Filming Has Started on HBO's Reclaiming History
Chuck Schuyler
John Blubaugh
> http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0909/actor_in_town_for_kennedy_...
I wonder how much of an audience there will be for this show. Afterall,
80% of all Americans are convinced there was a conspiracy even if Oswald
was the only shooter. So, it would seem to me that the show will most
likely be viewed by the other 20% and some CTs who watch and read
everything about the assassination. I also doubt that many people under 50
will have any interest at all. I would not want to be an investor in this
project and that isn't because of my views but what I see are very limited
prospects for it being a success.
JB
Spiffy_one
Totally disagree. Tom Hanks and Bill Paxon have credibility. More so
than Oliver Stone. HBO has 38,000,000 American subscribers and is viewed
in 160 countries. HBO no doubt will promote this mini-series heavily
until it's broadcast on the 50th anniversary of the assassination in 2013.
No doubt the main stream media will do so as well.
David Von Pein
>>> "I would not want to be an investor in this [HBO "Reclaiming History"]
prospects for it being a success." <<<
Just like Vince Bugliosi's book, the HBO mini-series will go down as a TV
program "for the ages" (i.e., the truth will rest within its 10- hour
timeframe, regardless of how many people scoff and spit on it in the
future).
Same goes for Bugliosi's book. That book contains the truth of what
happened in Dallas in 1963, and the current or future opinions of
conspiracy theorists are of very little consequence or concern in the long
run. Because facts are still facts, no matter how many silly conspiracists
there are in the world who refuse to accept them.
yeuhd
I would guess that 90% of all Americans know very little about the
assassination, certainly not enough to justify having an opinion one way
or another. If that 90% has an opinion, it is probably lightly held, given
their general ignorance of the case. People want to know more about the
assassination, and I don't think any prejudices will hamper viewership. I
also doubt that HBO will publicize the miniseries as showing Oswald's sole
guilt. The same 90% will never had heard of Bugliosi's book.
Anthony Marsh
I don't know the specifics, but HBO does not need many people to make it
a hit. Maybe 5 million would be enough.
slice...@comcast.net
Bill Paxton is a terrific and underrated actor, but knows hardly
anything about the case. From listening to him talk about the mini-
series, it's clear that he's doing this out of an emotional need to
make sense of this ugly piece of history, and to explain what is
mostly unexplainable. Just like you, Dave, and all lone nut
enthusiasts.
It's OK. It's human nature to reject and gloss over unpleasant
facts in order to achieve some kind of release from them. And there
are all kinds of "outs" to take in the JFK case. But just like you,
Dave, Paxton is not going to have an answer for why Oswald showed up
at Silvia Odio's door with two anti-Castro Cubans on his way to defect
to Cuba in Mexico City, so rather than a movie "for the ages," what
you're more likely to get is an LN equivalent of Stone's movie, which
will be ripped apart with the same intensity that JFK was (just
without help from the major media this time).
col...@bigpond.net.au
> http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0909/actor_in_town_for_kennedy_...
I am sad that I will never feel the same way about Tom Hanks (although
I have always suspectd Bill Paxton was a bit of a twit)
col...@bigpond.net.au
If this is the case, why are you are so desperate to prove Cters
wrong?
jas
wrote:
Mmmmmmm....
And your proof that Oswald was, in fact, at Odio's door at all
is________?
(Just curious-- what conspiracy books/authors are you deriving your
information from?)
And it's pretty funny how a conspiracist can magically predict what
the unfinished Reclaiming History series will be like...
What crystal ball are you using?
yeuhd
wrote:
> It's OK. It's human nature to reject and gloss over unpleasant
> facts in order to achieve some kind of release from them. And there
> are all kinds of "outs" to take in the JFK case. But just like you,
> Dave, Paxton is not going to have an answer for why Oswald showed up
> at Silvia Odio's door with two anti-Castro Cubans on his way to defect
> to Cuba in Mexico City, so rather than a movie "for the ages," what
> you're more likely to get is an LN equivalent of Stone's movie, which
> will be ripped apart with the same intensity that JFK was (just
> without help from the major media this time).
