come to the belief there was no way
he could get a decent job if he continued telling the truth.

You seem to forget, Chris: in his first story, he said nothing about a
Mauser. The bit about seeing the Mauser markings on the gun found on the
sixth floor came much later. Who was pressuring him--CTs? Are you saying
his employer was a CT?

[BT George]

Bob,

With all due respect, your answer dodges the obvious. No matter *how* you
slice it, it would take *utterly* UNBELIEVABLE luck for this to have
turned out with Oswald being where he was, when he was, on 11-22-63 if he
had already been taken into some kind of alliance with the Mob back in New
Orleans. This is so because:

1) The motorcade route was not decided on until just before Kennedy's
arrival (The 18th I believe.) and didn't even appear in the papers till
the 19th. This was, of course, WELL after LHO started his job at the TSBD
back in mid-October.

2) Though the motorcade route actually scheduled was clearly *not* an
unlikely choice, it was *far* from the only possibility even ignoring that
there was some dispute at first whether to have one at all.

3) Unless you are one of "those" CT's who think he was somehow
pre-positioned with his job at the TSBD and/or that someone in the Secret
Service was in cahoots with the mob, the absolute *earliest* they could
have recruited him for his ACTUAL role in the shooting (regardless of what
was discussed way back in N.O.) was on November 19th. Meaning that the
mob would have been left approaching a key figure in its plans
(Patsy-shooter Oswald) for the biggest hit in its history with---at
most---about 3 days till the shooting.

...One can only imagine the scrambling that would have occurred to keep
the whole plan from falling through if he'd simply said "No." to his part
in what almost any rational man would have seen as a hair-brained and high
risk gamble.

4) Oswald was *NOT* an interchangeable part. His background as the
perfect Communist-sympathizer "fall-guy" (per your beliefs) could not be
"manufactured" or "ginned" up on short-notice from the available
"talent-pool" in 1963 Dallas, Texas.

5) Any hopes of repositioning him would have probably been been futile if
the motorcade route had taken *any* other course than it did. He had *NO*
business in any other building during the workday and probably no access
to anywhere that would be a good place to be shooting from.

6) Even if he was successfully repositioned to shoot from elsewhere, and
got apprehended there (presumably still the planned fate for the "Patsy"
shooter), it would have changed the whole "Lone-nut takes gun to work to
hit a target-of-opportunity" narrative.

7) In turn, this could have opened up a whole new line of questioning
about how he got access to where he was shooting from and/or what his
motives might have been.

8) Moreover (as we must assume that it was still a multi-gun plot) there
was the inherent risk that shots from other locations/directions might
have been detected. And if this happened---combined with Oswald's being
"out-of-place"---it would have been nearly *impossible* to ignore the
likelihood of his being part of some kind of conspiracy.


...And there is probably more if I were to take time to think about it,
but those objections are a pretty good start.

BT George

[John McAdams]

On 1 Sep 2014 18:33:51 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

Sashay(tm)!!

The issue was the fact that a buff website implied that Randle
contradicted Ruth Paine's testimony, with the implication that Ruth
Paine was lying.

You have now been corrected on that.

You need to man up and admit you accepted the account on an unreliable
buff site.

Maybe this might teach you something about being skeptical of what you
read on buff sites.

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

[John McAdams]

On 1 Sep 2014 18:33:51 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, September 1, 2014 12:47:56 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 1 Sep 2014 12:36:22 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>
>

> And once again, as I've done before, I've told you that I have no
>problem if Roger Craig tried to go back on his testimony. He was pushed
>almost to the limit, and he may have come to the belief there was no way
>he could get a decent job if he continued telling the truth. Either way,
>I have no problem if you're able to back up your contention, then I'll
>accept it. I'm more interested in what Craig did near the beginning of his
>effort to tell the truth against the tide.
>
> Let me know...I'll be around.
>

No, you don't understand.

Craig's testimony got *more* conspiratorial over time. He added the
"Mauser" account (which you believed) very late.

In 1968, to the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS, he said he didn't know the
make of the rifle discovered on the sixth floor.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg

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

[mainframetech]

I will suggest a few conspirators to you based on what I've learned so
far. Begin with LBJ, then go to Hoover, then Robert Frazier, Roy
Kellerman and Greer. Also a wealthy fellow named Milteer, who was able to
predict the method of the killing before it happened. The FBI let him go,
of course. But a number of workers that helped with the cover up did not
particularly know that they were being directed by conspirators. They
were given good reasons to help with the cover up, and they did it without
problem.

Some people think there were a few Mafia people involved, and I
wouldn't squash that, but they weren't in control, just helping due to
connections.

>
>
> >
>
> > And we must also consider that Oswald might not have even known of the
>
> > route of the motorcade until told that morning by a co-worker:
>

Interesting. I had left information of Oswald's not knowing about the
motorcade, and it's gone now. Someone made a mistake and erased it. I'll
put it back...:)

Here it is. The person was James Jarman. Here's his affidavit:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0463-001.gif

And here's his testimony:
"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."

Very suggestive that Oswald didn't know about the motorcade until that
day when Jarman told him about it.

