Re: How Did The Conspirators Get Oswald To Do This?

[David Von Pein]

Here's a question that I don't recall ever being asked by anyone in
the past:

If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?

Did the conspirators somehow put Oswald under some kind of a spell,
and then they told him to go to Irving on Thursday and tell a lie
about wanting to retrieve curtain rods?

And there surely isn't a CTer on the planet who will try and say that
Lee Oswald really DIDN'T go to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier on
Nov. 21st....is there?

So, we know for a fact that Oswald did make an unusual trip on Nov. 21
to Ruth Paine's home, which is the location where we also know that
Oswald's rifle was being stored in the Paine garage.

And unless you are a CTer who is buried a mile deep in conspiracy
nonsense, then another fact becomes crystal clear -- Oswald LIED to
Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".

Now, via the scenario of Lee Oswald being a totally innocent "patsy"
regarding everything that happened in Dallas the following day on Nov.
22, I'm just wondering how the conspiracy theorists can provide a
series of reasonable and logical (and believable) answers to these
questions:

1.) How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
11/21/63?

2.) And how did those very efficient plotters get Oswald to tell the
lie about the curtain rods? (Because all reasonable people know that
LHO's "curtain rod" tale was, indeed, a lie....mainly due to the fact
that NO CURTAIN RODS were ever found in the Book Depository; plus the
fact that if there HAD been any curtain rods at all, Oswald would have
said so to the police; but, instead, he denied he ever mentioned
anything about curtain rods to Buell Frazier.)

3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy
get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on
Nov. 22nd? (Which is a package, as I just mentioned, that we know for
a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)

Those three questions are very important questions to answer in a
reasonable manner if you're a conspiracist who truly thinks Oswald was
just an unwitting patsy in the assassination of the President.

Because unless Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF up as a patsy, it's
rather difficult to find any logical or reasonable answers to those
three questions I just posed that would lead to a conclusion that Lee
Oswald was completely innocent in the events of Nov. 22. Particularly
when those three questions are evaluated and assessed in conjunction
with all of the OTHER things that incriminate Oswald in JFK's murder,
e.g., the Carcano rifle, the shells, the paper bag on the sixth floor,
LHO's prints being all over the place where Kennedy's killer was
located, etc.

In short -- Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on November 21, 1963, provide some
extremely powerful circumstantial evidence to indicate that Lee Harvey
Oswald was anything BUT an innocent patsy when it comes to the
assassination of President Kennedy.

David Von Pein
September 28, 2011

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

[Gil Jesus]

HERE'S THE ANSWERS TO ALL YOUR QUESTIONS:

http://www.giljesus.com

[Walt]

Answer.... They didn't. You're either displaying your dishonesty
or your stupidity by asking this rhetorical question.

Oswald's FBI manipulator had told him that if things happened as the
FBI thought they would during JFK's visit on Friday the stage would be
set for him ( LHO) to "flee" to Cuba under suspiction as "the leader
of a small band of communists' ( FPFCC) who had plotted to shoot JFK.
His FBI manipulator told him that if he wanted to see his wife and
kids one last time before "fleeing" on Friday he should use the
pretext of needing curtain rods for his room.

[David Von Pein]

Don't you love it when a conspiracy kook just starts making shit up
out of whole cloth (as Walter just did above). And with make-believe
statements inside quotation marks yet. I love it.

And it just goes to prove my point -- i.e., the only way a nutcase
like Walt Cakebread can pretend Oswald's Thursday-night trip to Irving
was pre-arranged by the Patsy Brigade is by simply making stuff up out
of thin air, and putting words in unknown conspirators' mouths that
(of course) were never uttered.

IOW, Walt's answer to my question is pure fantasy. It's not a
reasonable and/or believable answer to my question. But, of course,
Walt knows he's just making shit up -- but he'll continue to do it
anyhow. It's what conspiracy kooks do best.

[Walt]

My goodness Mr Von Pea Brain, you seem a bit upset......Calm down.
You asked a question and I supplied a plausible answer.