Paxton doesn't have to have an answer. There is no indication that the
Odio incident will be part of the screenplay, which will focus on the
four days Nov. 22–25. But, if the Odio incident is included as a
flashback, the screenplay need only show the incident as Odio and her
sister saw it, without filling in the gaps with fictitious incidents
or speculation, as Oliver Stone did.
tomnln
"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a418a86-bc11-4ff0...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAS WROTE;
Mmmmmmm....
And your proof that Oswald was, in fact, at Odio's door at all is________?
(Just curious-- what conspiracy books/authors are you deriving your
information from?)
And it's pretty funny how a conspiracist can magically predict what the
unfinished Reclaiming History series will be like... What crystal ball are
you using?
I write;
Proof of Oswald being at Sylvia Odio's door in Dallas is in the testimony.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
ALSO;
The HSCA "Believed" Sylvia Odio HSCA Report page 139.
jas doesn't seem to be very well read on the subject.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeuhd
> On Oct 16, 7:09 am, "slicedm...@comcast.net" <slicedm...@comcast.net>
> > facts in order to achieve some kind of release from them. And there
> > are all kinds of "outs" to take in the JFK case. But just like you,
> > Dave, Paxton is not going to have an answer for why Oswald showed up
> > at Silvia Odio's door with two anti-Castro Cubans on his way to defect
> > to Cuba in Mexico City, so rather than a movie "for the ages," what
> > you're more likely to get is an LN equivalent of Stone's movie, which
> > will be ripped apart with the same intensity that JFK was (just
> > without help from the major media this time).
>
> Mmmmmmm....
>
> And your proof that Oswald was, in fact, at Odio's door at all
> is________?
>
> (Just curious-- what conspiracy books/authors are you deriving your
> information from?)
Actually, even Vincent Bugliosi thinks that it is more likely than not
that Oswald was the "Leon" who visited Sylvia Odio's apartment with
the two Cubans.
He writes:
--------------------
And despite the countless claims of conspiracy by the conspiracy
theorists throughout the years, it remains a fact that the Odio
incident, if true, was, and continues to be, the only event where
Oswald is put allegedly in the company of a mysterious companion
(here, two) shortly before the assassination, and where he allegedly
uttered the desirability of Kennedy's murder in the presence of at
least one other person.…
No one examining the evidence in the Odio matter can feel too sanguine
about the conclusion he reaches, yet I feel that the slight
preponderance of evidence is that Oswald was, in fact, the American
among the three men who visited Odio.
--------------------
Evidence in favor of the man being Oswald:
1. The man's companions mentioned twice that his name was "Leon
Oswald".
2. After the assassination, both Odio and her sister identified Oswald
as the man at Odio's door.
3. The man spoke little Spanish beyond "Hola" and a few phrases;
Oswald likewise.
4. The Cubans said they had just come from New Orleans, where Oswald
lived.
5. Oswald had tried once before to infiltrate a group of anti-Castro
Cubans in New Orleans.
6. Odio wrote about the incident to her father shortly after it
happened, and we have his letter in response.
7. Odio's psychiatrist verified that she told him about the incident
too, prior to the assassination, although he did not recall whether
she mentioned the name of the third man.
8. One of the Cubans told Odio that "Leon" was an ex-marine.
9. The FBI interviewed Odio's friends and her psychiatrist, and
virtually all vouched for her intelligence and credibility.
10. Odio did not contact the authorities or seek publicity with her
story after the assassination, but was approached by the FBI after
they heard about the incident from a friend of hers. Nor has she
sought publicity over the years since then.
Arguing against the man being Oswald are:
1. The time frame between when Oswald was last known to be in New
Orleans and when he was next seen on a bus going to Mexico, crossed
with the time frame in which Odio said the visit occurred, is tight —
but still possible.