> >
>
>
>
> I guess it was just luck that he happened to have his rifle and four
>
> bullets with him when he learned that.

Talk about odd. You think a guy is walking around with only 4 bullets
in his pocket, no receipt from where he got it, no record anywhere of the
sale to him, and he has a rifle with a badly aligned scope put on by a
gunsmith that thought the MC rifle was a 'piece of junk', and who
obviously thought the scope wasn't any great shakes either:

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=226036

This guy, who wasn't on the 6th floor of the TSBD is supposed ot have
used this MC rifle that he hadn't even practiced with, and never intended
to shoot anyone with, is supposed to have taken 3 potshots at the
motorcade (that he didn't know about) and hit JFK 2 out of 3? Get off it.
You're off the reservation.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Mark. I wouldn't have a clue what her motives were. Why she learned
Russian form Berlitz, or why anything with her. I saw an article on Mary
Ferrell and I read it and picked out that paragraph, which was suggestive
of a connection with the CIA. I also left a link to where I got it from,
so you don't need to ask me for it.


NOTE: I don't know the real story of Ruth Paine, and I don't think most
other people do either. I DO know that any author worth their salt can
make a person look crazy or look sad or human or whatever they want, and
get reactions from people that read their stories. So that carries little
weight. The evidence itself might be more indicative, if you have some to
offer.

Chris

[bigdog]

Very good analysis. But you should know CTs frown on bringing common sense
into any discussion.

[cmikes]

That's a common theme among just about all the conspiracy "witnesses".
It's like they just can't resist embellishing their stories. How much of
this is their doing and how much is the various conspiracy authors adding
to their stories is unclear, but it's probably some of both.

[bigdog]

OK, you've named a number of characters for which you have no evidence of
their involvement so you've answered the question who "they" were. Now can
you tell us how "they" knew to place Oswald in the TSBD before anyone knew
there would be a motorcade going down Elm St?

>
> > > And we must also consider that Oswald might not have even known of the
> > > route of the motorcade until told that morning by a co-worker:
>
> Interesting. I had left information of Oswald's not knowing about the
> motorcade, and it's gone now. Someone made a mistake and erased it. I'll
> put it back...:)
>
> Here it is. The person was James Jarman. Here's his affidavit:
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0463-001.gif
>
>
>
> And here's his testimony:
>
> "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."
>
>
>
> Very suggestive that Oswald didn't know about the motorcade until that
> day when Jarman told him about it.
>

Oswald's trip to Irving to fetch his rifle the night before is more than
very suggestive that he knew all about the motorcade. It sounds like he
was just acting as if he didn't know. I won't speculate why he was doing
this because it would be a guess, but I can certainly think of a plausible
reason for him to pretend he didn't know.

>
> > I guess it was just luck that he happened to have his rifle and four

> > bullets with him when he learned that.
>
> Talk about odd. You think a guy is walking around with only 4 bullets
> in his pocket,

Four was one more than he needed. Four was probably all he had left and
there was no time nor any reason to go get more.

> no receipt from where he got it,

Why would he keep a receipt? Maybe if he had missed with all four shots he
would have gone back to the gun shop and demanded his money back because
the bullets were defective.

> no record anywhere of the
> sale to him,

Why should there be?

> and he has a rifle with a badly aligned scope put on by a
> gunsmith that thought the MC rifle was a 'piece of junk', and who
> obviously thought the scope wasn't any great shakes either:
>

He had the rifle that was proven to be the murder weapon by the recovered
bullets and the spent shells in the sniper's nest, your cockamamie reasons
for dismissing that evidence not withstanding.

>
>
> http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=226036
>
>
>
> This guy, who wasn't on the 6th floor of the TSBD is supposed ot have
> used this MC rifle that he hadn't even practiced with, and never intended
> to shoot anyone with, is supposed to have taken 3 potshots at the
> motorcade (that he didn't know about) and hit JFK 2 out of 3? Get off it.
> You're off the reservation.
>

I think you broke your own record for the number of ridiculous assumptions
you could cram in a short paragraph.

[mainframetech]

Don't be silly John. Your website shows articles of both 'faiths', and
I've quoted from it before with no comment from you. I've asked you more than
once to name the sites you think are so terrible, even though your bias
would show strongly, in my opinion, and you've named none. Now, when it
deals with a fact in the case, you complain. It would have made more sense
if you had said you didn't like the Mary Ferrell site from the beginning.
I think the Ferrell site has also shown some articles of LN nature like yours
shows the opposing articles, but either way, there will be sites that tend
one way or the other, and that does NOT make them liars, nor does your
website make you a liar.

I think any manning up might be from you for attacking the attitudes of other sites that you don't agree with. Of course, they're all talking of conspiracy, which you don't believe in, but they have every right to conduct themselves as they do. Being objective is hard to do, and I realize that. If I were trying to monitor a site like this, and do things that will keep people coming and chatting and arguing, I wouldn't do it as well, because my belief from the evidence are toward conspiracy.

