OSWALD IN MEXICO CITY -- DO CTers THINK THAT ALL THIS TESTIMONY BY MARINA OSWALD IS A LIE?
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=9&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2KL5NPERE2QYI#Mx2KL5NPERE2QYI
ON JANUARY 22, 2008, A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED RANDALL SELLERS SAID:
>>> "It's not that Warren Commission evidence lacks credibility across the board; it's just that, between their CIA man (Dulles, then unemployed and hence available for more sessions than most of the others) and their FBI man (Ford), their investigation was steered around the trouble spots, and when the dodgy evidence for Oswald in Mexico City came up (audio tape, photo), both had already been determined by the FBI to NOT be Oswald, so when the WC asked to see the audio tape, the CIA said it had been destroyed (confirmed lie), and the WC accepted an affadavit on behalf of the photo, which they never saw. But the Warren Report would have the reader believe that this stuff established Oswald in Mexico City. As I said before, the Warren case would not convince a real jury, and in fact did not convince the American people." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
Now is a good time to repeat the previously-mentioned motto of a CTer
the likes of Randall Sellers:
Accuse Now; Prove Never!
Randall can't provide a stitch of proof for the anti-WC accusations he
directly implies above....but that won't stop him from writing them
out on a public forum here at Amazon.com.
Randall surely also knows that Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to Mexico City
in late September of 1963 is WELL DOCUMENTED from start to finish,
with a paper trail of hotel records (with Oswald's OWN SIGNATURE ON
THEM) and eyewitnesses who saw and TALKED TO Oswald on the bus on the
way down to Mexico City.
The photographs and taped recordings of Oswald at the Embassies aren't
even needed to establish the provable and undeniable FACT that Lee
Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico City in September of '63.
Oswald's own wife, Marina, also provided a large wealth of testimony
in front of the Warren Commission, detailing her husband's trip to
Mexico (at some length too) and about how she and Lee DISCUSSED IT
TOGETHER after his return to Texas in early October. Via Marina's
words ALONE, we can know that Lee Oswald went to Mexico City in late
September '63.*
* = Of course, since the testimony in question was being conducted by
the Warren Commission, an organization that Randall hates and
distrusts so much, I suppose it's useless and worthless testimony as
far as Mr. Sellers is concerned.
That's another typical CTer ploy -- distrust EVERYONE in "officialdom"
for the most part. Unless, of course, it suits the "pro-conspiracy"
needs of a particular theorist, then that CTer will almost certainly
latch onto those parts of the Government's story in a heartbeat.
Anyway, a CTer's distrust of all Government entities notwithstanding,
here's a hefty portion of what Marina Oswald had to say with respect
to LHO's 1963 Mexico City excursion (via Marina's WC session on
February 3, 1964):
MARINA OSWALD -- "I wrote a letter to Mrs. Paine telling her that Lee
was out of work, and they invited me to come and stay with her. And
when I left her, I knew that Lee would go to Mexico City. But, of
course, I didn't tell Mrs. Paine about it."
J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had he discussed with you the idea of going to
Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "When did he first discuss that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I think it was in August."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "From Mexico City he wanted to go to Cuba--perhaps
through the Russian Embassy in Mexico somehow he would be able to get
to Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say anything about going to Russia by way of
Cuba?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I know that he said that in the embassy. But he only
said so. I know that he had no intention of going to Russia then."
MR. RANKIN -- "How do you know that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He told me. I know Lee fairly well--well enough from
that point of view."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "When your husband talked about going to Mexico City,
did he say where he was going to go there, who he would visit?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy
and to the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to
get to Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you where he would stay in Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "In a hotel."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you the name?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "No, he didn't know where he would stop."
MR. RANKIN -- "Was there any discussion about the expense of making
the trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. But we always lived very modestly, and Lee always
had some savings. Therefore, he had the money for it."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say how much it would cost?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He had a little over $100 and he said that that would
be sufficient."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Do you know how he got to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "By bus."