2. The two Cubans have never been identified.
John McAdams
>On Oct 16, 6:48=A0pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 7:09=A0am, "slicedm...@comcast.net" <slicedm...@comcast.net>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0It's OK. =A0It's human nature to reject and gloss over unple=
>asant
>> > facts in order to achieve some kind of release from them. =A0And there
>> > are all kinds of "outs" to take in the JFK case. =A0But just like you,
>> > Dave, Paxton is not going to have an answer for why Oswald showed up
>> > at Silvia Odio's door with two anti-Castro Cubans on his way to defect
>> > to Cuba in Mexico City, so rather than a movie "for the ages," what
>> > you're more likely to get is an LN equivalent of Stone's movie, which
>> > will be ripped apart with the same intensity that JFK was (just
>> > without help from the major media this time).
>>
>> Mmmmmmm....
>>
>> And your proof that Oswald was, in fact, at Odio's door at all
>> is________?
>>
>> (Just curious-- what conspiracy books/authors are you deriving your
>> information from?)
>
>Actually, even Vincent Bugliosi thinks that it is more likely than not
>that Oswald was the "Leon" who visited Sylvia Odio's apartment with
>the two Cubans.
>
>He writes:
>--------------------
>And despite the countless claims of conspiracy by the conspiracy
>theorists throughout the years, it remains a fact that the Odio
>incident, if true, was, and continues to be, the only event where
>Oswald is put allegedly in the company of a mysterious companion
>(here, two) shortly before the assassination, and where he allegedly
>uttered the desirability of Kennedy's murder in the presence of at
>least one other person.=85
>
>No one examining the evidence in the Odio matter can feel too sanguine
>about the conclusion he reaches, yet I feel that the slight
>preponderance of evidence is that Oswald was, in fact, the American
>among the three men who visited Odio.
>--------------------
>
>Evidence in favor of the man being Oswald:
>
>1. The man's companions mentioned twice that his name was "Leon
>Oswald".
If she remembered correctly.
>2. After the assassination, both Odio and her sister identified Oswald
>as the man at Odio's door.
Yea, but Annie got a little prodding, if memory serves.
>3. The man spoke little Spanish beyond "Hola" and a few phrases;
>Oswald likewise.
Like a lot of people!
>4. The Cubans said they had just come from New Orleans, where Oswald
>lived.
>5. Oswald had tried once before to infiltrate a group of anti-Castro
>Cubans in New Orleans.
>6. Odio wrote about the incident to her father shortly after it
>happened, and we have his letter in response.
Which is strong evidence is happened. Not really evidence that Oswald
was the man.
>7. Odio's psychiatrist verified that she told him about the incident
>too, prior to the assassination, although he did not recall whether
>she mentioned the name of the third man.
Ditto.
>8. One of the Cubans told Odio that "Leon" was an ex-marine.
Fair enough, but that might have been a factor in Odio's "ID" of
Oswald, especially if she heard Oswald was a Marine before she saw his
picture.
>9. The FBI interviewed Odio's friends and her psychiatrist, and
>virtually all vouched for her intelligence and credibility.
Eh . . . you might check Posner on this. He does a pretty good job on
her.
Check what her psychiatrist said.
He didn't think she was stark raving mad, by any means. But he
thought she might easily just be mistaken.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/einsdep.txt
>10. Odio did not contact the authorities or seek publicity with her
>story after the assassination, but was approached by the FBI after
>they heard about the incident from a friend of hers. Nor has she
>sought publicity over the years since then.
>
True too, although that just rules out that she was an attention
seeker. It doesn't rule out that she was honestly mistaken.
>Arguing against the man being Oswald are:
>
>1. The time frame between when Oswald was last known to be in New
>Orleans and when he was next seen on a bus going to Mexico, crossed
>with the time frame in which Odio said the visit occurred, is tight =97
>but still possible.
>2. The two Cubans have never been identified.
>
Twiford. The key piece of evidence.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
John is a Disadvantage by not having his own set of the 26 volumes.
HERE is the testimony>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
ALSO, the HSCA Report page 139 states that the HSCA "Believed" Sylvia
Odio.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ad9097c....@news.supernews.com...
yeuhd
> >2. After the assassination, both Odio and her sister identified Oswald
> >as the man at Odio's door.
>
> Yea, but Annie got a little prodding, if memory serves.