I see no reason for me not to glean information from Mary Ferrell, or
JFKLancer, or similar sites, as well as testimony and statements from the
ARRB and similar places. And I don't think of them as "conspiracy sites",
just as those interested in the JFK conspiracy. If there were no
conspiracy, there'd be no sites. I shall continue to get information from
sites that I feel are trying to be objective, though they may fail at
times, which is the case for some articles I've reads on your own site.
Certainly if you can make mistakes on a LN leaning site, they can make
mistakes on a CT oriented site.

When I hear complaints about my comments, such that the data is
suspect, I will look further and see about it, which I will do in this
case, but I wouldn't go back on a quote that I copied and linked to for
all to see. If I finds that the other site was wrong, I may say something
here though. So far I've found similar statements on other sites about
Ruth Paine.

And finally, there is no such thing as a "buff" site. You know the
meanings of 'buff' and none of them apply to CTs. I don't like the term
'nutter' which is similar in nature. A made up word with a slightly
negative aspect to it.

While you might argue that Linnie Mae Randle was not 'strongly' negative
about what Paine said about a job, it was clear that she was correcting
the record, so to speak, by giving the information of what really happened
in their conversation. She made sure it was known that she did not KNOW
there was a job at the TSBD. Here's some of the testimony:

"Mr. BALL. Was there anything said then about the Texas School Book
Depository as a place he might get a job?

Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't
know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley
had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We
listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live in
a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much of
an education can find work.

So, it was among one of the places that we mentioned. We mentioned several
others, and Mrs. Paine said that well, he couldn't apply for any of the
jobs that would require driving because he couldn't drive, and it was just
in conversation that you might talk just any day and not think a thing on
earth about it. In fact, I didn't even know that he had even tried any
place that we mentioned."

Here is testimony from Ruth Paine:

"Mrs. PAINE - And the subject of his looking for work and that he hadn't
found work for a week, came up while we were having coffee, the four young
mothers at Mrs. Roberts' house, and Mrs. Randle mentioned that her younger

brother, Wesley Frazier thought they needed another person at the Texas

School Book Depository where Wesley worked. Marina then asked me, after
we had gone home, asked me if I would call--"

Paine here says that she got wind of a job at the TSBD from Randle, who
had heard it from her brother that a job was available. But Randle said
she didn't know of a job there.

Paine is later grilled heavily about her connection to Randle.

Chris

[mainframetech]

any number of times I've tried to bring common sense into conversation
with you, and usually can't get it in.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

In article <9abaa18f-0919-48a3...@googlegroups.com>,

No it didn't. The motorcade was deliberately routed though the most
heavily populated commercial part of Dallas. It passed the workplaces of
literally thousands of people.

> if he
> had already been taken into some kind of alliance with the Mob back in New
> Orleans. This is so because:
>
> 1) The motorcade route was not decided on until just before Kennedy's
> arrival (The 18th I believe.)

That doesn't matter. The killers would have positioned themselves
wherever was necessary if the route was different.

Do you *REALLY* think the hit would have been called off if the
motorcade didn't pass by the depository??

You must be utterly flabbergasted that Oswald didn't wait until Gen.
Walker drove down Elm St:-)

> and didn't even appear in the papers till
> the 19th. This was, of course, WELL after LHO started his job at the TSBD
> back in mid-October.
>
> 2) Though the motorcade route actually scheduled was clearly *not* an
> unlikely choice, it was *far* from the only possibility even ignoring that
> there was some dispute at first whether to have one at all.

You seem to think that the murder was contingent on Kennedy driving by the
depository. There were countless tall building along the motorcade route,
including hotels where they could simply rent a room and shoot JFK as he
went by.

>
> 3) Unless you are one of "those" CT's who think he was somehow
> pre-positioned with his job at the TSBD and/or that someone in the Secret
> Service was in cahoots with the mob, the absolute *earliest* they could
> have recruited him for his ACTUAL role in the shooting (regardless of what
> was discussed way back in N.O.) was on November 19th. Meaning that the
> mob would have been left approaching a key figure in its plans
> (Patsy-shooter Oswald) for the biggest hit in its history with---at
> most---about 3 days till the shooting.

You're making all this waaay too complicated.

>
> ...One can only imagine the scrambling that would have occurred to keep
> the whole plan from falling through if he'd simply said "No." to his part
> in what almost any rational man would have seen as a hair-brained and high
> risk gamble.
>
> 4) Oswald was *NOT* an interchangeable part. His background as the
> perfect Communist-sympathizer "fall-guy" (per your beliefs) could not be
> "manufactured" or "ginned" up on short-notice from the available
> "talent-pool" in 1963 Dallas, Texas.

Why not? He gets a call from Ferrie, who says, "We're on for Thursday.
Check with Jack of details.".

That's basically, how mob hits happened.

>
> 5) Any hopes of repositioning him would have probably been been futile if
> the motorcade route had taken *any* other course than it did. He had *NO*
> business in any other building during the workday and probably no access
> to anywhere that would be a good place to be shooting from.

And the other shooters did:-)

Why exactly, would they have had a harder time positioning Oswald,
anymore than one of their own hit men?