MR. RANKIN -- "And did he return by bus also?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It seems, yes. Yes, he told me that a round-trip
ticket was cheaper than two one-way tickets."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you anything about his trip to Mexico
City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he told me that he had visited the two embassies,
that he had received nothing, that the people who are there are too
much---too bureaucratic. He said that he has spent the time pretty
well. And I had told him that if he doesn't accomplish anything to at
least take a good rest. I was hoping that the climate, if nothing
else, would be beneficial to him."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did you ask him what he did the rest of the time?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, I think he said that he visited a bull fight,
that he spent most of his time in museums, and that he did some
sightseeing in the city."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you what people he talked to?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He said that he first visited the Soviet Embassy in
the hope that having been there first this would make it easier for
him at the Cuban Embassy. But there they refused to have anything to
do with him."
MR. RANKIN -- "And what did he say about the visit to the Cuban
Embassy or consulate?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It was quite without results."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he complain about the consular or any of the
officials of the Cuban Embassy and the way they handled the matter?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he called them bureaucrats. He said that the
Cubans seemed to have a system similar to the Russians--too much red
tape before you get through there."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Mrs. Oswald, you told us about your knowledge about the
trip to Mexico and said that you were under oath and were going to
tell us all about what you knew. Did your husband ever ask you not to
disclose what you knew about the Mexican trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "And when was that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Before he left. I had remained and he was supposed to
leave on the next day, and he warned me not to tell anyone about it."
MR. RANKIN -- "After he returned to Dallas from his Mexico trip, did
he say anything to you then about not telling he had been to Mexico?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he asked me whether I had told Ruth about it or
anyone else, and I told him no, and he said that I should keep quiet
about it."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
==============
In short, the conspiracy theorists who still to this very day think
that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City in late September and
early October of 1963 (and think that Oswald was merely being
"impersonated" down in Mexico) are just plain nuts.
It's as simple as that.
aeffects
<snip the nutter-troll lunacy>
You're trying waaaayyyyy too hard, troll.
And, your obsession is becoming crystal clear.
Smooches,
The CT Research Community
David Von Pein
>>> "You're trying waaaayyyyy too hard, troll." <<<
<chuckle>
Any amount of effort would be a thousand times more effort than is
ever exhibited by Kook Healy, because he never contributes a thing,
ever.
>>> "And, your obsession is becoming crystal clear." <<<
<additional chuckle>
It's just now dawning on you that I'm obsessed with the JFK case, Mr.
Retard? You're mighty slow upstairs, aren't you?
Gil Jesus
> DO CTers THINK THAT ALL THIS TESTIMONY BY MARINA OSWALD IS A LIE?
Let's find out:
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/697b0f7ef1fae041
>>> "The question is not was he [LHO] down there [in Mexico City in September 1963]...." <<<
Try telling that to Mark Lane and Jim DiEugenio and a boatload of
other conspiracy theorists who are certain that Lee Harvey Oswald
never set foot in Mexico City in 1963.
But, as I mentioned in my thread-opening post, such conspiracy
theorists are just simply dead-wrong when it comes to this Mexico City
issue, as Marina Oswald's detailed testimony concerning her husband's
1963 trip to Mexico amply confirms:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9e3515e06e4e5f20
>>> "The question is who impersonated him [LHO] on the tape and who is the man in the photo? .... This [alleged] impersonation freaked out both Hoover and Johnson. They didn't know what to make of it and neither does anyone else[,] but it sure implicates an outside conspiracy." <<<
How?
Can anybody PROVE that various people were "plotting" or "conspiring"
to kill President Kennedy down in Mexico City in late 1963? I know
that author Gus Russo thinks he has been able to prove that very thing
(via his 2008 book, "Brothers In Arms"). But he hasn't. Because the
bottom line is still this (and always has been this since 1963):
Once the topic of the assassination returns to DALLAS and DEALEY PLAZA
and the ASSASSINATION ITSELF and the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case ---
there is NOBODY BUT OSWALD.
Period.
And nobody has ever come close to proving otherwise.
David Von Pein
October 8, 2009
www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
=================================================
RE: "BROTHERS IN ARMS: THE KENNEDYS, THE CASTROS, AND THE POLITICS OF
MURDER":
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5cef6a9933179e8e
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17699bb27eef2180
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/89beb4a4a515a1e7
=================================================
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ef8e65544434362d
>>> "The question still stands. If Oswald acted alone, why impersonate him on the tape and who is the guy in the photo ID'ed as Oswald?" <<<
Nobody was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in September
of 1963. To believe there was someone impersonating him is just plain
silly. And if you ask me, such a thing doesn't really even make any
sense from a conspiracy theorist's point-of-view either.
