No More Responses to Tony
John McAdams
that supports killfiles.
No more responses to Tony Marsh. I may see some of his messages while
reposting them, but my newsreader will delete them rather than
downloading them for me.
cdddraftsman
Proves that John McAdam's is a extremely tolerant person . I was tired of
Marsh's comments after being here for only one week :-( ..........tl
mark foster
But it's only by responding to him -- and thereby dignifying his
theories and claims -- that one is able to enjoy the feeling of
superiority that comes with knowing you're right and he's not.
To be honest, I thrive on it.
Kenneth A. Rahn
I gave up on Tony a couple of years ago, when it became clear that he
was simply not absorbing things that I had been repeating to him for years
(and in agreement with his positions!), and combining that with a
holier-than-thou attitude about everything.
To be fair to Tony, however, I have also given up on Gary Aguilar and
Stu Wexler.
Ken Rahn
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:k208p3162hmrpntka...@4ax.com...
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Translation: John has been unable to score in any debate with
Anthony, so he's picking up his toys and going home.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Really. Then you must be comfortable on John's slanted field. Otherwise,
you might find Anthony's witty reparte a refreshing change from the gossip
and innuendo that pass here for 'evidence' and 'fact'.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
JLeyd...@aol.com
Ah, Tony will be happier on ACJ anyway where so many people think like
he does... when they think at all.
JGL
steve
> .John,
>
> I gave up on Tony a couple of years ago, when it became clear that he
> was simply not absorbing things that I had been repeating to him for years
> (and in agreement with his positions!)
i get the same kind of crap. you cant even agree with the guy and not
have him disagree that you agree with him. its baffling!
>, and combining that with a
> holier-than-thou attitude about everything.
> To be fair to Tony, however, I have also given up on Gary Aguilar and
> Stu Wexler.
>
> Ken Rahn
>
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:k208p3162hmrpntka...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > I'm tired of Tony Marsh. I've downloaded the new version of Agent
> > that supports killfiles.
>
> > No more responses to Tony Marsh. I may see some of his messages while
> > reposting them, but my newsreader will delete them rather than
> > downloading them for me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
steve
wrote:
your just mad cause Judyth has been thoroughly debunked, and Marsh is
the only person who has sympathy for the Judyth apologists, but even
he thinks she is full of it 87% of the time.
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Jan 20, 10:54 pm, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 6:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm tired of Tony Marsh. I've downloaded the new version of Agent
>> > that supports killfiles.
>>
>> > No more responses to Tony Marsh. I may see some of his messages while
>> > reposting them, but my newsreader will delete them rather than
>> > downloading them for me.
>>
>> Proves that John McAdam's is a extremely tolerant person . I was tired of
>> Marsh's comments after being here for only one week :-( ..........tl
>
>Really. Then you must be comfortable on John's slanted field. Otherwise,
>you might find Anthony's witty reparte
ROFLAMO!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
You still don't seem to understand the concept. It is not a matter of
having sympathy for anyone. It is the principle that one should not
misstate the evidence when debunking a wacky theory. That goes for both
sides.
>
>
>> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com
>
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
rather like a badge of honor.
Anthony doesn't have 'sympathy', he has objectivity. Are you able to
perceive the difference?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Anthony Marsh
And when was the last time I posted only on ACJ? You make up a lot of
crap. Of course you would like to get rid of me so that you can post
your crap unopposed.
> JGL
>
Anthony Marsh
> .John,
>
> I gave up on Tony a couple of years ago, when it became clear that he
> was simply not absorbing things that I had been repeating to him for years
> (and in agreement with his positions!), and combining that with a
> holier-than-thou attitude about everything.
> To be fair to Tony, however, I have also given up on Gary Aguilar and
> Stu Wexler.
>
It's not giving up. It's refusing to debate because you know you will
lose.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:22:32 -0600, John McAdams
>
How many times have you even replied to Anthony? Guess it doesn't take
much for you to 'thrive'.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
> .John,
>
> I gave up on Tony a couple of years ago, when it became clear that he
> was simply not absorbing things that I had been repeating to him for years
> (and in agreement with his positions!), and combining that with a
> holier-than-thou attitude about everything.
> To be fair to Tony, however, I have also given up on Gary Aguilar and
> Stu Wexler.
>
waste time being challenged to think in unfamiliar directions.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John Blubaugh
Well, that is interesting. Someone disagrees with you on a regular basis
so you just choose to ignore them. It doesn't seem to me you ever fared
very well when taking on Tony. I am sure Tony will not lose any sleep over
your decision.
JB
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Anthony's remarks are just about the only bright thing on the
otherwise-dismal landscape here, John. They help us remember that in this
small world black is white, white is black, and we're through the
lookingglass, as your favorite CT, Garrison, once said...
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Indeed, we see living proof of that before our very eyes! You've been
challenged to cite and support your own claims. Repeatedly. You won't.
Too easy. Just too easy.
Barb :-)
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
John Canal
>
>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>> .John,
>>
>> I gave up on Tony a couple of years ago, when it became clear that he
>> was simply not absorbing things that I had been repeating to him for years
>> (and in agreement with his positions!), and combining that with a
>> holier-than-thou attitude about everything.
>> To be fair to Tony, however, I have also given up on Gary Aguilar and
>> Stu Wexler.
>>
>
>It's not giving up. It's refusing to debate because you know you will
>lose.
Sure, Marsh. Your "No-hits-to-the-BOH" wacky theory is something we all
want to debate...kind of like we'd like to debate how many eyes the aliens
had that (in the minds of some) landed at Roswell.
Heck, I posted a graphic of F8 with the entry auto-enhanced so even the
great Ray Charles, who blessed our wonderful culture with his incredible
musical talent, on his worst day could see it [the entry].....and you said
you couldn't see it? Of course you couldn't see it......, heck that'd mean
your silly theory was wrong.
Yup, arguing with you is a real thrill....maybe like rolling around in
poison ivy.
But, hey, Marsh...don't feel bad about making .john's killfile...I believe
I beat you to it. And here's a tip for anyone who wants to make that list:
don't ever bait .john into saying something that reveals he's been wrong
about one of his dearest conclusions....i.e. the cowlick entry.
:-)
John Canal
steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think John is not responding to Marsh anymore because the
moderators wont let him post what he really thinks of Tony.
John Canal
And here's a tip for anyone who wants to make that list: don't ever bait
.john into saying something that reveals he's been wrong about one of his
dearest conclusions....i.e. the cowlick entry.
I meant to say, if you want to make .john's killfile list, bait him into
mark foster
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Anthony's remarks are just about the only bright thing on the
>otherwise-dismal landscape here, John. They help us remember that in this
>small world black is white, white is black, and we're through the
>lookingglass, as your favorite CT, Garrison, once said...
>
Good heavens, Anthony Marsh is the guy who recently bragged about his
car's vanity license plates that reference Commission Exhibit 349
rather than Commission Exhibit 399.
This is an example of the "only bright thing on the otherwise-dismal
landscape here"??
I ask you.
rwalker
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
snip
Anthony's remarks are just about the only bright thing on the
otherwise-dismal landscape here, John. They help us remember that in this
small world black is white, white is black, and we're through the
lookingglass, as your favorite CT, Garrison, once said...
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
__________________________
Oh give us a break.
Anthony Marsh
> On 22 Jan 2008 20:33:47 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
> <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Anthony's remarks are just about the only bright thing on the
>> otherwise-dismal landscape here, John. They help us remember that in this
>> small world black is white, white is black, and we're through the
>> lookingglass, as your favorite CT, Garrison, once said...
>>
>
> Good heavens, Anthony Marsh is the guy who recently bragged about his
> car's vanity license plates that reference Commission Exhibit 349
> rather than Commission Exhibit 399.
>
Bragged? It was a test, which all WC defenders fail. Just as they failed
to figure out where I was born after several hints.
So, the second part of the test. Why did I not select CE 399?