CD 1391, FBI interview of Annie Laurie Odio, July 30, 1964:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11786
jas
TOMNLN WROTE:
> jas doesn't seem to be very well read on the subject.
JAS WROTE:
Quite the contrary, Jas is probably over-read on the subject...
...certainly enough to conclude there is plenty of doubt and loose
ends in Odio's story to shoot a large hole through it, as well as
CERTAINLY NOT definitive proof of any plot to kill JFK.
James
jas
> On Oct 16, 6:48 pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Mmmmmmm....
>
> > And your proof that Oswald was, in fact, at Odio's door at all
> > is________?
>
> > (Just curious-- what conspiracy books/authors are you deriving your
> > information from?)
>
> Actually, even Vincent Bugliosi thinks that it is more likely than not
> that Oswald was the "Leon" who visited Sylvia Odio's apartment with
> the two Cubans.
I am familiar with the section in Bugliosi's book concerning the Odio
incident, and really, all he concludes is that the incident could have
happened, but only because it can't be proved to *not have happened.* I
really don't think that is enough to say it DID happen beyond all doubt.
And even if the incident was proved to have happened beyond a reasonable
doubt, it still doesn't prove, or point to, any plot to kill JFK.
Speculation? Sure...it's wide open. But fact? No way.
James
slice...@comcast.net
> > Bill Paxton is a terrific and underrated actor, but knows hardly
> > anything about the case. From listening to him talk about the mini-
> > series, it's clear that he's doing this out of an emotional need to
> > make sense of this ugly piece of history, and to explain what is
> > mostly unexplainable. Just like you, Dave, and all lone nut
> > enthusiasts.
>
> > It's OK. It's human nature to reject and gloss over unpleasant
> > facts in order to achieve some kind of release from them. And there
> > are all kinds of "outs" to take in the JFK case. But just like you,
> > Dave, Paxton is not going to have an answer for why Oswald showed up
> > at Silvia Odio's door with two anti-Castro Cubans on his way to defect
> > to Cuba in Mexico City, so rather than a movie "for the ages," what
> > you're more likely to get is an LN equivalent of Stone's movie, which
> > will be ripped apart with the same intensity that JFK was (just
> > without help from the major media this time).
>
> Mmmmmmm....
Eating chocolate while you post is most certainly delicious, but
will not help your arguments.
> And your proof that Oswald was, in fact, at Odio's door at all
> is________?
>
> (Just curious-- what conspiracy books/authors are you deriving your
> information from?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm using Reclaiming History. Vince Bugliosi does a fine job
establishing that the Odio incident occurred. He even calls the anti-
Castro Cubans in question Oswald's "friends" at least three times. He
makes it clear that not only did the incident happen, but that it was most
likely Castro murderer wannabes Angelo and Leopoldo who drove Oswald the
first 500+ miles of his trip to join Castro's revolution.
Didn't you know that? Didn't you read it? It's a dreadful book, so
it's OK if you didn't.
Unfortunately, after establishing the event Bugliosi simply declines
to put forth any possible explanation as to when/where/how the
"friendship" began. He backs down. To him, it occurred in a vacuum.
If you could explain it, I'd think that was awesome.
> And it's pretty funny how a conspiracist can magically predict what
> the unfinished Reclaiming History series will be like...
> What crystal ball are you using?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, hysterical! Except that we know the source material and stated
goals of Paxton, so it's actually very obvious what the film will be like.
Overall, I'm sure it will be very well made & acted, and will be
entertaining, despite being wrong.
They may choose to show the Odio incident in some way, but it will
be difficult. In Bugliosi's Odio chapter--which you have not read--he
establishes the Odio story but offers no explanation and sloppily
intercuts his narrative with disembodied histories of the Cuban Revolution
and the Bay of Pigs invasion, which have very little to do with the Odio
incident.
That's hard to get away with in a film. They can't jump around like
that or show Odio as it happened and not fit it into their lone nut story.
So my best guess is that it will be omitted, or they will take serious
liberties with it.
yeuhd
> John is a Disadvantage by not having his own set of the 26 volumes.