1.) How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
11/21/63?

If you didn't want the question answered ..... Why did you ask
it????

We both know why you asked the question......Because you wanted to
incriminate Oswald with a seemingly sinster action...You think
everybody is as restricted in their "thinking" as you are, and you
asked because you are capable of only seeing things from one
perspective, and you can't "think outside the box". You've been given
the box to play in ( a sand box) and you're too stupid to realize the
box is full of bullshit.

[David Von Pein]

I'm not upset at all, Walter. I always love it when a goof like you
responds to a reasonable question with an off-the-wall, totally-make-
believe answer -- like you did today regarding Oswald's trip to
Irving.

There is no "FBI manipulator" at all. So, you just make one up--AND
put direct quotes in his mouth to boot.

That's retarded, Walt. Not evidence. And certainly far from being
"reasonable", which is the prerequisite that I required in my initial
post in this thread.

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f142f661ff0417f4/dd43d48936fc52c9?#dd43d48936fc52c9


>>> "[Lee Oswald's trip to Irving, Texas, on Thurs., November 21, 1963, was] Not so unusual." <<<

Name one other time when Oswald went to Irving on a Thursday.

You can't do it. Because it never happened (except for the day before
JFK's assassination).


>>> "You want kooks to propose easy to shoot down arguments to make you look like the hero." <<<


No. I'm challenging the "kooks" to propose just one reasonable and
believable "Oswald Is Innocent" scenario for Oswald's Thursday-night
trip to Irving and his "curtain rod" tale and his taking a package to
work on 11/22. That's all.


>>> "What I have proposed many times is that this was the last ditch effort to convince Marina to move back in with him and if successful he would have the whole weekend to find an apartment big enough for his growing family." <<<

Yes, I think Oswald did want to get back together quickly with Marina.
But this is only PART of the scenario. He used the "curtain rod" lie
for a reason. And that reason was so that he could use the same
curtain rod lie AGAIN on Friday morning, should he decide he wanted to
go ahead with his plan to bring his rifle to work and shoot the
President, which (of course) he ultimately did decide to do.

Per Buell Frazier, Oswald also said that Marina had made him some
curtains for his rented room. But as far as I am aware, Marina had
made no curtains for her husband at any time. So that was part of the
lie too. (Unless you want to call Wesley Frazier a liar, instead of
calling Oswald one, which is just silly under the circumstances.)


>>> "OK, they told Oswald that it was take your rifle to work week and they wanted to see his rifle. Someone offered to buy his rifle so he went to Irving to get the rifle to sell at the TSBD. Oswald couldn't sleep because the curtains were so flimsy in his room so he went out to the Paines to steal a pair of curtain rods and some room darkening curtains. There, is that enough to keep you busy for a while? Glad to help." <<<


Naturally, any CTer can just start making up goofy "alternate"
theories to explain away Oswald's incriminating actions and lies -- as
we can see with the above goofy explanation just now provided by
Anthony Marsh above.

But is it REASONABLE and BELIEVABLE under the circumstances and after
we examine the REST of the evidence pertaining to the assassination on
November 22nd?

1.) Oswald's gun is found in the Depository.

2.) Shells from Oswald's gun are found under the sniper's window.

3.) Bullet fragments from Oswald's gun are found in JFK's limousine.

4.) Oswald's prints are all over the place DEEP within the Sniper's
Nest.

5.) Oswald's gun turns up missing from Ruth Paine's garage.

Therefore, given the above facts, is Tony Marsh's explanation a
reasonable one to explain why Oswald went to Irving on Thursday,
11/21/63, and for the "curtain rod" tale that Oswald told Wesley
Frazier?

If anybody answers: "Yes, Dave, Tony's scenario is perfectly
reasonable and believable under the circumstances", then that person
needs a reality check asap.


>>> "You don't know for a fact what Oswald told Frazier. You weren't there. You only have hearsay." <<<

Well, duh!