Anthony Marsh
> In article <47960b66$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>>> .John,
>>>
>>> I gave up on Tony a couple of years ago, when it became clear that he
>>> was simply not absorbing things that I had been repeating to him for years
>>> (and in agreement with his positions!), and combining that with a
>>> holier-than-thou attitude about everything.
>>> To be fair to Tony, however, I have also given up on Gary Aguilar and
>>> Stu Wexler.
>>>
>> It's not giving up. It's refusing to debate because you know you will
>> lose.
>
> Sure, Marsh. Your "No-hits-to-the-BOH" wacky theory is something we all
> want to debate...kind of like we'd like to debate how many eyes the aliens
> had that (in the minds of some) landed at Roswell.
>
> Heck, I posted a graphic of F8 with the entry auto-enhanced so even the
> great Ray Charles, who blessed our wonderful culture with his incredible
> musical talent, on his worst day could see it [the entry].....and you said
> you couldn't see it? Of course you couldn't see it......, heck that'd mean
> your silly theory was wrong.
>
No, wrong again. You posted the photo showing the interior of the head and
falsely claimed there was a hole there, while many other WC defenders
claim it should be a semi-circle. And many people do not see your hole.
You are seeing things that aren't there. My challenge was for you to show
the hole on the BOH photo, on the scalp. You can't. Because there is no
hole there.
Anthony Marsh
He learned a long time ago to not answer my question lest he reveal his
lack of facts.
> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2008 20:21:19 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
> >On Jan 21, 8:04 pm, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
> >> .John,
>
> >> I gave up on Tony a couple of years ago, when it became clear that he
> >> was simply not absorbing things that I had been repeating to him for years
> >> (and in agreement with his positions!), and combining that with a
> >> holier-than-thou attitude about everything.
> >> To be fair to Tony, however, I have also given up on Gary Aguilar and
> >> Stu Wexler.
>
> >I suppose when one has their mind made up, it does not make sense to
> >waste time being challenged to think in unfamiliar directions.
>
> Indeed, we see living proof of that before our very eyes! You've been
> challenged to cite and support your own claims. Repeatedly. You won't.
"Cite claims" to you means take someone else's word for it.
Besides, aaj is hardly a place to do actual research, is it? More of a
gabfest with a nasty underbelly, don't you think?
In fact, perhaps its only virtue is in being a good example of the
ongoing coverup.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
tomnln
"rwalker" <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:4796d4a4$0$24111$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
RWALKER WROTE;
> Oh give us a break.
I WRITE;
You can give "Everyone" a break by addressing the destruction of evidence by
the authorities>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Jan 22, 8:40 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On 22 Jan 2008 20:21:19 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>>
>> <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 21, 8:04 pm, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
>> >> .John,
>>
>> >> I gave up on Tony a couple of years ago, when it became clear that he
>> >> was simply not absorbing things that I had been repeating to him for years
>> >> (and in agreement with his positions!), and combining that with a
>> >> holier-than-thou attitude about everything.
>> >> To be fair to Tony, however, I have also given up on Gary Aguilar and
>> >> Stu Wexler.
>>
>> >I suppose when one has their mind made up, it does not make sense to
>> >waste time being challenged to think in unfamiliar directions.
>>
>> Indeed, we see living proof of that before our very eyes! You've been
>> challenged to cite and support your own claims. Repeatedly. You won't.
>
>"Cite claims" to you means take someone else's word for it.
Excuse me? For someone who bellowed and brayed at John Hunt about
providing proper citations (of course you were off the maek on him big
time) you're now going to act confused about what it means for someone
to cite a specific quote that they claim represents something that is
"in error," "propaganda," "nothing but a smear" etc from Dave's page?
>
>Besides, aaj is hardly a place to do actual research, is it? More of a
>gabfest with a nasty underbelly, don't you think?
With your cluttering up every thread with little else, all the while
refusing requests from others to actually discuss the issues/evidence
... it's pretty funny for you, of all people, to note that! HA!
>In fact, perhaps its only virtue is in being a good example of the
>ongoing coverup.
Well, the people who are willing, able and *try* to discuss the
issues, who provide cites, point out issues, etc aren't the ones
anybody's looking at and wondering about any hidden agenda *they*
have. :-)
I have wondered just exactly why your only reason for being here seems
to be to disrupt and prevent any actual detailed discussions.
So you must be speaking about yourself.
mark foster
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Lack of facts?? You are the one who claimed in another thread that
Hosty was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination!!
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Say, YOU SAID;
*IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies*
Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I:
a) Have no idea what you're on about &
b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit
Mexico City in September 1963 &
c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your
website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln.
Well, always happy to help! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Jan 24, 2:26 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "rwalker" <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4796d4a4$0$24111$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
> > "Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> > snip
>
> > Anthony's remarks are just about the only bright thing on the
> > otherwise-dismal landscape here, John. They help us remember that in this
> > small world black is white, white is black, and we're through the
> > lookingglass, as your favorite CT, Garrison, once said...
>
> > Pamela McElwain-Brown
> >www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
> > __________________________
>
> RWALKER WROTE;
>
> > Oh give us a break.
>
> I WRITE;
>
> You can give "Everyone" a break by addressing the destruction of evidence by
> the authorities>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Canal
Marsh, writes:
>No, wrong again. You posted the photo showing the interior of the head and
>falsely claimed there was a hole there, while many other WC defenders
>claim it should be a semi-circle.
Gee, are you suggesting a hole has to be round...and cannot be
semicircular?
Marsh also writes:
>And many people do not see your hole.
And, that list would pretty much be totally comprised of you and Mcdams,
right?
You're on that list because you've been trumpeting the same wacky theory
that there were no hits to the back of JFK's head...and for you to admit
you could see a bullet wound there would mean you've spent thousands of
hours blowing smoke....which, IMHO, you have.
Now, McAdams is on that list for a very different reason. It's because he
admitted what I (and, more importantly, what the autopsists and the HSCA)
say is the entry IS "deep inside the cranial cavity" and, if he admitted
that defect was the entry, he'd be admitting the cowlick entry theory is
hogwash...which, of course, it is. Even you realize that.
BTW, Marsh, do you realize, at Stringer's home, he put it in writing for
me that in F8, which he himself took, the entry was where I showed it to
be?
Oh, I know...you consider that "argument by authority" or some crap like
that, and, therefore, it's not relevant?
John Canal
Peter Makres
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6f34244b-ae6b-4912...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi tomnln,
Say, YOU SAID;
*IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies*
Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I:
a) Have no idea what you're on about &
b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit
Mexico City in September 1963 &
c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your
website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln.
Well, always happy to help! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Tim,
Good to see you back friend....hope you enjoyed your
vacation in Perth. Not much has changed here...as you can see!
Peter M.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
> On 22 Jan 2008 20:33:47 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
Anthony has a sense of humour. Do you?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
tomnln
Hi tomnln,
Say, YOU SAID;
*IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies*
Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I:
a) Have no idea what you're on about &
b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit
Mexico City in September 1963 &
c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your
website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln.
Well, always happy to help! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
6 Sylvia Odio said "OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS".
Are you Afraid to lose this one TOO?
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
Who said what? Maybe I was talking about Hill.
Anthony Marsh
There is a difference between Oswald being in Mexico and Oswald being
the person who did everything claimed.
Anthony Marsh
> [...
>
> Marsh, writes:
>
>> No, wrong again. You posted the photo showing the interior of the head and
>> falsely claimed there was a hole there, while many other WC defenders
>> claim it should be a semi-circle.
>
> Gee, are you suggesting a hole has to be round...and cannot be
> semicircular?
>
> Marsh also writes:
>
>> And many people do not see your hole.
>
> And, that list would pretty much be totally comprised of you and Mcdams,
> right?