Why?
Because even if somebody had been pretending to be Lee Oswald in
Mexico City, how in the world is such a ruse going to make Oswald
appear guilty of shooting President Kennedy in Dallas two months
later?
If anything, I can make a pretty strong case for such an impersonation
of Oswald actually making the real Oswald look LESS guilty of
murdering the President in November.
Why?
Because if the so-called Oswald "impersonator" was successful in his
quest to get to Cuba (and then, later, to Russia), then how is he
going to be in a position to kill Kennedy in Dallas on November 22nd
(or even earlier than November 22, if the plotters were aiming for a
"hit" on Kennedy in some other city prior to JFK's Dallas trip)?
I guess maybe the plan of the conspirators who cooked up this silly
cloak-and-dagger "Musical Oswalds" game was to have the LHO
impersonator, if he had actually been able to get a visa, stay in Cuba
(and/or Russia) for a short time and then turn around and come back to
Texas (or wherever) to asssassinate the President, and then pin the
whole thing on the real Lee Oswald. Was that the plan?
~shrug~
But, then too, why the hell was all of this mumbo-jumbo necessary at
all? Any plotters who would have been involved in such an elaborate
Mexico City scheme would have already known (or they should have
known, if they had done their homework on their "patsy") that Oswald
could already very easily be labelled "red" (due to the fact that
LHO's attempted defection to the USSR was widely known, via the
various pre-1963 newspaper articles that dealt with Oswald's three-
year stay in Russia).
Plus, weren't the so-called plotters/conspirators also aware of the
fact that the man they would be impersonating had already appeared on
radio and television in New Orleans just one month earlier (in August
1963), spouting off about his pro-Castro and pro-Cuba beliefs?
So, why was there any further need in September of '63 to paint Oswald
as a Commie or a Communist sympathizer or as a Castro supporter? It's
just plain silly, because Oswald HIMSELF had already painted himself
as "red" (or "red" enough anyway) and as an obvious supporter of Fidel
Castro and Castro's revolutionary causes.
Plus, apparently the goofballs who were in charge of this sloppy
"Oswald Impersonation" fiasco south of the border couldn't even manage
to pick out a guy to serve as their Oswald double who looked anything
like the real Lee Harvey Oswald at all.
In a couple of the Embassy photos, we see a man who is much older and
heavier than Oswald, and this is an "imposter" who is believed by many
conspiracy theorists to actually be a man who was supposed to be
impersonating 23-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald.
And then there's the hilarious allegation (via Silvia Duran's supposed
comments) of an Oswald lookalike who measures only about 5-feet, 3-
inches in height! I.E., six inches shorter than Lee Oswald!
You would think that the people setting up Oswald could have found a
"double" who was at least the same general height and looked a tad bit
like the guy he was supposed to be doubling for, wouldn't you?
In the final analysis, the "Oswald Imposter In Mexico City" theories
all fall flat for a variety of reasons. And mainly because they're all
so incredibly lame and stupid-sounding.
>>> "Why did Hoover tell LBJ we have a photo and a tape but it's not the same guy?" <<<
Fully explained by James Hosty at the 1986 TV docu-trial, "On Trial:
Lee Harvey Oswald".
Watch:
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=DLRlFkaErJM
www.RapidShare.com/files/241409125/TESTIMONY_OF_JAMES_HOSTY_AT_1986_TELEVISION_DOCU-TRIAL.wmv
>>> "And why did they react the way they did? Because they believed something with the "lone assassin" theory didn't fit. And it still doesn't. Period." <<<
Tell me this -- Do you really think that it is entirely necessary to
have every last question answered and every last discrepancy ironed
out in order to believe that Oswald acted alone?
Example: the Sylvia Odio incident can never really be fully explained,
but that doesn't mean we should just chuck all the physical and
circumstantial evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt out the nearest window.
Does it?
Jean Davison said it very nicely in her masterpiece of a book,
"Oswald's Game":
"When these men visited [Sylvia] Odio's apartment [in September
1963], Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone
announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would
ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy
motorcade. But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the
critics' conception of Lee Harvey Oswald.