Of course all I have is Frazier's "hearsay". But it's "hearsay" that
Buell Frazier has never (ever) recanted or backed away from. Every
time he tells his story, we always hear about how Oswald told Frazier
about the curtain rods.

Tony, are you REALLY willing to call Frazier a liar? Or just mistaken
about hearing the words "curtain rods" come out of Oswald's mouth? Do
you really think Wes Frazier was wrong about that? I doubt you do.


>>> "And who said that Oswald was a totally innocent patsy regarding everything that happened in Dallas on Nov. 22?" <<<

A lot of conspiracy theorists think Oswald was totally innocent of
shooting the two men that Oswald obviously shot and killed. THAT'S
what I mean when I say that many CTers think Oswald was a "totally
innocent patsy". I'm talking about Oswald being a GUNMAN/KILLER. And
you know that, of course. You just want to argue, which I knew you
would when I first posted this thread at the aaj newsgroup.


>>> "I don't remember anyone claiming that Oswald was ordered to kill Tippit or that the killing of Tippit was part of the master plan." <<<

You'd better go talk to Jim Garrison's ghost then. Because Kook
Garrison most certainly thought (in 1967 anyway) that the murder of
J.D. Tippit was, indeed, part of the "master plan". Here's exactly
what Garrison told Playboy Magazine in 1967:

"The murder of Tippit, which I am convinced Oswald didn't
commit, was clearly designed to set the stage for Oswald's liquidation
in the Texas Theater after another anonymous tip-off. .... The
clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges were found
at the scene of the [Tippit] slaying. .... We suspect that cartridges
had been previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and left at
the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to
incriminate Oswald." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jim-garrison-part-1.html


>>> "They didn't find his [Oswald's] jacket for several days either." <<<

Yes, but they DID eventually find that blue jacket, didn't they Tony?
So, logically, if Oswald had really had curtain rods in that package
on Nov. 22, then some rods would have turned up inside the TSBD after
the assassination. But none did, per CE2640 and Roy Truly:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm


>>> "There are curtain rods in the National Archives." <<<

So? Those are Ruth Paine's rods. They certainly aren't rods that were
found in the Book Depository. But, of course, you know this already,
Tony. You just thought it would be nice to throw up that "strawman"
about rods being in the National Archives....even though you know full
well that those are the exact same rods that were still wrapped in
Paine's garage after the assassination. So why even mention those
rods? Just for the fun of it?



>>> "Why should Oswald mention curtain rods? We don't know what Oswald told the police. The police are empowered to lie about the evidence and what a suspect said." <<<

"Empowered to lie about the evidence", Tony? You're unbelievable.


>>> "Did Oswald tell them that he ate lunch that day?" <<<

He sure did.

But, naturally, a conspiracy theorist like you feels compelled to
point the blame at the cops, instead of pointing it at the guilty
party (Oswald).

To a CTer like Marsh, apparently the POLICE have a much bigger reason
to tell a bunch of lies than does the accused double-killer named
Oswald. Tony, you're unbelievable.


>>> "What if we don't want to fall for your lame construction[?] Can we just skip your silly questions?" <<<

I guess not, Tony, since you feel compelled to answer each and every
one.

But since you brought up "lame construction", I'd like to offer up a
response I received from another "out in left field" conspiracist
named Walt Cakebread. Walt was answering my initial question, which
was: How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on
11/21/63?

Here is Walt's brilliant reply:

"Answer....They didn't. You're either displaying your dishonesty

or your stupidity by asking this rhetorical question. Oswald's FBI
manipulator had told him that if things happened as the FBI thought
they would during JFK's visit on Friday the stage would be set for him

(LHO) to "flee" to Cuba under suspiction [sic] as "the leader of a
small band of communists' (FPFCC) who had plotted to shoot JFK. His

FBI manipulator told him that if he wanted to see his wife and kids
one last time before "fleeing" on Friday he should use the pretext of

needing curtain rods for his room." -- Walt; 9/29/11

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/d9e8de38a2eabbfd


>>> "What if some conspiracy believers agree with the HSCA that Oswald was one of the shooters? Will you still attack them with such venom?" <<<

Of course not. But most Internet CTers believe Oswald was NOT a
shooter. Therefore, those CTers are flat-out nuts, and I won't
hesitate to call them that.