BT, you are trying to make all this much more complicated than it really
was.

>
> 6) Even if he was successfully repositioned to shoot from elsewhere,

Ahh... so it *IS* possible:-)

> and
> got apprehended there (presumably still the planned fate for the "Patsy"
> shooter), it would have changed the whole "Lone-nut takes gun to work to
> hit a target-of-opportunity" narrative.

Yes, he would not have been at work. And that matters because..??

I believe the plan was for Oswald to be killed at the murder site. I saw
an interview of Jack Laningham in which he said something that at first,
didn't make sense.

He said that Ruby shot at Oswald in DP, but missed.

Of course, we know that was not true. But then I thought about it a bit
more and the lights came on.

He could only have heard that from Marcello. But why would Marcello
believe such a thing? Well, it was obviously, Ruby's job to silence
Oswald. But at the time, Ruby was doing what Ruby does best - looking
after the interests of Jack Ruby, establishing an ironclad alibi at the
offices of the DMN, where he hung out for hours that day.

So when Marcello or more likely, Marcello's lieutenant, asked him why
Oswald got away unharmed, what could he say - that he defied Marcello's
instructions in order to protect his own skin?

Of course not. He lied and said he shot at Oswald but missed. What else
could he do??

Make sense?

>
> 7)

Why do you keep numbering this stuff?

Most of these numbered sections are just continuations of the previous
argument:-)

> In turn, this could have opened up a whole new line of questioning
> about how he got access to where he was shooting from and/or what his
> motives might have been.

How he got access?

Why would he need to "access" to hide behind a bush or rent a hotel room?

And if he was dead, I doubt that they would ask him anyway:-)

>
> 8) Moreover (as we must assume that it was still a multi-gun plot) there
> was the inherent risk that shots from other locations/directions might
> have been detected.

Yes, shots were "detected" in DP too.

> And if this happened---combined with Oswald's being
> "out-of-place"---it would have been nearly *impossible* to ignore the
> likelihood of his being part of some kind of conspiracy.

Why would they care?

The hope was that Oswald would be thought to have been part of a
communist conspiracy, and it almost worked. That's exactly what the DPD
believed, and described in their original indictment.

The "lone" assassin theory was undoubtedly, the last thing the
conspiracy wanted. It was the contrivance of LBJ, who did not want to
have to accuse Castro, and then explain why it was OK for the US to have
been trying to assassinate him, for the year prior to JFK's murder.

>
>
> ...And there is probably more if I were to take time to think about it,
> but those objections are a pretty good start.

I'm sorry, BT, but those are not objections - they are your attempts to
make this much more complicated and difficult than it ever would have
been.

The mob had a much simpler way of doing things. They went to wherever
they needed to, and then just started shooting until their target was
dead. And there was no shortage of tall buildings in Dallas, and
undoubtedly, other locations where they could just hide in the bushes.

Come on, BT. Do you *REALLY* believe they would have just packed up and
went home if the motorcade hadn't passed by the depository??





>
> BT George

[Robert Harris]

In article <d80fe0c3-9c6b-47a4...@googlegroups.com>,

LOL!!

You would claim the flat Earth theory was "very good analysis" if a
fellow nutter said it:-)

All it was, was a rather desperate attempt to make it seem difficult for
the killers to shoot Kennedy somewhere other than DP.

Funny isn't it, that in their previous hundred or so hits, they never
required the victims to drive by their day jobs:-)

I do hope that John decides to repost my reply to BT.


Robert Harris

[Bud]

He`ll accept anything he likes the sound of without question.

>
>
> Maybe this might teach you something about being skeptical of what you
>
> read on buff sites.

He often runs down DVP websites as being too "biased" to be useful.
Useful to his purposes, anyway.

And he didn`t say where he got the idea that Truly brought rifles into
the TSBD "that day". Is that on the Mary Ferrel site also?

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

[Bud]

So what? In either case it was Randle that offered the TSBD as a place
to try, not Paine.

[Bud]

I`ve noticed that too.

>
>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

You can't remember what you're saying to the various people you're
trying to pull the wool over on. It's been explained to you that Oswald
was the one that brought in the rifle and probably was the one that his it
too. But there can be many reasons for that. Trade, sell or show. He
could have been told a story by a contact of his that he had top bring it
in for some other reason.

And when he learned that they were searching the TSBD for a shooter, he
thought of the rifle and got away as soon as he safely could, to avoid
blame.

>
>
> >
>
> > > I guess it was just luck that he happened to have his rifle and four
>
>
>
> > > bullets with him when he learned that.
>
> >
>
> > Talk about odd. You think a guy is walking around with only 4 bullets
>
> > in his pocket,
>
>
>
> Four was one more than he needed. Four was probably all he had left and
>
> there was no time nor any reason to go get more.
>

all he had left from what? He bought NO ammunition for the MC rifle,
and they tried their hardest to find where he might buy that odd ammo, and
they couldn't finds any place. He left NO ammo boxes partially used, he
never practiced or he would have fixed the misaligned sight. So what are
you talking about? Nothing.