>
99.999% of the population. No one agrees with you.
yeuhd
> 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
> 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
> 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
> 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
That is not what the Church Report said. Here in fact is what it said:
"The evidence indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City from
September 27, 1963, through October 2, 1963."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol5_0049b.htm
> 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
That is not what the HSCA said. Here in fact is what it said, in the
"Conclusions" section of the HSCA's "Lopez Report" as released in 2003:
"Someone who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald called the Soviet
Consulate on 1 October 1963. This individual indicated that he had visited
the Soviet Consulate at least once. Other evidence from the CIA wiretaps,
and eyewitness testimony, indicates that the individual visited the Soviet
and Cuban Consulates on five or six different occasions. While the
majority of the evidence tends to indicate that this individual was indeed
Lee Harvey Oswald, the possibility that someone else used Lee Harvey
Oswald's name during this time in contact with the Soviet and Cuban
Consulates cannot be absolutely dismissed."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRpt_0017a.htm
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Peter M,
Yes mate, back from Perth as of yesterday. Thanks for your kind words!
It appears that tomnln may have been making some disparaging comments
whilst I was on the road; able to respond only sporadically these last
few weeks.
Suffice it to say that responses will be coming tomnln's way, pointing
out the quite alarming discrepancies between his website and evidence/
testimony.
:-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Jan 25, 2:16 pm, "Peter Makres" <pmakr...@msn.com> wrote:
> BOTTOM POST
>
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6f34244b-ae6b-4912...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 25, 12:49 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
>> 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
>> 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
>> 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
>
> That is not what the Church Report said. Here in fact is what it said:
>
> "The evidence indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City from
> September 27, 1963, through October 2, 1963."
>
That does not prove it was Oswald making all the visits and all the
phone calls.
Why is there not ONE photograph of the historical Oswald in Mexico?
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol5_0049b.htm
>
>> 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
>
> That is not what the HSCA said. Here in fact is what it said, in the
> "Conclusions" section of the HSCA's "Lopez Report" as released in 2003:
>
> "Someone who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald called the Soviet
Why do they use the language "who identified himself"?
Why don't they just say "Lee Harvey Oswald"?
That should give you a clue.
> Consulate on 1 October 1963. This individual indicated that he had visited
> the Soviet Consulate at least once. Other evidence from the CIA wiretaps,
> and eyewitness testimony, indicates that the individual visited the Soviet
> and Cuban Consulates on five or six different occasions. While the
> majority of the evidence tends to indicate that this individual was indeed
> Lee Harvey Oswald, the possibility that someone else used Lee Harvey
> Oswald's name during this time in contact with the Soviet and Cuban
> Consulates cannot be absolutely dismissed."
There is no doubt that the real Oswald was in Mexico. There is a
possibility that the CIA tried to impersonate him.
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRpt_0017a.htm
>
tomnln
Thanks for supporting my position.
HAHAHAHAHA
FURTHER;
Sylvia odio said Oswald was at her house inj Dallas during that time
frame.
The HSCA Believed Sylvia Odio>>>
HSCA Report page 139.
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:904d4098-2caf-4c82...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Thanks for supporting my position.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA
No, I just proved that you misrepresented by the Church Committee's
and the HSCA's conclusions about whether Oswald was in Mexico.
>
> FURTHER;
>
> Sylvia odio said Oswald was at her house inj Dallas during that time
> frame.
>
The Warren Commission deduced Oswald's departure time from New Orleans on
when an unemployment check that he cashed sometime between 4 pm on
September 24 and 1 pm on September 25 would have arrived. The check was
mailed on September 23, and the WC estimated that it would take two days
for the check to arrive in New Orleans. And that is where the Warren
Commission erred. In fact, Oswald usually received his unemployment checks
at his post office box -- and immediately cashed them -- one day after
they were mailed. Thus Oswald could have left New Orleans any time after 4
pm on September 24.
A neighbor testified that on the evening of September 24, he saw Oswald,
carrying two pieces of luggage, hurriedly leave his apartment and board a
city bus. Oswald's landlord found his apartment empty on September 25.
It's an 8-hour drive (520 miles) from New Orleans to Dallas.
Sylvia Odio said that Oswald and the two Cuban men were at her apartment
in Dallas at about 9 pm on September 25, 26, or 27, 1963. Odio: "They kept
mentioning that they had come to visit me at such a time of night, it was
almost 9 o'clock, because they were leaving for a trip. And two or three
times they said the same thing."
The drive from Dallas to Houston is 3 and 3/4 hours (239 miles).
Oswald's bus left Houston for Laredo, Texas at 2:35 am on September 26.
The bus was scheduled to arrive in Laredo at 1:20 pm that day, at which
point Oswald transferred to another bus across the border in Nuevo Laredo.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
On Jan 25, 4:49 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6f34244b-ae6b-4912...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> TOP POST
>
> Hi tomnln,
>
> Say, YOU SAID;
>
> *IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies*
>
> Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I:
>
> a) Have no idea what you're on about &
>
> b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit
> Mexico City in September 1963 &
>
> c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your
> website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln.
>
> Well, always happy to help! :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup Commentator*
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
So? Oswald was 5' 9" tomnln. That is a relatively small man. Besides
which, Mirabel said it WAS Oswald, tomnln.
> 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
Duran said it was Oswald, tomnln. On a number of occasions. She used his
NOPD mugshot, as supplied to her by the HSCA, to identify him. She said he
was maybe a bit blonder, but so what? SHE UNSWERVINGLY SAID THAT THE MAN
IN THE NOPD MUGSHOT, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, WAS THE MAN THAT SHE MET AT THE
CUBAN EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY, tomnln.
Now, what bit out of that don't you understand, tomnln?
> 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
Yeah? Well one out of three ain't good, tomnln.
> 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
No, wrong. Yeud has posted the link on that one, tomnln.
> 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
No, wrong. HSCA concluded that Oswald visited what is generally known as
the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in September-October 1963, tomnln. That's
because he did, tomnln.
> 6 Sylvia Odio said "OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS".
Who cares what she said? Her account is not worthy of belief. She is
mistaken.
>
> Are you Afraid to lose this one TOO?
Oh, yes, tomnln. I'm <snicker> quaking in my boots about your worthless
argument that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City, tomnln.
That's because he WAS in Mexico City, tomnln.
Say, let's add a few more to those, like Duran, who say Lee Harvey
Oswald was in Mexico City, tomnln.
7 Kostikov (KGB) says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian
Embassy, tomnln.
8 Nechiporenko says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy
in Mexico City, tomnln.
9 Yatskov says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy in
Mexico City, tomnln.
10 Lee Harvey Oswald says he went to Mexico City, tomnln.
That's in both the WC volumes and the HSCA volumes, tomnln.
Do you need me to supply you with the links, tomnln?
Once again your case flops in a heap when confronted with your
precious *evidence/testimony*, tomnln.
Now isn't that right, tomnln?
:-)
Concerned Regards,
tims...@gmail.com
Hi yeuhd,
Excellent post, my friend!
That sure blows a hole in tomnln's nonsense re the Church Committee and a
few other things.
Even a CTer like Marsh concedes Oswald was in Mexico City, but tomnln
can't.
Heck, even Oswald concedes he was in Mexico City, yet tomnln can't, LOL!
tomnln's explanations as to why Silvia Duran's name and the phone number
of the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City are in Oswald's note book, in Oswald's
hand writing, are farcical in my opinion.
It's time tomnln conceded that Oswald WAS in Mexico City in late 1963 and
stopped clutching at pathetic straws that many JFK-CTers have already
abandoned.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Jan 27, 3:21 am, yeuhd <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 12:49 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
> > 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
> > 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
> > 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
>
> That is not what the Church Report said. Here in fact is what it said:
>
> "The evidence indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City from
> September 27, 1963, through October 2, 1963."
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol...