"In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown
about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet
with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how
could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish
Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered
the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight?
"And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro
plotters get their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be
introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles? No one has come up with a
plausible scenario that can answer those questions. ....
"The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of
obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it
meant." -- Jean Davison; Pages 193-195 of "Oswald's Game" (c.1983)
Robert
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/697b0...
>
> >>> "The question is not was he [LHO] down there [in Mexico City in September 1963]...." <<<
>
> Try telling that to Mark Lane and Jim DiEugenio and a boatload of
> other conspiracy theorists who are certain that Lee Harvey Oswald
> never set foot in Mexico City in 1963.
What?? YOUR alter-ego said a BUNCH of CTer authors said he did go!
> But, as I mentioned in my thread-opening post, such conspiracy
> theorists are just simply dead-wrong when it comes to this Mexico City
> issue, as Marina Oswald's detailed testimony concerning her husband's
> 1963 trip to Mexico amply confirms:
Sorry, she made claims she cannot support with direct evidence. In
fact, the CIA and the WC could NOT support this claim with viable
direct evidence.
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9e3515e06e4e5f20
> >>> "The question is who impersonated him [LHO] on the tape and who is the man in the photo? .... This [alleged] impersonation freaked out both Hoover and Johnson. They didn't know what to make of it and neither does anyone else[,] but it sure implicates an outside conspiracy." <<<
>
> How?
What?? When one claims the voice is LHO's and then it is obviously NOT
his, don't you think they would be "freaked out?"
> Can anybody PROVE that various people were "plotting" or "conspiring"
> to kill President Kennedy down in Mexico City in late 1963?
Can anybody PROVE that IF LHO went (and he didn't based on the shoddy
evidence they gave us) that means he shot and killed JFK and JDT?
I ask because the WC made a point of pushing this trip as IF it did
connect.
> I know
> that author Gus Russo thinks he has been able to prove that very thing
> (via his 2008 book, "Brothers In Arms"). But he hasn't. Because the
> bottom line is still this (and always has been this since 1963):
>
> Once the topic of the assassination returns to DALLAS and DEALEY PLAZA
> and the ASSASSINATION ITSELF and the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case ---
> there is NOBODY BUT OSWALD.
Lie all you want about the evidence, IT won't change the truth. There
is NO evidence that can withstand the slightest scrutiny that shows
LHO killed JFK.
YOU are flat-out lying Dave Von Con.
> Period.
Is "period" the same as nil?
> And nobody has ever come close to proving otherwise.
LOL!! They don't have to "prove" this as it is YOUR job (since you are
bent on defending the prosecutor's side) to PROVE things you claim,
NOT ours.
> www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
Is anything more than this needed to show this man's bias?
Robert
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ef8e65544434362d
>
> >>> "The question still stands. If Oswald acted alone, why impersonate him on the tape and who is the guy in the photo ID'ed as Oswald?" <<<
>
> Nobody was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in September
> of 1963. To believe there was someone impersonating him is just plain
> silly. And if you ask me, such a thing doesn't really even make any
> sense from a conspiracy theorist's point-of-view either.
I'm glad you said these things because NOW you have to explain why the
voice on the audio tape does NOT match LHO's and why NO picture of LHO
entering or leaving the Russian embassy exists when it was under 24
hour surveillance by the CIA!
> Why?
Exactly!
> Because even if somebody had been pretending to be Lee Oswald in
> Mexico City, how in the world is such a ruse going to make Oswald
> appear guilty of shooting President Kennedy in Dallas two months
> later?
Calls for speculation, but the obvious choice is he was planning an
escape to Cuba or Russia.
> If anything, I can make a pretty strong case for such an impersonation
> of Oswald actually making the real Oswald look LESS guilty of
> murdering the President in November.
This is what exactly happened since the CIA and WC failed to provide
any credible evidence showing the real LHO went when they claimed.
> Why?
>
> Because if the so-called Oswald "impersonator" was successful in his
> quest to get to Cuba (and then, later, to Russia), then how is he
> going to be in a position to kill Kennedy in Dallas on November 22nd
> (or even earlier than November 22, if the plotters were aiming for a
> "hit" on Kennedy in some other city prior to JFK's Dallas trip)?