Are you unaware that all 26 volumes of the "Hearings and Exhibits"
have been photographically reproduced online for several years now?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/wc/contents_wh.htm
And the Warren Report:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/wc/contents_wr.htm
John McAdams
This is from FRONTLINE:
<Quote on>
ANNIE ODIO: It was a horrible day. I started crying and then, after a
while, the picture of the guy that shot the President came on T.V. and I
knew right away that I had seen that guy before, but I couldn't remember
from where.
SILVIA ODIO: Annie came into the room and she was quite excited. About 10
minutes after she had arrived, we saw the picture of Oswald on the
television. She screamed. We looked at each other. We were terrified. I
said, "I also know him, Annie, and please don't say anything. I also
recognize him as the man who was standing at my door."
<Quote off>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html
So it seems that Sylvia IDed the guy as "the man who was standing at my
door." Annie just found him familiar looking.
So Annie is evidence, but weaker evidence that she would have been if she
had recognized Oswald as the man at the door.
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71f8dcd5-af1a-432a...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
slice...@comcast.net
Sorry, but Paxton most definitely does have to explain it, but
ONLY because he's aligned himself with the most ardent and divisive
lone nut enthusiast we've seen in 46 years, Vince Bugliosi. When you
represent the side that affirms that the case is closed, locked down
virtually from the day it happened, you don't get to treat it like a
sensible historian would, or an agnostic, let alone a full blown CT.
All three of those types would acknowledge it as a real and important
event deserving an explanation, and would be OPEN to the
possibilities.
Oliver Stone showed the Odio incident "as Odio and her sister saw
it." His crime was treating it as the real event it was. He tried to
put it in some kind of context, or--God forbid--speculate on who
Leopldo and Angelo were and how Oswald got mixed up with them. Crazy
stuff, right? Better to let it sit there. It doesn't fit everything
we think we know about Oswald, so toss it out!
As for only concentrating on the Four Days, Paxton has said that
the Walker shooting is depicted, so I'm not sure about that. Things
could change I suppose.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
ALSO;
The HSCA "Believed" Sylvia Odio HSCA Report page 139.
"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37e5b707-cf99-4bd8...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
The HSCA "Believed" Sylvia Odio.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ad94301$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
AGAIN jas;
Proof of Oswald being at Sylvia Odio's door in Dallas is in the
testimony.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
ALSO;
The HSCA "Believed" Sylvia Odio HSCA Report page 139.
"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37e5b707-cf99-4bd8...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
....certainly enough to conclude there is plenty of doubt and loose
tomnln
So, are you Admitting that you've been studying this for 5 years ONLY???
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8566119-706a-4062...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
jas
wrote:
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
>
> > Mmmmmmm....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Eating chocolate while you post is most certainly delicious, but
> will not help your arguments.
Ha! Actually, I was drinking coffee, a very delicious dark Kona roast.
>
> > And your proof that Oswald was, in fact, at Odio's door at all
> > is________?
>
> > (Just curious-- what conspiracy books/authors are you deriving your
> > information from?)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I'm using Reclaiming History. Vince Bugliosi does a fine job
> establishing that the Odio incident occurred. He even calls the anti-
> Castro Cubans in question Oswald's "friends" at least three times. He
> makes it clear that not only did the incident happen, but that it was most
> likely Castro murderer wannabes Angelo and Leopoldo who drove Oswald the
> first 500+ miles of his trip to join Castro's revolution.
>
> Didn't you know that? Didn't you read it? It's a dreadful book, so
> it's OK if you didn't.
Oh, ok, I get it. Seize the one thing that Bugliosi agrees with some
conspiracists on, and take it all the way for the "there was a conspiracy
in the murder of JFK" touchdown.
Sorry, that won't fly. Obviously -- and you would know this if you read
the entire book carefully and not cherry-pick one section to use in
jumping to your usual incorrect CT conclusion -- Bugliosi doesn't think
the incident, if it happened at all (which he apparently agrees it did),
amounts to a hill of horse dung amid the rest of the evidence pointing to
Oswald as the lone assassin.