>>> "One possibility is that he was covering up for someone else. Another is that he knew it was a conspiracy, but he was assigned to take the fall." <<<

And another (more reasonable) possibility is that Oswald acted alone
in killing Kennedy and Tippit. (Which is the scenario the evidence
favors, of course.)

Never thought of that possibility, did you Tony?


>>> "What is your preoccupation with saying that Oswald must be completely innocent of all crimes forever[?] No one thinks that." <<<

Huh?


>>> "Many agree that Oswald shot and killed Tippit." <<<

You won't find many of those CTers prowling the online forums,
however.


>>> "Only a few kooks claim that Oswald did not shoot at Walker." <<<

Nonsense. Almost every CTer I've ever talked to thinks Oswald was
completely innocent of the Walker shooting too.

The Anybody-But-Oswald kooks almost have to believe that Oswald was
innocent of shooting at Walker too -- because if they were to actually
admit that Oswald had MURDER IN HIS VEINS (which the Walker shooting
attempt most certainly proves), then it would be a much more difficult
task for those same ABO conspiracy theorists to prop up their fantasy
about Oswald being snow-white innocent of the JFK and Tippit murders
too.


>>> "So, in your perfect world no person is ever framed for murder and such a thing is impossible." <<<

When did I ever say any such thing?

Decided to end your post with a "strawman", eh Tony? Nice.

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

[Ben Holmes]

In article <7aaaa308-4e98-41cf...@j19g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

Where Oswald went on 11/21/63 has just as much relevance for who the shooter was
as where anyone else went that day...

>> 2.) And how did those very efficient plotters get Oswald to tell the
>> lie about the curtain rods? (Because all reasonable people know that
>> LHO's "curtain rod" tale was, indeed, a lie....mainly due to the fact
>> that NO CURTAIN RODS were ever found in the Book Depository; plus the
>> fact that if there HAD been any curtain rods at all, Oswald would have
>> said so to the police; but, instead, he denied he ever mentioned
>> anything about curtain rods to Buell Frazier.)

You're lying...

>> 3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy
>> get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on
>> Nov. 22nd? (Which is a package, as I just mentioned, that we know for
>> a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)

Another LNT'er factoid. We *KNOW* that a set of curtain rods are in evidence.

>> Those three questions are very important questions to answer in a
>> reasonable manner if you're a conspiracist who truly thinks Oswald was
>> just an unwitting patsy in the assassination of the President.
>>
>> Because unless Oswald was trying to set HIMSELF up as a patsy, it's
>> rather difficult to find any logical or reasonable answers to those
>> three questions I just posed that would lead to a conclusion that Lee
>> Oswald was completely innocent in the events of Nov. 22. Particularly
>> when those three questions are evaluated and assessed in conjunction
>> with all of the OTHER things that incriminate Oswald in JFK's murder,
>> e.g., the Carcano rifle, the shells, the paper bag on the sixth floor,
>> LHO's prints being all over the place where Kennedy's killer was
>> located, etc.
>>
>> In short -- Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on November 21, 1963, provide some
>> extremely powerful circumstantial evidence to indicate that Lee Harvey
>> Oswald was anything BUT an innocent patsy when it comes to the
>> assassination of President Kennedy.
>>
>> David Von Pein
>> September 28, 2011
>>
>> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com
>

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Where Oswald went on 11/21/63 has just as much relevance for who the shooter was as where anyone else went that day." <<<

I guess Ben The Kook must think that it just doesn't make a lick of
difference that the weapon that was used to kill JFK just happened to
be stored in the home of Ruth Paine....i.e., the very same house that
Oswald travelled to on the night before the assassination.