>
>
> > no receipt from where he got it,
>
>
>
> Why would he keep a receipt? Maybe if he had missed with all four shots he
>
> would have gone back to the gun shop and demanded his money back because
>
> the bullets were defective.
>

Give it up. There's no end of your silly attempts to try to cover up
what is being shown to you. No one expected him to keep a receipt, but
the store would keep a record of a sale, and after the murder you can be
sure they would remember who bought the odd ammo. But we've been through
this before, so don't pretend you haven't had all these answers given to
you.

>
>
> > no record anywhere of the
>
> > sale to him,
>
>
>
> Why should there be?
>

Because the ammo was an odd type and it would stand out if someone
bought it, and the MC rifle were shown or spoken about on TV and in
newspapers. But the FBI checked all the possible sales locations and none
of them sold the ammo to Oswald.

>
>
> > and he has a rifle with a badly aligned scope put on by a
>
> > gunsmith that thought the MC rifle was a 'piece of junk', and who
>
> > obviously thought the scope wasn't any great shakes either:

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=226036

>
> >
>
>
>
> He had the rifle that was proven to be the murder weapon by the recovered
>
> bullets and the spent shells in the sniper's nest, your cockamamie reasons
>
> for dismissing that evidence not withstanding.
>

LOL! The spent shells probably fit the MC rifle, but that doesn't prove
who fired them, and the "recovered bullets" weren't the ones that caused
any hit or hurt to anyone. As you well know, and have been told many
times, the CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher/gurmney at
Parkland, so that one is out, since it had to be planted. The 2 fragments
found in the front of the limo certainly didn't hit or hurt anyone, and
they found NO organic residue on them, so they didn't hurt or hit anyone.
The odds are that they were from the strike on the limo chrome overhead,
since when you look at the damage closely, you can see that it was a first
strike and NOT a ricochet. Keep trying...:)




>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=226036
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This guy, who wasn't on the 6th floor of the TSBD is supposed to have

>
> > used this MC rifle that he hadn't even practiced with, and never intended
>
> > to shoot anyone with, is supposed to have taken 3 potshots at the
>
> > motorcade (that he didn't know about) and hit JFK 2 out of 3? Get off it.
>
> > You're off the reservation.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I think you broke your own record for the number of ridiculous assumptions
>
> you could cram in a short paragraph.

Nope. You just got me by a mile...:)


Chris

[Bud]

But his reason was to kill a President with it.

> He
>
> could have been told a story by a contact of his that he had top bring it
>
> in for some other reason.

And if Mrs Paine says he couldn`t come over that night for some reason?
If Oswald figures "I`ll just bring it Friday", the whole elaborate scheme
that hinges on the rifle falls apart.

>
>
> And when he learned that they were searching the TSBD for a shooter, he
>
> thought of the rifle and got away as soon as he safely could, to avoid
>
> blame.

A murderer will often flee the scene of the crime.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I guess it was just luck that he happened to have his rifle and four
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > bullets with him when he learned that.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Talk about odd. You think a guy is walking around with only 4 bullets
>
> >
>
> > > in his pocket,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Four was one more than he needed. Four was probably all he had left and
>
> >
>
> > there was no time nor any reason to go get more.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> all he had left from what? He bought NO ammunition for the MC rifle,
>
> and they tried their hardest to find where he might buy that odd ammo, and
>
> they couldn't finds any place. He left NO ammo boxes partially used, he
>
> never practiced or he would have fixed the misaligned sight. So what are
>
> you talking about? Nothing.

Another conspiracy hobbyist shooting blanks. I guess they like the
sound.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > no receipt from where he got it,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Why would he keep a receipt? Maybe if he had missed with all four shots he
>
> >
>
> > would have gone back to the gun shop and demanded his money back because
>
> >
>
> > the bullets were defective.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Give it up. There's no end of your silly attempts to try to cover up
>
> what is being shown to you. No one expected him to keep a receipt, but
>
> the store would keep a record of a sale, and after the murder you can be
>
> sure they would remember who bought the odd ammo.

Another blank. A place that sell bullets every day would remember who
bought some bullets months and months before. A conspiracy hobbyist will
consider this silly idea a fact if he thinks it will help his silly ideas.

> But we've been through
>
> this before, so don't pretend you haven't had all these answers given to
>
> you.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > no record anywhere of the
>
> >
>
> > > sale to him,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Why should there be?
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Because the ammo was an odd type and it would stand out if someone
>
> bought it,

Thats an assumption, and a silly one a that.

> and the MC rifle were shown or spoken about on TV and in
>
> newspapers. But the FBI checked all the possible sales locations

How is such a thing possible?

> and none
>
> of them sold the ammo to Oswald.