>
> > 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
>
> That is not what the HSCA said. Here in fact is what it said, in the
> "Conclusions" section of the HSCA's "Lopez Report" as released in 2003:
>
> "Someone who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald called the Soviet
> Consulate on 1 October 1963. This individual indicated that he had visited
> the Soviet Consulate at least once. Other evidence from the CIA wiretaps,
> and eyewitness testimony, indicates that the individual visited the Soviet
> and Cuban Consulates on five or six different occasions. While the
> majority of the evidence tends to indicate that this individual was indeed
> Lee Harvey Oswald, the possibility that someone else used Lee Harvey
> Oswald's name during this time in contact with the Soviet and Cuban
> Consulates cannot be absolutely dismissed."
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRp...
tims...@gmail.com
That hardly supports your position, tomnln.
Lopez was desperate to prove a conspiracy but even he had to concede
Oswald was in Mexico City.
That's because he was in Mexico City, tomnln.
The poster yeud has ripped your argument(s) to shreds, tomnln.
When are you fixing your website, tomnln?
It doesn't agree with evidence/testimony.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Jan 27, 4:33 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Thanks for supporting my position.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA
>
> FURTHER;
>
> Sylvia odio said Oswald was at her house inj Dallas during that time
> frame.
>
> The HSCA Believed Sylvia Odio>>>
> HSCA Report page 139.
>
> "yeuhd" <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
>
> news:904d4098-2caf-4c82...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 25, 12:49 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
> > 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
> > 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
> > 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
>
> That is not what the Church Report said. Here in fact is what it said:
>
> "The evidence indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City from
> September 27, 1963, through October 2, 1963."
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol...
>
> > 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
>
> That is not what the HSCA said. Here in fact is what it said, in the
> "Conclusions" section of the HSCA's "Lopez Report" as released in 2003:
>
> "Someone who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald called the Soviet
> Consulate on 1 October 1963. This individual indicated that he had visited
> the Soviet Consulate at least once. Other evidence from the CIA wiretaps,
> and eyewitness testimony, indicates that the individual visited the Soviet
> and Cuban Consulates on five or six different occasions. While the
> majority of the evidence tends to indicate that this individual was indeed
> Lee Harvey Oswald, the possibility that someone else used Lee Harvey
> Oswald's name during this time in contact with the Soviet and Cuban
> Consulates cannot be absolutely dismissed."
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRp...
tomnln
Want me to post that page on my website for ya????
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:5756ca39-e212-4f84...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Want me to post that page for ya????
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:5756ca39-e212-4f84...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd48afb0-13c5-4e3f...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
That hardly supports your position, tomnln.
Lopez was desperate to prove a conspiracy but even he had to concede
Oswald was in Mexico City.
That's because he was in Mexico City, tomnln.
The poster yeud has ripped your argument(s) to shreds, tomnln.
When are you fixing your website, tomnln?
It doesn't agree with evidence/testimony.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No trouble identifying a post from you Timmy;
They NEVER contain replies to these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
After you were made a FOOL of on the Mexico City Baloney>>>
1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
6 Sylvia Odio said "OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS".
7 HSCA Belived Odio.>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc6bb072-1759-4274...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Your own side Disagrees with you.
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3375335f-9c65-4bd2...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
cdddraftsman
> "rwalker" <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4796d4a4$0$24111$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
> > "Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> > snip
>
> > Anthony's remarks are just about the only bright thing on the
> > otherwise-dismal landscape here, John. They help us remember that in this
> > small world black is white, white is black, and we're through the
> > lookingglass, as your favorite CT, Garrison, once said...
>
> > Pamela McElwain-Brown
> >www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
> > __________________________
>
> RWALKER WROTE;
>
> > Oh give us a break.
>
> I WRITE;
>
> You can give "Everyone" a break by addressing the destruction of evidence by
> the authorities>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Curious statement from someone who supports , quotes and creates
conspiracy's from the very people he claims are felons ?
.................tl
cdddraftsman
> The HSCA said they Belive Odio.
>
> Want me to post that page for ya????
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ever figure out how you can tell if a felon is telling you the truth
or not Rossley ?
yeuhd
> The Church Committee said the man in the Cuban embassy was NOT Oswald.
>
False. Here is what the Church Committee report said, Book V, p. 4:
"The case [the FBI's security file on Oswald] was reopened in March 1963,
but Oswald was not interviewed by the FBI until August 10, 1963, when he
requested an interview after his arrest in New Orleans for disturbing the
peace. On the occasion of this third interview, he again repeatedly lied
to FBI agents. A month later Oswald visited Mexico City, where he visited
both the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic establishments, and contacted a vice
consul at the latter who was in fact a KGB agent."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol5_0005b.htm
yeuhd
Please re-read my post above. Sylvia Odio's story does *not*
contradict Oswald's being in Mexico City from September 27, 1963
through October 2, 1963.
Odio believed that the two Cubans and Oswald came to her door in
Dallas at about 9 pm on September 25, 26, or 27, 1963.
Oswald cashed an unemployment check in New Orleans sometime between 4
pm, September 24, and 8 am, September 25. Oswald's bus left Houston
for Laredo, Texas at 2:35 am on September 26. Between those times,
Oswald's whereabouts are unknown.
tomnln
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:234a0402-7367-46de...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
I am NOT surprised that you don't know that I state that the Warren
Commission "Conclusions" are Lies.
I prove it by quoting the evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes by witnesses.
That should alleviate your curiosity. But, one never knows about you.
Wanna try these?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
lowery wrote;
Ever figure out how you can tell if a felon is telling you the truth
or not Rossley ?
I write;
lowery doesn't know the difference between the WCR & the 26 volumes of
evidence/testimony.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol5_0005b.htm
I even marked it with a big red "X" for yoy yeuhd>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I REPEAT>>>
The HSCA said they Belive Odio.
SEE HSCA Report page 139.
Want me to scan it & post it for you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
> TOP POST
>
> That hardly supports your position, tomnln.
>
> Lopez was desperate to prove a conspiracy but even he had to concede
> Oswald was in Mexico City.
>
No but. The two are not mutually exclusive.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Say, what blurry, out-of-focus document on your website are we meant
to be finding such a revelation today?
It's barely possible to read that first piece of junk you have put on
your *Catch Of The Day* page, tomnln.
Just as well, really, because on close examination, entailing a bit of
judicious squinting, it doesn't appear to support your position at
all, tomnln. LOL!
As for the second document, that would simply appear to show that your
repeated claims that Mrs Duran INITIALLY identified Oswald as 5' 3"
and blond are nonsense, tomnln.
I didn't see 5' 3" written there, tomnln. Now why is that?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Jan 29, 2:35 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> SEE>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRp...- Hide quoted text -
Tom
The general tone of many of the post here is not furthering the case
much, instead it seems that the debate that should be underway is
often sidetracked, often on purpose. If John wishes to place Tony in
"time out" that is his business, however, to then make a public
declaration of same is polemic to say the least. Tony can be hard to
take at times, but, he is often correct in his evaluation of the
evidence. After all these years of reading this group my take on Tony
is he simply wants people to state the evidence fairly and without
over-simplification which results in blind alleys and failed research.
None of us here is perfect, although some would claim that title,
perhaps everyone ought to take a deep breath and try to remember why
this group exist in the first place. Debates can get tough, so wear a
protective cup and move on, the truth will win out. We all need to
hold that close to our hearts and take stock of how far we have come,
and the task that remains. We owe this to ourselves, our history and
our country. I'll stand with Tony any day of the week, even when I
think he may be wrong, because I'm pretty sure he is compelled to seek
the truth. That is never easy.
Regards to all,
Tom Pinkston
McKinney,Texas
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Say, you've been claiming that Duran identified Oswald as 5' 3" and
blond from the get go, tomnln, ie in 1963.
That doesn't actually appear to be the case, tomnln, because the
document you have posted, on close inspection, doesn't support that
conclusion.
Now why is that, tomnln?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Jan 29, 2:36 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> Your own side Disagrees with you.
>
> *Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
yeuhd
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
> I REPEAT>>>
>
> The HSCA said they Belive Odio.
>
> SEE HSCA Report page 139.
>
> Want me to scan it & post it for you?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Has anyone here denied that the HSCA believed Sylvia Odio? No, no one has
denied that.