That doesn't have a darn bit of "relevance" to Ben Holmes. Right, Ben?

Hilarious.

>>> "Another LNT'er factoid. We *KNOW* that a set of curtain rods are in evidence." <<<

So what? Those rods in evidence are Ruth Paine's curtain rods, which
were still in her garage when she unwrapped them during her WC
testimony months after Nov. 22.

(Is this Ben person REALLY supposed to be some kind of expert on the
assassination? Could have fooled me.)

[Walt]

On Sep 29, 5:20 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Where Oswald went on 11/21/63 has just as much relevance for who the shooter was as where anyone else went that day." <<<
>
> I guess Ben The Kook must think that it just doesn't make a lick of
> difference that the weapon that was used to kill JFK just happened to
> be stored in the home of Ruth Paine....i.e., the very same house that
> Oswald travelled to on the night before the assassination.

If the Mannlicher Carcano had been the murder weapon then Oswald would
have been implcated in the murder even though he never fired any gun
that day. But the mannlicher Carcano could NOT have been the murder
weapon ...because it was well hidden beneath stacks of boxes at the
time the shots were fired.

[Jason Burke]

On 9/29/2011 4:51 PM, Walt wrote:
> On Sep 29, 5:20 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Where Oswald went on 11/21/63 has just as much relevance for who the shooter was as where anyone else went that day."<<<
>>
>> I guess Ben The Kook must think that it just doesn't make a lick of
>> difference that the weapon that was used to kill JFK just happened to
>> be stored in the home of Ruth Paine....i.e., the very same house that
>> Oswald travelled to on the night before the assassination.
>
> If the Mannlicher Carcano had been the murder weapon then Oswald would
> have been implcated in the murder even though he never fired any gun
> that day. But the mannlicher Carcano could NOT have been the murder
> weapon ...because it was well hidden beneath stacks of boxes at the
> time the shots were fired.
>

Does your life have ANY basis in reality?

[mucher1]

On Sep 30, 1:51 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 5:20 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Where Oswald went on 11/21/63 has just as much relevance for who the shooter was as where anyone else went that day." <<<
>
> > I guess Ben The Kook must think that it just doesn't make a lick of
> > difference that the weapon that was used to kill JFK just happened to
> > be stored in the home of Ruth Paine....i.e., the very same house that
> > Oswald travelled to on the night before the assassination.
>
> If the Mannlicher Carcano had been the murder weapon then Oswald would
> have been implcated in the murder even though he never fired any gun
> that day.  But the mannlicher Carcano could NOT have been the murder
> weapon ...because it was well hidden beneath stacks of boxes at the
> time the shots were fired.

I'm almost sorry to burst your bubble, but the "in situ" photographs
indicate that the rifle had merely been "stuffed down between two rows
of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it" (in the
words of the deputy sheriff who found it). The time required for such
a modest effort would have been no more than a few seconds. Timed
reenactments indicate that Oswald had more than enough time after the
shooting to reach the 1st floor before Baker. SURELY, you must know
this by now, after having been corrected so many times, so why do you
keep spreading your misinformation?

[Walt]

On Sep 30, 4:30 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 1:51 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 29, 5:20 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "Where Oswald went on 11/21/63 has just as much relevance for who the shooter was as where anyone else went that day." <<<
>
> > > I guess Ben The Kook must think that it just doesn't make a lick of
> > > difference that the weapon that was used to kill JFK just happened to
> > > be stored in the home of Ruth Paine....i.e., the very same house that
> > > Oswald travelled to on the night before the assassination.
>
> > If the Mannlicher Carcano had been the murder weapon then Oswald would
> > have been implcated in the murder even though he never fired any gun
> > that day.  But the mannlicher Carcano could NOT have been the murder
> > weapon ...because it was well hidden beneath stacks of boxes at the
> > time the shots were fired.
>
> I'm almost sorry to burst your bubble, but the "in situ" photographs
> indicate that the rifle had merely been "stuffed down between two rows
> of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it" (in the
> words of the deputy sheriff who found it). The time required for such
> a modest effort would have been no more than a few seconds. Timed
> reenactments indicate that Oswald had more than enough time after the
> shooting to reach the 1st floor before Baker. SURELY, you must know
> this by now, after having been corrected so many times, so why do you
> keep spreading your misinformation?