Obviously someone did.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > and he has a rifle with a badly aligned scope put on by a
>
> >
>
> > > gunsmith that thought the MC rifle was a 'piece of junk', and who
>
> >
>
> > > obviously thought the scope wasn't any great shakes either:
>
>
>
> http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=226036
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > He had the rifle that was proven to be the murder weapon by the recovered
>
> >
>
> > bullets and the spent shells in the sniper's nest, your cockamamie reasons
>
> >
>
> > for dismissing that evidence not withstanding.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> LOL! The spent shells probably fit the MC rifle, but that doesn't prove
>
> who fired them, and the "recovered bullets" weren't the ones that caused
>
> any hit or hurt to anyone. As you well know, and have been told many
>
> times, the CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher/gurmney at
>
> Parkland, so that one is out, since it had to be planted. The 2 fragments
>
> found in the front of the limo certainly didn't hit or hurt anyone, and
>
> they found NO organic residue on them, so they didn't hurt or hit anyone.
>
> The odds are that they were from the strike on the limo chrome overhead,
>
> since when you look at the damage closely, you can see that it was a first
>
> strike and NOT a ricochet. Keep trying...:)

Keep shooting blanks, it seems to make you happy.

[mainframetech]

To be considered:

1. That JFK would be brought to Dallas at some time for a motorcade.

2. That more than one 'sleeper' (or 'patsy') could be placed on the
most likely routes and then they simply do their jobs.

3. That people close to JFK would attempt to manipulate his schedule
in such a way that visiting Dallas would be a politically useful step.

4. That any necessary preparation in Dallas would be preceded by word
from close to JFK that he was coming, the date and time, and the route.

Chris

[mainframetech]

John,

Are you sure you're not getting things mixed up here? I looked over
the newspaper report of a chat with Craig, and he said he didn't know what
kind of rifle was found. I wonder if he heard from his friend Weitzman
soon after that they had found a Mauser (Which Weitzman was very sure of)
and Craig later repeated that as if he saw the markings on the rifle. We
know for sure that Weitzman believed the rifle was a Mauser because he
made out an affidavit and put his name on it saying so. In the murder of
a president, the world would know that Weitzman screwed up if he named the
wrong kind of rifle and put his name on the line. That's a sticking point
for me. As well, Craig had worked with the same men for quite a while.
Wouldn't they have gotten wise to him if he embellished stories? Yet they
made him 'cop of the year'.

I don't know how much we can depend on every word of a newspaper
report, but if it's legitimate, it leaves a few things out standing. as
note above.

At this point it would be appreciated if you would tell me what you
think are CT sites that you don't agree with. I know that DVP's site must
be OK by you, since he's radically LN.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 10:52:02 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <d80fe0c3-9c6b-47a4...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 8:16:25 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>

(snipped for brevity)

>
> > Very good analysis.
>
> LOL!!
>
> You would claim the flat Earth theory was "very good analysis" if a
> fellow nutter said it:-)
>
> All it was, was a rather desperate attempt to make it seem difficult for
> the killers to shoot Kennedy somewhere other than DP.
>

There was only one killer and it would have been very difficult for him to
do the hit from anywhere except the TSBD. He only had to smuggle a rifle
into the TSBD. Had the motorcade not passed directly in front of the TSBD,
Oswald would have had to smuggle himself and his rifle into the building
and go undetected until the motorcade passed by. This of course after he
found a suitable place to shoot from, which would be challenging enough. I
suppose it is possible Oswald might have tried to go after JFK elsewhere
but unlikely. Oswald shot JFK from the TSBD because that is where chance
circumstance brought him. If the assassination sight was actually chosen,
I can't think of a worse idea than to try to shoot JFK while he moving in
a motorcade. He made a much more inviting and stationary target that
morning when he spoke to the crowds in front of the Ft. Worth hotel.

>
> Funny isn't it, that in their previous hundred or so hits, they never
> required the victims to drive by their day jobs:-)
>

Oswald didn't try 100 hits. He tried one and failed. As I said earlier, we
can't be 100% certain Oswald wouldn't have tried to shoot JFK elsewhere
had the motorcade been routed elsewhere. Every indication is that this was
a crime of opportunity which likely would not have been attempted had the
opportunity not presented itself to Oswald.

[cmikes]

On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 10:52:02 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

What hundred or so hits, Bob? Can you cite ONE mob hit that was carried
out at medium range with high power rifles in front of hundreds of
witnesses? Mob hits were always planned at short range with pistols in a
secluded area if at all possible to limit witnesses. The typical mob hit
was the Hoffa hit. Jimmy Hoffa got into a car with a couple of people and
was never seen again. So yes, planning the JFK assassination in a couple
of days would have been something the mob has never done.

[mainframetech]

As it turns out, Marina said (in the past) that Oswald thought JFK was
OK. More recently she has said that Oswald 'loved' JFK. Which one do you
want to take? And how will you make it fit with Oswald trying to kill
JFK, when he wasn't even on the 6th floor when the shots rang out?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2484015/Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-widow-Marina-convinced-husband-did-NOT-kill-JFK.html

Chris

[BT George]

That is nonsense and non sequitur to the issue I am bring up. Let's
reprise the *ISSUE* at hand:

YOUR THEORIES HAVE *LEE HARVEY OSWALD* AS A "PATSY-SHOOTER". And THAT my
dear "amigo" has certain implications you would do well to avoid. :-)

(See later comments.)