But you are trying to claim falsely that Sylvia Odio's account contradicts
Oswald being in Mexico City. Sylvia Odio's account -- as given in the
Warren Commission Report and the HSCA Report -- does *not* contradict
Oswald being in Mexico City from September 27, 1963, through October 2,
1963.
I have twice above given the details why her account does not contradict
Oswald being in Mexico City in that time period. You have twice ignored
it.
HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi wrote:
"Additionally, no definite conclusion on the specific date of the
visit [to Odio's apartment] could be reached. The possibility that it
could have been as early as September 24, the morning of which Oswald
was seen in New Orleans, exists. The visit was more likely on
September 25, 26, or 27."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0018a.htm
To repeat: nothing in Sylvia Odio's account -- as disbelieved by the
Warren Commission and believed by the HSCA -- contradicts Oswald being in
yeuhd
> I even marked it with a big red "X" for yoy yeuhd>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
The blurry, unreadable letter you posted? It apparently refers to a
well-known red herring: photographs that surveillance by the CIA station
in Mexico City took of an unidentified individual who visited the Soviet
and Cuban Embassies in October and November 1963. By Nov. 23, 1963, the
CIA had determined that the man in the photo was clearly not Oswald. On
that same day, an FBI agent took one of the photos to Marguerite Oswald,
but she was unable to identify the person as her son.
The HSCA devotes a subchapter to explaining the history of the photo in
the Warren Commission's investigation, although at the time the Report was
written in 1979, the photo's source -- from the CIA's photo surveillance
of the Soviet consulate -- still could not be revealed.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/html/HSCA_Vol11_0248b.htm
In sum, the CIA station in Mexico City briefly thought in October and
November 1963 that the photos might be of Oswald, whom they knew had
visited the Soviet and Cuban Embassies. Clearly, they were wrong -- the
man does not resemble Oswald at all. Once they obtained actual photos of
Oswald for comparison, they discarded the idea.
As for the supposed recording of Oswald's voice, that too turned out to be
a red herring, and the HSCA Report also covered it:
Anthony Marsh
> TOP POST
>
> Hi tomnln,
>
> Say, what blurry, out-of-focus document on your website are we meant
> to be finding such a revelation today?
>
> It's barely possible to read that first piece of junk you have put on
> your *Catch Of The Day* page, tomnln.
>
Typical response from someone who has no experience with documents. Many
of the copies the government releases are unreadable. In fact Carrolton
Press has had to retype what they could make out of an unreadable
document.
> Just as well, really, because on close examination, entailing a bit of
> judicious squinting, it doesn't appear to support your position at
> all, tomnln. LOL!
>
Then go to the National Archives and ask to look at the original. Good
luck.
> As for the second document, that would simply appear to show that your
> repeated claims that Mrs Duran INITIALLY identified Oswald as 5' 3"
> and blond are nonsense, tomnln.
>
> I didn't see 5' 3" written there, tomnln. Now why is that?
>
She said short, blond.
Not 5' 3".
Martin Shackelford
accepting limits to it.
Martin
"Tom" <thomasp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:74a4a2c1-3b47-498e...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>They get into the habit of attacking, and have trouble
>accepting limits to it.
>
>Martin
>
>"Tom" <thomasp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:74a4a2c1-3b47-498e...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> To All,
>>
>> The general tone of many of the post here is not furthering the case
>> much, instead it seems that the debate that should be underway is
>> often sidetracked, often on purpose.
Indeed, Tom, it does seem that way! Some are not willing to discuss
the issues that have been raised. :-)
>If John wishes to place Tony in
>> "time out" that is his business, however, to then make a public
>> declaration of same is polemic to say the least. Tony can be hard to
>> take at times, but, he is often correct in his evaluation of the
>> evidence. After all these years of reading this group my take on Tony
>> is he simply wants people to state the evidence fairly and without
>> over-simplification which results in blind alleys and failed research.
>> None of us here is perfect, although some would claim that title,
>> perhaps everyone ought to take a deep breath and try to remember why
>> this group exist in the first place. Debates can get tough, so wear a
>> protective cup and move on, the truth will win out. We all need to
>> hold that close to our hearts and take stock of how far we have come,
>> and the task that remains. We owe this to ourselves, our history and
>> our country. I'll stand with Tony any day of the week, even when I
>> think he may be wrong, because I'm pretty sure he is compelled to seek
>> the truth. That is never easy.
Tony has a great deal of knowledge and experience in this case, and
can often make insightful contributions. He also likes to niggle and
often confuses or stalls discussions by repeating his incorrect take
on what someone said over and over ... even after it has been directly
addressed and clarified for him time and time again.. It is a huge
time waster. It's hard not to believe, imo, that sometimes this is
just on purpose for no reason other than to niggle and annoy.
Hey, you're missing some real winter up here ... first time in years,
it seems!
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 29, 11:19 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I even marked it with a big red "X" for yoy yeuhd>>>
>>
>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> The blurry, unreadable letter you posted? It apparently refers to a
> well-known red herring: photographs that surveillance by the CIA station
> in Mexico City took of an unidentified individual who visited the Soviet
> and Cuban Embassies in October and November 1963. By Nov. 23, 1963, the
> CIA had determined that the man in the photo was clearly not Oswald. On
> that same day, an FBI agent took one of the photos to Marguerite Oswald,
> but she was unable to identify the person as her son.
>
You mean the man she thought was Jack Ruby? You want to adopt Marguerite
as a reliable witness?
> The HSCA devotes a subchapter to explaining the history of the photo in
> the Warren Commission's investigation, although at the time the Report was
> written in 1979, the photo's source -- from the CIA's photo surveillance
> of the Soviet consulate -- still could not be revealed.
>
Why do you make excuses for the CIA? Can you explain away how the CIA
had 25 cameras at several locations which took hundreds of thousands of
photos of ALL visitors except Oswald, before his visit and after his
visit and yet all 25 cameras failed ONLY when trying to take Oswald's
photo? What was Oswald, some kind of magician who could make cameras
fail simply with a wave of the hand?
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/html/HSCA_Vol11_0248b.htm
>
> In sum, the CIA station in Mexico City briefly thought in October and
> November 1963 that the photos might be of Oswald, whom they knew had
> visited the Soviet and Cuban Embassies. Clearly, they were wrong -- the
> man does not resemble Oswald at all. Once they obtained actual photos of
> Oswald for comparison, they discarded the idea.
>
You mean once they saw his picture on TV and realized they were idiots?
Tom
wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2008 14:12:15 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >They get into the habit of attacking, and have trouble
> >accepting limits to it.
>
> >Martin
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Barb,
Yes indeed, I remember several ice storms living out there on the edge of
the gorge wondering who in the world left the freezer door open and why!
As far as Tony goes I know he can be a pain, but I know you would agree he
is not the only one, but, he does seem to be the only CTer exiled by John.
I could be dead wrong on this, maybe there are others who have been
banished. I have wanted to remind Tony what Fredrick II said about "he who
defends everything, defends nothing" but I sort of doubt he'd appreciate
that either. Anyway, life goes on and so shall we. Marta says tell Barb
Hi...so HI!
Tom
yeuhd
> yeuhd wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 11:19 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> I even marked it with a big red "X" for yoy yeuhd>>>
>
> >>http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> > The blurry, unreadable letter you posted? It apparently refers to a
> > well-known red herring: photographs that surveillance by the CIA station
> > in Mexico City took of an unidentified individual who visited the Soviet
> > and Cuban Embassies in October and November 1963. By Nov. 23, 1963, the
> > CIA had determined that the man in the photo was clearly not Oswald. On
> > that same day, an FBI agent took one of the photos to Marguerite Oswald,
> > but she was unable to identify the person as her son.
>
> You mean the man she thought was Jack Ruby? You want to adopt Marguerite
> as a reliable witness?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. That Marguerite Oswald
would be unable to recognize a photograph of her own son? Or that the
photo was in fact of her son, and she didn't recognize him? What is
your point?