We've been over this road several times..... You know as well as I
that the in situ photo could not have been taken until some of the
boxes that had been stacked over the rifle had been removed. There's
no argument that the position of the rifle in situ photo is accurate
but they could not have taken that photo until the boxes were removed.

I believe a couple of the cops who were there testfied that the scene
in the in situ wasn't exactly as it was when they discovered the
rifle... The WC lawyer asked them if the in situ photo was accurate
and they told the WC lawyer.... "There were a few more boxes in
here" .... apparently they were pointing to a spot on the in situ
photo.

In other words they said the in situ photo was NOT 100%
accurate....because some boxes had been moved.

>
>
>
> > > That doesn't have a darn bit of "relevance" to Ben Holmes. Right, Ben?
>
> > > Hilarious.
>
> > > >>> "Another LNT'er factoid. We *KNOW* that a set of curtain rods are in evidence." <<<
>
> > > So what? Those rods in evidence are Ruth Paine's curtain rods, which
> > > were still in her garage when she unwrapped them during her WC
> > > testimony months after Nov. 22.
>
> > > (Is this Ben person REALLY supposed to be some kind of expert on the

> > > assassination? Could have fooled me.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[lazu...@webtv.net]

We'll never get anywhere unless one realizes LHO was an active part of
the conspiracy, and the conspiracy was evenly balanced between the
mob-Intelligence and LBJ and his backers, but intell. or Military could
never have succeeded without LBJ's and Hoover's participation....Laz

[Walt]

We'll never get anywhere unless one realizes LHO was an active, though
unwitting, part of the conspiracy,

Oswald realized that he'd been made the patsy, because he had
knowingly participated in what he thought was just a "stage play" that
would make him look like the leader of a band of Castro lovin
communists (the FFCC) who had fired shots at JFK. Lee thought that
he'd be allowed to escape to Cuba where his mission was to send back
intelligence gathered there. Just like he did in Russia in 1960/ 1961.

[Jason Burke]

Gee, Wally, I guess crack isn't just for breakfast anymore.

[mucher1]

I most definitely do NOT know that. Seems you're just going in
circles: "we know the boxes were moved because, well, because, uh,
they HAVE to have been moved!"

> I believe a couple of the cops who were there testfied that the scene
> in the in situ wasn't exactly as it was when they discovered the
> rifle... The WC lawyer asked them if the in situ photo was accurate
> and they told the WC lawyer.... "There were a few more boxes in
> here" .... apparently they were pointing to a spot on the in situ
> photo.

So you have one person (Mooney) who remembers some details a little
differently? Well, that's terrific, but don't forget that this was
months later, and the photographs offer an ideal view that he didn't
have (he approached the rifle from another direction). If this is the
only support you have for your absurd "Let's BURY the rifle under TONS
of boxes" scenario, then you have nothing.

> In other words they said the in situ photo was NOT 100%
> accurate....because some boxes had been moved.

How accurate were they then? 50%? 99%? How many boxes are we talking
about? How did you establish that they were a hindrance to the person
who hid the rifle? Be specific.

[Walt]

Yes that's true.....He remember that they had to remove some the
boxes, and photographs taken at the time confirm that there were boxes
of books stacked above the rifle.