>
>
>
> > if he
>
> > had already been taken into some kind of alliance with the Mob back in New
>
> > Orleans. This is so because:
>
> >
>
> > 1) The motorcade route was not decided on until just before Kennedy's
>
> > arrival (The 18th I believe.)
>
>
>
>
>
> That doesn't matter. The killers would have positioned themselves
>
> wherever was necessary if the route was different.
>

But LHO was *NOT* an interchangeable part in your plot that could "easily"
have been repositioned and things turn out as they did. See later
comments.

>
>
> Do you *REALLY* think the hit would have been called off if the
>
> motorcade didn't pass by the depository??
>
>
>
> You must be utterly flabbergasted that Oswald didn't wait until Gen.
>
> Walker drove down Elm St:-)
>
>

I'm utterly flabbergasted that you keep missing the *MAIN* point. ...OK.
I guess that's a lie. I actually *expected* you to look for *some* way to
try to "dodge" the REAL issues at hand. :-)

At any rate, even *your* theories don't have a need for a "patsy" shooter
in regards to the Walker attempt, nor was it a multi-shooter gun plot.
So why even bring in this "apple" to a discussion that is focused on
"oranges"?

>
>
>
> > and didn't even appear in the papers till
>
> > the 19th. This was, of course, WELL after LHO started his job at the TSBD
>
> > back in mid-October.
>
> >
>
> > 2) Though the motorcade route actually scheduled was clearly *not* an
>
> > unlikely choice, it was *far* from the only possibility even ignoring that
>
> > there was some dispute at first whether to have one at all.
>
>
>
> You seem to think that the murder was contingent on Kennedy driving by the
>
> depository. There were countless tall building along the motorcade route,
>
> including hotels where they could simply rent a room and shoot JFK as he
>
> went by.
>
>

You seem to think this is about something other than the *unlikelihood* of
your "patsy-shooter" Oswald being where he was, when he was on 11-22-63.
(See later comments.)

>
> >
>
> > 3) Unless you are one of "those" CT's who think he was somehow
>
> > pre-positioned with his job at the TSBD and/or that someone in the Secret
>
> > Service was in cahoots with the mob, the absolute *earliest* they could
>
> > have recruited him for his ACTUAL role in the shooting (regardless of what
>
> > was discussed way back in N.O.) was on November 19th. Meaning that the
>
> > mob would have been left approaching a key figure in its plans
>
> > (Patsy-shooter Oswald) for the biggest hit in its history with---at
>
> > most---about 3 days till the shooting.
>
>
>
> You're making all this waaay too complicated.
>
>

And you're making it waaaaaaaay too simple. Funny that you would try to
do that. :-)

(See later comments.)

>
> >
>
> > ...One can only imagine the scrambling that would have occurred to keep
>
> > the whole plan from falling through if he'd simply said "No." to his part
>
> > in what almost any rational man would have seen as a hair-brained and high
>
> > risk gamble.
>

C'mon Bob. What's with the silence? *Surely* you cannot have missed the
force of my argument:

1)Surely you have a *rational* and *likely* explanation as to how they got
so "beyond-Vegas-odds lucky" that someone they had already made a
connection with back in New Orleans, just "happened" to land a job one
month earlier, that just "happened" to lie *precisely* along the motorcade
route that was not even decided till Nov. 18 or announced until the 19th?

2)Surely you have a perfectly *logical* explanation about how they could
afford to take the risk---in the biggest hit in their history---of
bringing on board such a vital link so late in the game?

3)Surely you can annunciate a *viable* alternate scenario if he'd said no?

> >
>
> > 4) Oswald was *NOT* an interchangeable part. His background as the
>
> > perfect Communist-sympathizer "fall-guy" (per your beliefs) could not be
>
> > "manufactured" or "ginned" up on short-notice from the available
>
> > "talent-pool" in 1963 Dallas, Texas.
>
>
>
> Why not? He gets a call from Ferrie, who says, "We're on for Thursday.
>
> Check with Jack of details.".
>
>
>
> That's basically, how mob hits happened.
>
>

Yep. And if you can conveniently ignore a LOT of factors it all that it
gets waaaaaay (too) uncomplicated. :-)

Sure. It's just "every day" that a person with no prior hit experience
(or *close* prior association with the Mob that can be *credibly*
demonstrated) gets a simple call from his local Mob contact to kill the
Leader of the Free World in broad daylight in front of the building he
just "happens" to work in. :-) And it's just "every day" you can
approach them on short notice and be confident they will blurt out: "Sure!
Let's go do that "presidential-killing thingy" in front of my workplace!"
:-)

And BTW. Are you *SERIOUSLY* suggesting that waaaaay back in New Orleans
they'd already planned something like this with Oswald involved and then
"Lo and behold!" several months later (in a twist that makes the odds of
winning the latest Mega-Power-Ball Millions Lotto seem generous) Oswald
just "happened" to already be employed (in another city) at what "turned
out" to be the *perfect* spot on the motorcade route to:

a) shoot/shoot at Kennedy,

b) and have their "patsy-shooter" end up being written off as a "lone nut"
acting alone? :-)



....But from scanning ahead, it looks like your theories about just what
way Oswald was expected to be the fall-guy "patsy-shooter" may be
different than I previously understood. But for now as you are always
saying:

"Let's just hold the presses my friend" waiting for answers to the
questions I've *ALREADY* asked before proceeding to address other nuances
of your beliefs. :-)


BT George

[Peter Makres]

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 4:38:49 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

Now there you go again, BD....using that common sense and logic again!