Or is it just a snide remark for the sake of making another snide
remark?
Anthony Marsh
For the record, I do not defend Judyth. Nor do I defend the NAA.
> Tom
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Hiya Tom!
Oh, there's LOTS of freezer doors open all over the area ... it's been
amazing. Our waterfall froze last week ... it looks so neat when that
happens.
Say hey back to Marta for me. And, say, when is that wedding?
On Tony, will just leave you with this thought ... if Tony had been
banished, he wouldn't have dozens of posts appearing here everyday
.... many, if not most, nothing but carps at or about other people or
the moderators and the moderation process. :-)
As you know, it takes a unanimous vote of the moderators to reject a
post. When that happens, the person is notified that their post is
being rejected ... and why. Often, the person is told that if they
just change or eliminate a word, their post can go up. Most appreciate
and respond to that positively.
Sending posts around for votes and then writing to the poster is time
consuming ... and the idea of a newsgroup is to get posts up, not
eliminate them. But over the years, there have been a couple of
posters who deluged the process with inappropriate post after
inappropriate post. Those people (I don't think there has been more
than 1 or 2) were notified that any further such obviously
inappropriate submissions would be deleted without a rejection letter,
but that all acceptable posts would still be posted. No one, to my
knowledge has ever been "banished" from the group. And, as far as I
know, not even Tony has ever achieved the "delete without
notification" status. And, again, if someone does reach that status,
they are notified it is going to to start happening and asked to shape
up *first*.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
That happens to be what the threads were about and I did not start those
threads.
> As you know, it takes a unanimous vote of the moderators to reject a
> post. When that happens, the person is notified that their post is
Not true.
> being rejected ... and why. Often, the person is told that if they
Again, not true.
> just change or eliminate a word, their post can go up. Most appreciate
> and respond to that positively.
>
Obviously not true.
> Sending posts around for votes and then writing to the poster is time
> consuming ... and the idea of a newsgroup is to get posts up, not
> eliminate them. But over the years, there have been a couple of
The idea of this newsgroup is to censor posts.
> posters who deluged the process with inappropriate post after
> inappropriate post. Those people (I don't think there has been more
You mean like certain WC defenders who SPAM by posting exactly the same
nonsense every day?
> than 1 or 2) were notified that any further such obviously
> inappropriate submissions would be deleted without a rejection letter,
> but that all acceptable posts would still be posted. No one, to my
> knowledge has ever been "banished" from the group. And, as far as I
> know, not even Tony has ever achieved the "delete without
> notification" status. And, again, if someone does reach that status,
> they are notified it is going to to start happening and asked to shape
> up *first*.
>
Many people have written here that their posts never show up and there is
no explanation as to why. I am not asking to be treated fairly. I am just
asking that the rules be enforced equally.
> Bests,
> Barb :-)
>
Anthony Marsh
My point is that you should not be citing Marguerite for the time of the
day.
> Or is it just a snide remark for the sake of making another snide
> remark?
>
>
Yes, it is a snide remark only for you.
j_keven_jd
"Nonsense". You are one of the three chief defenders of Judyth, and
anyone doubting that need only do a member specific search for the words
"Judyth" and/or "Cancun" on your posts.
J.K.
Tom
wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2008 00:04:45 -0500, Tom <thomaspinks...@sbcglobal.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Barb,
Thanks for the clarification. Had no idea the rules were so deliberate.
Who knows, maybe Tony will reconsider his approach to this whole process,
I hope so for everyones sake.
So your waterfall froze. Dang. We have not had that experience, instead my
back fence was blown down due to 50 mph+ straightline winds which have
come at us from both North and South, in the same day! Life on the lower
plains, joy.
Regards,
Tom
Martin Shackelford
She didn't know who it was. Then she saw a photo the next day of
Jack Ruby, and thought it looked like the photo she had been shown.
Martin
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:052f4b63-c2a4-4cd9...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Nonsense. I said a long time ago that we someone told me about her story I
instantly said it was nonsense. And you seem to have missed my reply to
Martin where I rebutted all of his points supporting Judyth. I know you
can't understand the concept, but my point is always that while it may be
fun to debunk some wacky theory, you should not misrepresent the evidence
to do so. Same with Badge Man. Same with Files. Same with Judyth.
> anyone doubting that need only do a member specific search for the words
> "Judyth" and/or "Cancun" on your posts.
>
Why not do a member specific search for the exact phrase "fine hotel in
Cancun" or CANCUN AND ISLAND?
> J.K.
tims...@gmail.com
Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3"
right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't
support your assertion?
Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
Where have you gone, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Jan 29, 2:36 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> Your own side Disagrees with you.
>
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3375335f-9c65-4bd2...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> MIDDLE POST
>
> Hi tomnln,
>
> On Jan 25, 4:49 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6f34244b-ae6b-4912...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi tomnln,
>
> > Say, YOU SAID;
>
> > *IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies*
>
> > Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I:
>
> > a) Have no idea what you're on about &
>
> > b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit
> > Mexico City in September 1963 &
>
> > c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your
> > website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln.
>
> > Well, always happy to help! :-)
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup Commentator*
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
>
> So? Oswald was 5' 9" tomnln. That is a relatively small man. Besides
> which, Mirabel said it WAS Oswald, tomnln.
>
> > 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
>
> Duran said it was Oswald, tomnln. On a number of occasions. She used his
> NOPD mugshot, as supplied to her by the HSCA, to identify him. She said he
> was maybe a bit blonder, but so what? SHE UNSWERVINGLY SAID THAT THE MAN
> IN THE NOPD MUGSHOT, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, WAS THE MAN THAT SHE MET AT THE
> CUBAN EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY, tomnln.
>
> Now, what bit out of that don't you understand, tomnln?
>
> > 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
>
> Yeah? Well one out of three ain't good, tomnln.
>
> > 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
>
> No, wrong. Yeud has posted the link on that one, tomnln.
>
> > 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
>
> Concerned Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:06a0fab4-c6a5-4e07...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3"
right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't
support your assertion?
Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
Where have you gone, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described
Oswald as;
5 ft. 3 inches?
Blond hair?
Approximately 119 pounds?
THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:06a0fab4-c6a5-4e07...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3"
right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't
support your assertion?
Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
Where have you gone, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
SPAM. Daily. Allowed by the moderators.
tims...@gmail.com
I wouldn't think so, tomnln. Y'see, you said that Duran FIRST said
that Oswald was not the person that she served at the CUBCON.
We both know, from CE 2121 that that's simply not the case, tomnln.
Unless you can come up with your document proving that she INITIALLY
said what you claim she said then I don't think you can make your
case, tomnln. You've already had one go and that flopped in an awful
heap.
Simple as that really.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Feb 3, 2:40 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:06a0fab4-c6a5-4e07...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> TOP POST
>
> Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3"
> right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't
> support your assertion?
>
> Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
>
> Where have you gone, tomnln?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup Commentator*
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described
> Oswald as;
> 5 ft. 3 inches?
> Blond hair?
> Approximately 119 pounds?
>
> THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iIqdneovX8xlTjna...@comcast.com...
yeuhd
> Approximately 119 pounds?
>
> THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
While you're waiting for Tim to reply, how about addressing the
"Tampering with Evidence" reply *I* gave you several days ago.
On Jan 26, 12:51 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "yeuhd" <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
> > Seriously, you have a very poor understanding of the rules of evidence
> > and the rules of criminal procedure. You write,
> Rules of Evidence "Ensure" Chain of Possession for the SAME piece of
> evidence.
> In their First Executive Session Transcripts we see that the WC "Suspended"
> the Rules of Evidence.
> They also "Suspended" the Adversary Procedure".
> (Making it a Kangaroo Court)
> It's YOU who has a Poor Understanding of theb rules of evidence.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons.
> > #1. He was innocent.
> > #2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly."
> > (Why the quotation marks around "tampered"?)
> Because it's a "Felony by the authorities".