Yes, I know that Bugliosi, like the Warren Commission and the HSCA, tends
to believe -- cautiously -- that there were 2 Cubans and 1 Caucasian at
Odio's door at some point in late Sept. or early October 1963 (the exact
date has never been established). Whether the Caucasian was in fact Oswald
is a different matter, and has never been proven -- certainly not enough
to leap to the conclusion that the incident proves there was a plot to
kill JFK.
And there is no evidence that the 2 Cubans, in fact, drove Oswald the
first 500 miles to Mexico City, as you allege.
You call Bugliosi's book "dreadful" because...? Maybe because in your
entire life you couldn't even approach writing a book -- CT or LN angle --
of its magnitude with its massive research, in-depth discussion and
analysis, and almost endless source of assassination information, both CT
and LN.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
>
> Unfortunately, after establishing the event Bugliosi simply declines
> to put forth any possible explanation as to when/where/how the
> "friendship" began. He backs down. To him, it occurred in a vacuum.
>
> If you could explain it, I'd think that was awesome.
He "backs down," as you call it, because it doesn't lead anywhere. The
alleged incident doesn't prove anything in the grand scheme of things. Do
you have a problem understanding that?
As a seasoned prosecutor, Bugliosi also explains that in almost every
criminal case there is something that can't be completely proven to have,
or not have, happened. It's the proverbial nature of the beast.
>
> > And it's pretty funny how a conspiracist can magically predict what
> > the unfinished Reclaiming History series will be like...
> > What crystal ball are you using?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Yeah, hysterical! Except that we know the source material and stated
> goals of Paxton, so it's actually very obvious what the film will be like.
> Overall, I'm sure it will be very well made & acted, and will be
> entertaining, despite being wrong.
>
> They may choose to show the Odio incident in some way, but it will
> be difficult. In Bugliosi's Odio chapter--which you have not read--he
> establishes the Odio story but offers no explanation and sloppily
> intercuts his narrative with disembodied histories of the Cuban Revolution
> and the Bay of Pigs invasion, which have very little to do with the Odio
> incident.
>
> That's hard to get away with in a film. They can't jump around like
> that or show Odio as it happened and not fit it into their lone nut story.
> So my best guess is that it will be omitted, or they will take serious
> liberties with it.
Yes, your pre-film/pre-release critic of the Reclaiming History miniseries
is hysterical.
Again, what crystal ball are you using? Or, is it that you have exclusive
access to the screenplay? If you do, I'd like to see it too.
Mmmmmmm...this coffee is good...
slice...@comcast.net
> incident, and really, all he concludes is that the incident could have
> happened, but only because it can't be proved to *not have happened.* I
> really don't think that is enough to say it DID happen beyond all doubt.
But you're so sure about everything else in this case, and those
facts were verified using the same standard that Odio's story was. You're
probably even more sure of certain abstract things like Oswald's motive,
and that's even harder to verify than Odio.
Yet you're selective and inconsistent when it comes to Odio. You're
suddenly a Know-Nothing. You're in the standard fall-back postion lone
nut enthusiasts take when confronted with an ugly truth: "maybe, who
knows, etc," all so you don't have to deal with it.
Sorry, but you don't get that luxury. Time to face reality. Bugliosi
affirms Odio. The HSCA affirms Odio. J. Lee Rankin's concern over Odio
is on the record, and the best the WCR could do was say: "While the FBI
had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the
report went to press, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald
was not at Mrs. Odio's apartment in September of 1963." (p324).
In other words, they went to press without their homework finished
and they punted.
I understand your desire to keep the Odio incident hazy, but would
your reaction be the same if Oswald, Leopoldo, and Angelo accidentally
knocked on Howard Brennan's door that night? What is your standard which
guides what you will believe? Is it objective or is it driven by your
need to see the case a certain way? Or do you have a standard at all?
> And even if the incident was proved to have happened beyond a reasonable
> doubt, it still doesn't prove, or point to, any plot to kill JFK.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course it does. You making a flat, indefensible statement like
that doesn't make it otherwise.