Peter

[Mark Florio]

No Chris, I don't have to show any evidence about Ruth Paine. (I take
from your indirect reply that you do believe she was involved in a
conspiracy.) See, I'm not the one who has accused her of conspiracy in
THE murder of the previous century; I haven't accused her of treason.
You (I think) do. Too many CTs do. You tell us YOUR evidence for believing
this woman was involved in this crime. (Evidence is testimony or
documents, records, objects that show the existence or not of alleged or
disputed facts.) Otherwise, you and the others need to knock off the
McCarthyism. Mark Florio.

[cmikes]

You've been here long enough to know how this works, Mark. Anything a
conspiracy theorist alleges is the the absolute truth until proven to
their satisfaction otherwise. Or at least that's how they believe it
should work.

And since no real world evidence would ever satisfy them, there obviously
must have been a conspiracy. It's amazing how many conspiracy theorists
have "indisputable proof" of a conspiracy, isn't it?

[mainframetech]

and how many have you checked out? I've got an interesting proof of the
kill shot coming from the front of JFK. Why not take a look at the sworn
testimony, and see what you think? I'll give you a nice pointer right to
it...:)

An X-ray technician at Bethesda took an X-ray of the side of the head of
JFK. Looking at it he saw a path of metal fragments coming from a small
wound in the right temple and expanding into a cone shape toward the rear.
That is where there was seen a blow-out by 40+ witnesses, who corroborated
each other.

Now to read the actual sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, go here:
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Then look on the screen and find 'page 101'. That's where the
statements begins.

This means that the kill shot was from the front of JFK, and therefore
there was a conspiracy with at least 2 shooters.

Chris

[cmikes]

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 6:00:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:20:09 PM UTC-4, cmikes wrote:

Stuff Trimmed

>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You've been here long enough to know how this works, Mark. Anything a
>
> >
>
> > conspiracy theorist alleges is the the absolute truth until proven to
>
> >
>
> > their satisfaction otherwise. Or at least that's how they believe it
>
> >
>
> > should work.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And since no real world evidence would ever satisfy them, there obviously
>
> >
>
> > must have been a conspiracy. It's amazing how many conspiracy theorists
>
> >
>
> > have "indisputable proof" of a conspiracy, isn't it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> and how many have you checked out? I've got an interesting proof of the
>
> kill shot coming from the front of JFK. Why not take a look at the sworn
>
> testimony, and see what you think? I'll give you a nice pointer right to
>
> it...:)
>
>
>
> An X-ray technician at Bethesda took an X-ray of the side of the head of
>
> JFK. Looking at it he saw a path of metal fragments coming from a small
>
> wound in the right temple and expanding into a cone shape toward the rear.
>
> That is where there was seen a blow-out by 40+ witnesses, who corroborated
>
> each other.
>
>
>
> Now to read the actual sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, go here:
>
> http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
>
>
>
> Then look on the screen and find 'page 101'. That's where the
>
> statements begins.
>
>
>
> This means that the kill shot was from the front of JFK, and therefore
>
> there was a conspiracy with at least 2 shooters.
>
>
>
> Chris

Actually, as we've discussed before, the authenticated x-ray and photos
doesn't show that at all. Every expert that has examined the
authenticated autopsy materials has agreed that they show two shots from
behind with no evidence of any shots coming from the front.

Obviously, in the intervening 30 years, Custer's memories has failed him.
Whether it's an honest mistake or whether Custer was "encouraged" to
remember things differently by a conspiracy theorist doesn't matter in the
slightest.

Authenticated evidence always trumps witness recollections, especially
decades old recollections, unless you want to start the whole "witness
testimony can change reality" debate again.

[John McAdams]

On 6 Sep 2014 22:35:02 -0400, cmikes <cmi...@ma.rr.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 6, 2014 6:00:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:20:09 PM UTC-4, cmikes wrote:
>
>Stuff Trimmed
>
>

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Posting from Google puts a lot of blank lines in a message.

And when two people both posting from Google do an extended exchange,
with blank lines added to all the blank lines, one gets a massively
long post with just a little new content.

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

[bigdog]

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 10:38:04 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2014 22:35:02 -0400, cmikes <cmi...@ma.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 6, 2014 6:00:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:20:09 PM UTC-4, cmikes wrote:
>
> >Stuff Trimmed
>
>
> Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
>
> Posting from Google puts a lot of blank lines in a message.
>
> And when two people both posting from Google do an extended exchange,
> with blank lines added to all the blank lines, one gets a massively
> long post with just a little new content.
>
> .John
>

Yes it does which is why I try to delete the blank lines when responding
to a post and also snip older parts of the thread which are no longer
relevant to the point being discussed. Of course, sometimes I get lazy and
just reply as-is.