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Let's look at item #1 on your page. You claim that the issue of
> > "destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI Office" would somehow, all by
> > itself, cause the entire case against Oswald to be dismissed.
> > Specifically, how would this dismissal happen? Under what Texas rule of
> > evidence or criminal procedure would this dismissal happen? No, we're not
> > talking about the Warren Commission any more, we are talking about your
> > allegation about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial*, where there
> > is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of evidence or criminal
> > procedure.
> Are you suggesting that the authorities "Knew IN Advance" that there would
> be no Trial?
> The FBI took possession of the evidence on Friday night.
Oswald's letter to Hosty was destroyed after Oswald's death. So yes,
when the Dallas FBI office destroyed the letter, the authorities DID
know that there would be no trial of Oswald.
> Considering that Oswald was Paid by CIA/FBI, the latter is MOST probable.http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
> No matter what the letter contained, Destruction of Evidence is a
> Felony!!!!!
What is the article number of the Texas statute re destruction of
evidence? I assume you have read it and are familiar with its contents.
And remember, this is trial is in a Texas court, not a federal court. So,
what is that article number?
> When a suspect has a Police Record, They ALWAYS introduce it in Court
> Trials.
Completely false. Evidence introduced at trial must be relevant to the
issues at trial. I quoted for you, above, the Federal Rule of Evidence
404(b) that generally prohibits "pattern" or "propensity" evidence. A
defendant's criminal record is almost never allowed to be introduced as
evidence at trial. Ask any criminal defense lawyer or prosecutor. You are
perhaps confusing trial with sentencing, at which point a criminal record
*can* be introduced as evidence.
> > Let's look at another of your "issues": #3 "Altering Walker back yard
> > photo (3 times)." Again, how would the Walker photos be relevant at trial?
> > We are talking about Oswald on trial for the murders of JFK and Tippit,
> > not for the attempt on the life of Walker. It would be another example of
> > "pattern" or "propensity" evidence if the prosecution tried to introduce
> > it. And once again, the last thing the defense would want to bring up at
> > trial would be *anything* to do with the Walker shooting.
> > If the evidence is inadmissible, the alleged "altering" of the evidence is
> > irrelevant.
> Apparently you FORGOT it was the Warren Commission that made the Walker back
> yard Photo "EVIDENCE".
But we're not talking about the Warren Commission now, are we? You
alleged about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial* -- where
there is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of criminal
procedure or the rules of evidence.
> > But just for the sake of argument, let's say that somehow the prosecution
> > is able to get past the inadmissibility of irrelevant or
> > pattern/propensity evidence, and attempts to have the Walker photos
> > entered in evidence. The defense can object that the photos were altered,
> > and offer evidence to that claim. At worst, the judge can rule the Walker
> > photos as inadmissible. The whole case isn't dismissed.
> The Walker photo was Altered by the authorities. (THREE Times)
> ALL the judge can do is "CASE DISMESSED".
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you still haven't established how the Walker photos would be
admissible *at trial*. We're talking about Oswald's trial, which would
be held under the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal
procedure. You have not established the relevancy of the Walker photos
to Oswald's trial for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy,
they are inadmissible. And if they are inadmissible, any allegation of
their alteration is irrelevant.
> > #5 "Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate." Assuming this is even
> > true, how would the radio debate be relevant at trial? Unless Oswald
> > chatted about his plans to shoot JFK, it wouldn't.
> AGAIN;
> The Warren Commission MADE it "Evidence".
> Altering Evidence is a Felony.
But as you yourself said, the Warren Commission was *not* operating under
the rules of evidence or the rules of criminal procedure. Oswald's trial
*would* be operating under those rules. You still haven't established how
Oswald's radio debate would be admissible *at trial*. You have not
established the relevancy of the radio debate to Oswald's trial for the
murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy, a recording or transcript of
the radio debate is inadmissible. And if it is inadmissible, any
allegation of its alteration is irrelevant.
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0df275d-50c4-4ae2...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Simple as that really.
Regards,
Duran served an Oswald that was 5 ft. 3 inches tall.
Duran served an Oswald that was Blond Haired.
Duran served an Oswald that was 119 pounds.
You asked for Proof of these calims.
SEE http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
SEE http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
I Delivered.
NOW, You Deliver or RUN from the authorities Tampering with Evidence>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
j_keven_jd
You write as if an appeal to consistency supports your position. You
post so much on both sides of a position that consistency is the last
thing anybody would ever accuse you of.
I know you
> can't understand the concept, but my point is always that while it may be
> fun to debunk some wacky theory, you should not misrepresent the evidence
> to do so.
Like your nonsense about Cancun and the Kennedy letter?
Same with Badge Man. Same with Files. Same with Judyth.
>
> > anyone doubting that need only do a member specific search for the words
> > "Judyth" and/or "Cancun" on your posts.
>
> Why not do a member specific search for the exact phrase "fine hotel in
> Cancun" or CANCUN AND ISLAND?
Judyth wrote that LHO told her that she would go to Cancun, that he
would be there, that they would stay in a fine hotel. It is obvious
to anybody what that means. Your hyperbole to the contrary has
convinced nobody, and belies the revisionist claims you are making
now.
> > J.K.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
WHY did the Warren Commission use all of this TAINTED Evidence?
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:81aacb18-c848-4dfd...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
j_keven_jd
It's not this black and white. Criminal records and past crimes are often
introduced for other reasons, such as impeachment of credibility or to
show modus operandi. It is also important to recognize that Chief Justice
Warren didn't even create the advisory committee to begin work on the
Federal Rules of Evidence until 1965, and the rules were not promulgated
until 1975. There was federal case law concerning the inadmissabiity of
propensity evidence prior to 1963, and LHO would have been entitled to
rely upon it if necessary. Regardless of that, given the differences in
the mindset of the populace in the pre-Vietnam/Watergate era, LHO may not
have been able to sell the alteration theory, or if the photos were
introduced to connect him to the rifle, the jurors may have made
propensity assumptions even if specifically instructed not to do so.
You are
> perhaps confusing trial with sentencing, at which point a criminal record
> *can* be introduced as evidence.
In the highly charged atmosphere of a trial for the assassination of the
beloved President, its not hard to imagine any court allowing a lot of
lattitude regarding LHO's criminal record. It would be admissable for
other reasons such as impeachment of credibility and motive, and even if
there were errors leading to appeal, appellate courts can find all kinds
of ways to skirt the issue. Appellate Judges also had a different mindset
in the pre-Vietnam/Watergate era, and if LHO had not been killed, that
would even be more so.
> > > Let's look at another of your "issues": #3 "Altering Walker back yard
> > > photo (3 times)." Again, how would the Walker photos be relevant at trial?
Issues of alteration would be useful and admissable were LHO to put on a
patsy defense, and the photographs would be useful to the prosecution to
tie LHO to the gun, and to show motive.
> > > We are talking about Oswald on trial for the murders of JFK and Tippit,
> > > not for the attempt on the life of Walker. It would be another example of
> > > "pattern" or "propensity" evidence if the prosecution tried to introduce
> > > it.
Couldn't introduce it to show propensity, but could for other purposes,
and jurors probably would have inferred propensity anyway. But if
alteration of the pictures and many other legend producing items of
evidence could have been established, and the jurors convinced, maybe a
different story.
And once again, the last thing the defense would want to bring up at
> > > trial would be *anything* to do with the Walker shooting.
If LHO was going to present a patsy defense, and could show that the
Walker shooting allegations were part of a legend manufactured to
implicate LHO, only an incompetent defense attorney would fail to
introduce that evidence.
> > > If the evidence is inadmissible, the alleged "altering" of the evidence is
> > > irrelevant.
Alteration of evidence could make an item that is not otherwise directly
relevant to any issue other than a patsy defense relevant for that reason
alone.
> > Apparently you FORGOT it was the Warren Commission that made the Walker back
> > yard Photo "EVIDENCE".