Acting naive is not helping your cause. This was done to make it look
like LHO was making plans for an escape to Cuba or back to Russia via
Cuba AFTER he killed JFK.
The problem the WC ran into is the man LHO was claimed to be asking
for at the Russian embassy was involved in ASSASINATIONS!
Since LHO could not have any help this presented a major problem for
them.
> I guess maybe the plan of the conspirators who cooked up this silly
> cloak-and-dagger "Musical Oswalds" game was to have the LHO
> impersonator, if he had actually been able to get a visa, stay in Cuba
> (and/or Russia) for a short time and then turn around and come back to
> Texas (or wherever) to asssassinate the President, and then pin the
> whole thing on the real Lee Oswald. Was that the plan?
Lying won't save you either. This was never done to secure a visa for
Cuba, but rather done to make it look like LHO planned on getting one
to Cuba so they could blame Castro for the assassination and invade
Cuba as they had wanted to do since the 1959 revolution.
> ~shrug~
>
> But, then too, why the hell was all of this mumbo-jumbo necessary at
> all? Any plotters who would have been involved in such an elaborate
> Mexico City scheme would have already known (or they should have
> known, if they had done their homework on their "patsy") that Oswald
> could already very easily be labelled "red" (due to the fact that
> LHO's attempted defection to the USSR was widely known, via the
> various pre-1963 newspaper articles that dealt with Oswald's three-
> year stay in Russia).
Unfortunately for liars like you outside of this "defection" there is
NOT one shred of evidence that makes LHO look "red."
His charter of FPCC is an obvious ruse to make it look like he is, but
he never carried a Communist card.
> Plus, weren't the so-called plotters/conspirators also aware of the
> fact that the man they would be impersonating had already appeared on
> radio and television in New Orleans just one month earlier (in August
> 1963), spouting off about his pro-Castro and pro-Cuba beliefs?
Which was it?? He worked both sides of the "street."
> So, why was there any further need in September of '63 to paint Oswald
> as a Commie or a Communist sympathizer or as a Castro supporter? It's
> just plain silly, because Oswald HIMSELF had already painted himself
> as "red" (or "red" enough anyway) and as an obvious supporter of Fidel
> Castro and Castro's revolutionary causes.
The main goal was to make Castro look guilty in the JFK murder so they
could invade as they had planned to do and JFK had stopped.
To them it was the perfect irony I'm sure -- they would use the man's
murder who had been preventing them from invading to finally invade!
> Plus, apparently the goofballs who were in charge of this sloppy
> "Oswald Impersonation" fiasco south of the border couldn't even manage
> to pick out a guy to serve as their Oswald double who looked anything
> like the real Lee Harvey Oswald at all.
YOU can show it was not an "Oswald impersonation" fiasco anytime you
want by showing us REAL evidence of LHO trip. I.E. a photo, a
recording of his ACTUAL voice, and explanation for his alleged comment
in the letter "I would have to use my REAL NAME" to get a longer visa,
etc...
> In a couple of the Embassy photos, we see a man who is much older and
> heavier than Oswald, and this is an "imposter" who is believed by many
> conspiracy theorists to actually be a man who was supposed to be
> impersonating 23-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald.
We "believe" this because the CIA and WC BRAZENLY LIED TO US AND SAID
IT WAS LHO!
Silly us, huh?
> And then there's the hilarious allegation (via Silvia Duran's supposed
> comments) of an Oswald lookalike who measures only about 5-feet, 3-
> inches in height! I.E., six inches shorter than Lee Oswald!
Funny how Dave Von Con believes here when she has been tortured and
said it was LHO, huh?
> You would think that the people setting up Oswald could have found a
> "double" who was at least the same general height and looked a tad bit
> like the guy he was supposed to be doubling for, wouldn't you?
YOU would, and that has BEEN my point. But it is obvious they
believed they could tell us anything and folks like you would hawk it
for them.
> In the final analysis, the "Oswald Imposter In Mexico City" theories
> all fall flat for a variety of reasons. And mainly because they're all
> so incredibly lame and stupid-sounding.
The funny part of this is ALL the arguments you make about a double
hold true for the REAL LHO!
YOU make soooo many blunders like this, how do you keep getting paid?