Well, that's terrific, but don't forget that this was
> months later, and the photographs offer an ideal view that he didn't
> have (he approached the rifle from another direction). If this is the
> only support you have for your absurd "Let's BURY the rifle under TONS
> of boxes" scenario, then you have nothing.
>
> > In other words they said the in situ photo was NOT 100%
> > accurate....because some boxes had been moved.
>
> How accurate were they then? 50%? 99%? How many boxes are we talking
> about? How did you establish that they were a hindrance to the person
> who hid the rifle? Be specific.
>
>
>
> > > > > That doesn't have a darn bit of "relevance" to Ben Holmes. Right, Ben?
>
> > > > > Hilarious.
>
> > > > > >>> "Another LNT'er factoid. We *KNOW* that a set of curtain rods are in evidence." <<<
>
> > > > > So what? Those rods in evidence are Ruth Paine's curtain rods, which
> > > > > were still in her garage when she unwrapped them during her WC
> > > > > testimony months after Nov. 22.
>
> > > > > (Is this Ben person REALLY supposed to be some kind of expert on the

> > > > > assassination? Could have fooled me.)- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Mark Ulrik]

No, that's not true. Look again.

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Walt-Oswald met with Maurice Bishop aka David Phillips,as seen by
Antonio Veciana in Dallas in sep. 63 therefore he was under CIA control.
There's no reason for him to be on.the 2nd floor while the President
passes by unless ordered by Phillips to do so.

The only logical thing that explains his actions..is he was an
actor..just like LBJ and Hoover on those tapes just after the
Assassination...just like his charade handing out communist literature
for Banister and so forth...Laz

[Sam McClung]

i'm not sold on david atlee phillips being maurice bishop at all

http://web.newsguy.com/mcclung/wrinkled.html
other than ike, johnny carson, and d.b. cooper, the other drawings and
pictures on this page may be the man oswald met with in september 1963 and
knew as maurice bishop

and then there's the halliburton aspect

[Walt]

Laz..... Oswald didn't know who was directing the play......He was
just an actor, and there were so many chameleons that he didn't know
who they actually affilated with. I'm sure he knew that Bannister was
an undercover FBI agent working for Hoover, so he probably assumed
that Ferrie was also FBI...... But we know that Ferrie was CIA.




Personally I doubt that Oswald ever worked for a CIA agent.... He
worked for an intelligence agency, no doubt, but I'm not sure he was
CIA. Rogue CIA agents manipulated him ( perhaps thinking he was FBI)
but I doubt that Oswald knew that they were CIA. Lee wasn't connected
with any agency when he was in NO....He was free lance working for
Bobby Kennedy.

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Walt...yeah I think it's splittin' hairs...they were all in it
together...all the top mobsters involved in the plots to kill Castro had
intell.connections which could extend quite aways from each one..In Ron
Lewis flashback it says that LHO was always under the control of a
father figure like controller-the last being Ruby, he LHO had violent
tendencies and was obsessed with being an assassin, and talked
frequently about killing Sen. Russell Long..by early Sept. Oswald no
longer fought his own role in the Assassination hatched out of 544 Camp
St. Boy, I'd sure like to know what Banister's relationship was with
Hoover, Gen. Walker, and the Dallas Police Dept.....Laz

[Walt]

Laz Lee never had violent tendencies..... That was show for Ron Lewis
who was a communist, Oswald suspected that Lewis was working for
Castro's intelligence. ( Personally I believe that Lee was right)
Since he thought that lewis was sending info to Castro, Lee wanted to
appear a rough and ready communist revolutionary, just as he had
portrayed himself in the Back yard photo. Lee's goal was to
infiltrate Cuba...... And he was using the same basic MO that he had
used to successfully penetrate the USSR three years earlier.

[Walt]

On Sep 29, 10:36 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Don't you love it when a conspiracy kook just starts making shit up
> out of whole cloth (as Walter just did above). And with make-believe
> statements inside quotation marks yet. I love it.

Hmmmm....Let's see.... Since you are disputing my post , you must have
PROOF for your statement that....." Oswald LIED to Wesley Frazier

about the "curtain rods". "

It's your position that I'm inventing theories and you're not trying
to advance a THEORY, and then you pretend that your theory is a proven
fact. Why are your theories more credible than others? Are you God?

[bigdog]

Oswald's brother Robert has no doubts LHO was the assassin and he knew
him a lot better than any of you retards.