>
> But we're not talking about the Warren Commission now, are we? You
> alleged about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial* -- where
> there is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of criminal
> procedure or the rules of evidence.
>
> > > But just for the sake of argument, let's say that somehow the prosecution
> > > is able to get past the inadmissibility of irrelevant or
> > > pattern/propensity evidence, and attempts to have the Walker photos
> > > entered in evidence. The defense can object that the photos were altered,
> > > and offer evidence to that claim.
If the prosecution failed to do so, the defense would be introducing
the photos themselves, if they could be shown to have been altered.
At worst, the judge can rule the Walker
> > > photos as inadmissible. The whole case isn't dismissed.
That wouldn't have happened.
> > The Walker photo was Altered by the authorities. (THREE Times)
> > ALL the judge can do is "CASE DISMESSED".
That wouldn't have happened either.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But you still haven't established how the Walker photos would be
> admissible *at trial*. We're talking about Oswald's trial, which would
> be held under the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal
> procedure. You have not established the relevancy of the Walker photos
> to Oswald's trial for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy,
> they are inadmissible. And if they are inadmissible, any allegation of
> their alteration is irrelevant.
The photos would have been in evidence one way or the other.
> > > #5 "Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate." Assuming this is even
> > > true, how would the radio debate be relevant at trial?
Definitely relevant to any patsy defense, and definitely relevant to
motive.
Unless Oswald
> > > chatted about his plans to shoot JFK, it wouldn't.
> > AGAIN;
> > The Warren Commission MADE it "Evidence".
> > Altering Evidence is a Felony.
>
> But as you yourself said, the Warren Commission was *not* operating under
> the rules of evidence or the rules of criminal procedure. Oswald's trial
> *would* be operating under those rules. You still haven't established how
> Oswald's radio debate would be admissible *at trial*. You have not
> established the relevancy of the radio debate to Oswald's trial for the
> murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy, a recording or transcript of
> the radio debate is inadmissible. And if it is inadmissible, any
> allegation of its alteration is irrelevant.
Alteration would be relevant in a patsy defense regardless of whether the
recording or transcript was useful to the prosecution or defense for any
other reason.
In my estimation, LHO would have been convicted regardless of whether or
not he was innocent in that pre-Vietnam/Watergate era. Evidence
manipulation would have went on even if LHO had lived, and an outraged
public (including jurors and judges) would have likely been willing to
overlook a certain amount of irregularities for the sake of punishing the
assassin of their beloved president. I can't imagine how LHO would be
able to escape execution, but if he somehow did, then his survival could
have presented some real problems as public attitudes began to change
during the Vietnam War and Watergate. Solution to that would have been
for LHO to befall an accident in prison, or another inmate may have killed
LHO as their own claim to fame.
J.K.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
Done by the moderators.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
There's the official records proving that Duran said Oswald was 5 ft. 3
inches.
There's the official records proving that Duran said Oswald had Blond Hair.
There's the official records proving that Duran said Oswald was 119 pounds.
NOW, will you address "Evidence Tampering"?
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TdSoj.24508$E01....@newsfe22.lga...
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:06a0fab4-c6a5-4e07...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3"
right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't
support your assertion?
Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
Where have you gone, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described
Oswald as;
5 ft. 3 inches?
Blond hair?
Approximately 119 pounds?
THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan 29, 2:36 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
tomnln
You asked me for "Citations" for my claim that Duran said;
5' 3"
Blond
119 pounds.
I Gave you those Citations.
Your turn to adress the destruction of evidence>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bNbpj.1946$5M1....@newsfe23.lga...
yeuhd
> NOW, You Deliver or RUN from the authorities Tampering with Evidence>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Let's examine just one of the items listed in your "Case Dismissed"
page, which claims that,
"Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons.
"#1. He was innocent.
"#2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly."
You claim that "JFK's brain missing. CASE DISMISSED."
Well, no. JFK's brain was not missing, and would have been available
if needed for Oswald's trial, presumably held in 1964. The HSCA did
extensive investigation on this question and established the chain of
custody:
"The evidence indicates, therefore, that soon after the autopsy of
President Kennedy [November 22-23, 1963], all autopsy-related material
was transferred from Bethesda Naval Hospital to the Executive Office
Building where they were maintained in the custody of Bouck [Robert I.
Bouck, Special Agent in Charge of the Protective Research Division,
U.S. Secret Service] and under the control of Admiral Burkley [JFK's
personal physician]. Specifically, this material included the autopsy
photographs, and the tissue sections of organs and brain. The Secret
Service maintained custody of all this material at all times until its
transfer to the National Archives in [April] 1965."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0017a.htm
What happened to the autopsy materials after April 22, 1965, remains
speculative; the HSCA wrote, "The circumstantial evidence would seem
to indicate that Robert Kennedy then decided to retain possession of
all physical specimen evidence and transferred only the autopsy
photographs and X-rays to the Government."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0021a.htm
"Consequently, although the committee has not been able to uncover any
direct evidence of the fact of the missing materials, circumstantial
evidence tends to show that Robert Kennedy either destroyed these
materials or otherwise rendered them inaccessible."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0022a.htm
Legally, JFK's brain and all the other tissue samples belonged to the
Kennedy family, specifically Jacqueline Kennedy, on whose behalf
Robert Kennedy is believed to have acted as attorney.
In any case, the chain of custody of all the autopsy materials,
including JFK's brain, is known from November 1963 to April 1965, and
the materials would have been available for Oswald's trial.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
I asked for proof of these calims (sic), you say?
Nah, I asked you for proof of your assertion that Mrs Duran INITIALLY
said that the Oswald she served in the Cuban Embassy was not the same
Oswald who was arrested for the murder of JFK.
I don't think trotting out her HSCA testimony, a document in which she
asserts, multiple times, that the Oswald she served in the Cuban
Embassy WAS the same Oswald who was arrested for the murder of JFK
really helps your cause very much, tomnln.
In fact, it positively hinders it, LOL!
You're clutching at straws, tomnln.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hide quoted text -
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:6d71caab-e033-4707...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
YOUR Witness;
Five foot three insches tall
Blond Hair
119 pounds
Arrested TWICE
Intimidated by authorities.
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9609524b-0c98-4fed...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi tomnln,
Regards,
> > Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described
> > Oswald as;
> > 5 ft. 3 inches?
> > Blond hair?
> > Approximately 119 pounds?
>
> > THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Duran served an Oswald that was 5 ft. 3 inches tall.
> Duran served an Oswald that was Blond Haired.
> Duran served an Oswald that was 119 pounds.
>
> You asked for Proof of these calims.
>
> SEE http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>
> SEE http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> I Delivered.
>
> NOW, You Deliver or RUN from the authorities Tampering with
> Evidence>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
> -------------------------------------------------------------
yeuhd
> WRONG AGAIN YEUHD;
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
>
You present the dissenting opinions of one person, Douglas P. Horne, as if
they were fact.
Mr. Horne is not a doctor, much less a pathologist. And Mr. Horne, in his
dissent, does not address the issue of whether JFK's brain itself -- not
slides, tissue samples, X-rays, or the like -- was in the custody of the
Secret Service in the Executive Office Building from November 1963 to
April 1965.
Contra Mr. Horne, all three of the Bethesda autopsy pathologists examined
the JFK autopsy photographs and X-rays in the National Archives in 1967,
and all three declared that they were authentic.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 4, 9:38 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> NOW, You Deliver or RUN from the authorities Tampering with Evidence>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>>
>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> Let's examine just one of the items listed in your "Case Dismissed"
> page, which claims that,
>
> "Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons.
>
> "#1. He was innocent.
>
> "#2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly."
>
>
> You claim that "JFK's brain missing. CASE DISMISSED."
>
> Well, no. JFK's brain was not missing, and would have been available
> if needed for Oswald's trial, presumably held in 1964. The HSCA did
> extensive investigation on this question and established the chain of
> custody:
>
Have you no proof of that.
Nonsense. The government would not make everything available at trial.