> >>> "Why did Hoover tell LBJ we have a photo and a tape but it's not the same guy?" <<<
>
> Fully explained by James Hosty at the 1986 TV docu-trial, "On Trial:
> Lee Harvey Oswald".
IT was NEVER explained properly or it would be an issue liar. Why did
the CIA lie and say they destroyed the tapes when they did NOT?
> Watch:
>
> www.YouTube.com/watch?v=DLRlFkaErJM
>
> www.RapidShare.com/files/241409125/TESTIMONY_OF_JAMES_HOSTY_AT_1986_T...
>
> >>> "And why did they react the way they did? Because they believed something with the "lone assassin" theory didn't fit. And it still doesn't. Period." <<<
>
> Tell me this -- Do you really think that it is entirely necessary to
> have every last question answered and every last discrepancy ironed
> out in order to believe that Oswald acted alone?
LOL!! Obviously to Dave Von Con it is NOT necessary to have ANY
questions or issues "ironed out" before he rushes to the pronouncement
of guilt.
Why the rush if the truth is what he cliams? Too bad for him the
evidence he supports does NOT show what he claims is correct any more
now than it did for the WC in 1964.
> Example: the Sylvia Odio incident can never really be fully explained,
> but that doesn't mean we should just chuck all the physical and
> circumstantial evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt out the nearest window.
> Does it?
The lack of credibility this evidence brings is what causes it to be
chucked out the window. Why do you NOT believe LHO was at Odio's
instead of Mexico City when it can "never be fully explained?"
I think "bias" is the reason why.
> Jean Davison said it very nicely in her masterpiece of a book,
> "Oswald's Game":
>
> "When these men visited [Sylvia] Odio's apartment [in September
> 1963], Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone
> announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would
> ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy
> motorcade. But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the
> critics' conception of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Very true as LHO NEVER became an issue for them UNTIL the attempts in
Chicago (11/2/63) and Tampa (11/18/63) failed.
The visit to Odio's was for another reason, another mission he was on
and it was invconvenient to bring it up for these allegations. So the
WC and YOU just dismiss it as being incorrect.
> "In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown
> about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet
> with no volition of his own.
NO, he was like all other INTELLIGENCE folks, doing what they are told
to do.
> If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how
> could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish
> Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered
> the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight?
They weren't able to but they have folks like you and Jean to lie and
cover it up for them.
> "And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro
> plotters get their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be
> introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles? No one has come up with a
> plausible scenario that can answer those questions. ....
Another lie. Many have explained this by showing LHO was invovled in
work for the CIA, ONI and DIA (and maybe more) and the Cuban exile
groups were his assignment.
> "The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of
> obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it
> meant." -- Jean Davison; Pages 193-195 of "Oswald's Game" (c.1983)
Another lie, they could explain it -- that is why it was lied about
and buried!
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Oct 8, 6:57=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/697b0...
>>
>mber 1963]...." <<<
>>
>> Try telling that to Mark Lane and Jim DiEugenio and a boatload of
>> other conspiracy theorists who are certain that Lee Harvey Oswald
>> never set foot in Mexico City in 1963.
>
>
>What?? YOUR alter-ego said a BUNCH of CTer authors said he did go!
Did more than that. Quoted them. Then you lied about what they said.
>> But, as I mentioned in my thread-opening post, such conspiracy
>> theorists are just simply dead-wrong when it comes to this Mexico City
>> issue, as Marina Oswald's detailed testimony concerning her husband's
>> 1963 trip to Mexico amply confirms:
>
>Sorry, she made claims she cannot support with direct evidence. In
>fact, the CIA and the WC could NOT support this claim with viable
>direct evidence.
>
>
>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9e3515e06e4e5f20
>
>
>> >>> "The question is who impersonated him [LHO] on the tape and who is th=
>e man in the photo? .... This [alleged] impersonation freaked out both Hoov=
>er and Johnson. They didn't know what to make of it and neither does anyone=
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Robert
> In article <a1ddfc6a-5969-475b-910b-1612430c2...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert says...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 8, 6:57=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/697b0...
>
> >> >>> "The question is not was he [LHO] down there [in Mexico City in Septe=
> >mber 1963]...." <<<
>
> >> Try telling that to Mark Lane and Jim DiEugenio and a boatload of
> >> other conspiracy theorists who are certain that Lee Harvey Oswald
> >> never set foot in Mexico City in 1963.
>
> >What?? YOUR alter-ego said a BUNCH of CTer authors said he did go!
>
> Did more than that. Quoted them. Then you lied about what they said.
You are a liar Bendsie. They NEVER said he went for sure, you made
that part up. YOU gave us "paraphrased" quotes and you said these are
EQUIVALENT TO "twisting and lying" about what someone said!
Remember?
NOW show us some quotes that said he went and the evidence is
"overwhelming" that he did!
I dare you!
But of course the liar won't.
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Oct 9, 4:34=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <a1ddfc6a-5969-475b-910b-1612430c2...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 8, 6:57=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/697b0..=
>.
>>
>> >> >>> "The question is not was he [LHO] down there [in Mexico City in Se=
>pte=3D
>> >mber 1963]...." <<<
>>
>> >> Try telling that to Mark Lane and Jim DiEugenio and a boatload of
>> >> other conspiracy theorists who are certain that Lee Harvey Oswald
>> >> never set foot in Mexico City in 1963.
>>
>> >What?? YOUR alter-ego said a BUNCH of CTer authors said he did go!
>>
>> Did more than that. Quoted them. Then you lied about what they said.
>
>You are a liar Bendsie.
Then all you have to do is quote the quotes I gave, then quote what *YOU* said
that they said. Let's examine the evidence.
>They NEVER said he went for sure,
Not a *SINGLE* author used the sentence: "Oswald went to Mexico for sure".
>you made
>that part up.
What I actually said, is well supported by the quotes I gave.
>YOU gave us "paraphrased" quotes
They were all direct quotes, word for word, right out of the books I have laying
around. (except one or two, which came from the Internet)
>and you said these are
>EQUIVALENT TO "twisting and lying" about what someone said!
Quote the words that you said these authors actually used... Then quote my
quotes, let's compare.
>Remember?
>
>NOW show us some quotes that said he went and the evidence is
>"overwhelming" that he did!
Never stated that, therefore feel no need to support it.
>I dare you!
Dare away, moron. (Didn't that go out of favor by 6th grade or so?)
>But of course the liar won't.
>
>
>
>> >> But, as I mentioned in my thread-opening post, such conspiracy
>> >> theorists are just simply dead-wrong when it comes to this Mexico City
>> >> issue, as Marina Oswald's detailed testimony concerning her husband's
>> >> 1963 trip to Mexico amply confirms:
>>
>> >Sorry, she made claims she cannot support with direct evidence. =A0In
>> >fact, the CIA and the WC could NOT support this claim with viable
>> >direct evidence.
>>
>> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9e3515e06e4e5f20
>>
>> >> >>> "The question is who impersonated him [LHO] on the tape and who is=
> th=3D
>> >e man in the photo? .... This [alleged] impersonation freaked out both H=
>oov=3D
>> >er and Johnson. They didn't know what to make of it and neither does any=
>one=3D
>> > else[,] but it sure implicates an outside conspiracy." <<<
>>
>> >> How?
>>
>> >What?? When one claims the voice is LHO's and then it is obviously NOT
>> >his, don't you think they would be "freaked out?"
>>
>> >> Can anybody PROVE that various people were "plotting" or "conspiring"
>> >> to kill President Kennedy down in Mexico City in late 1963?
>>
>> >Can anybody PROVE that IF LHO went (and he didn't based on the shoddy
>> >evidence they gave us) that means he shot and killed JFK and JDT?
>>
>> >I ask because the WC made a point of pushing this trip as IF it did
>> >connect.
>>
>> >> I know
>> >> that author Gus Russo thinks he has been able to prove that very thing
>> >> (via his 2008 book, "Brothers In Arms"). But he hasn't. Because the
>> >> bottom line is still this (and always has been this since 1963):
>>
>> >> Once the topic of the assassination returns to DALLAS and DEALEY PLAZA
>> >> and the ASSASSINATION ITSELF and the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case ---
>> >> there is NOBODY BUT OSWALD.
>>
>> >Lie all you want about the evidence, IT won't change the truth. =A0There