If you disagree with me, then please take your own hypothetical-- that
the Odio incident is "proved beyond a reasonable doubt"--and offer an
explanation that in no way even "points" to a conspiracy.
jas
wrote:
Uh, sorry, you have this backasswards, as is quite common among the
conspiracist community:
YOU are the one challenging the official Warren Commission conclusion of
no plot by saying the Odio incident shows there was a conspiracy,
therefore YOU are the one with the burden of proof in demonstrating your
alleged plot.
Don't come sniffing around me for an answer, that's your job.
slice...@comcast.net
> > > information from?)
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > I'm using Reclaiming History. Vince Bugliosi does a fine job
> > establishing that the Odio incident occurred. He even calls the anti-
> > Castro Cubans in question Oswald's "friends" at least three times. He
> > makes it clear that not only did the incident happen, but that it was most
> > likely Castro murderer wannabes Angelo and Leopoldo who drove Oswald the
> > first 500+ miles of his trip to join Castro's revolution.
>
> > Didn't you know that? Didn't you read it? It's a dreadful book, so
> > it's OK if you didn't.
>
> Oh, ok, I get it. Seize the one thing that Bugliosi agrees with some
> conspiracists on, and take it all the way for the "there was a conspiracy
> in the murder of JFK" touchdown.
Well to be fair I don't know if you get it. Initially you were
convinced that I started with Odio because of something I read in a
conspiracy book. Ooops! You were wrong about that, yet you still had
the stones to ask me where I got my crystal ball, based on a pretty
innocuous prediction. You guys really are amazingly dependable. You
will condescend from your position of authority regardless of what the
situation is! If I had a watch, I would set it to you guys.
There are other areas beside Odio, but how can I get into them?
You still are unable to admit that the Odio incident was a real event,
despite the fact that it meets or exceeds the same standard of
evidence that you've already used to implicate Oswald alone.
> Sorry, that won't fly. Obviously -- and you would know this if you read
> the entire book carefully and not cherry-pick one section to use in
> jumping to your usual incorrect CT conclusion -- Bugliosi doesn't think
> the incident, if it happened at all (which he apparently agrees it did),
> amounts to a hill of horse dung amid the rest of the evidence pointing to
> Oswald as the lone assassin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You seemed to be impressed with the "magnitude" and the "massive
research" etc., of Bugliosi's book, yet you haven't followed his lead
in accepting Odio as a real event. That's now my mission for you. To
get you to step 1: admitting that Odio happened. Because the
conversation really suffers without that.
Part of what makes the book dreadful is that he establishes Odio
but then backs down. Despite your part-hemming and hawing, part
dismissive attitude about Odio, natural questions are going to form
for sensible readers (or a jury) that require answers, once its
established.
> Yes, I know that Bugliosi, like the Warren Commission and the HSCA, tends
> to believe -- cautiously -- that there were 2 Cubans and 1 Caucasian at
> Odio's door at some point in late Sept. or early October 1963 (the exact
> date has never been established). Whether the Caucasian was in fact Oswald
> is a different matter, and has never been proven -- certainly not enough
> to leap to the conclusion that the incident proves there was a plot to
> kill JFK.
>
> And there is no evidence that the 2 Cubans, in fact, drove Oswald the
> first 500 miles to Mexico City, as you allege.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can't believe I waited this long for the "no evidence" mantra.
You're slipping!
In reality, the Odio incident IS evidence. Because it happened.
You have to start with that, and I *think* you're beginning to agree
with me. I can sense it. Bugliosi and I are both telling you, so if
you still disbelieve me, just go with him.
Part of the beauty of what Bugliosi establishes in his
confirmation of Odio is that the two Cubans were Oswald's most likely
drivers out of New Orleans. Which opens up a whole other can of worms
he doesn't want to deal with. That's why Bugliosi cuts off the
chapter with disembodied histories of the Cuban Revolution and Bay of
Pigs. Why should he bother answering the questions that would form
naturally in the readers' heads after confirming Odio? He doesn't
have to do that! He's in the position of authority!
> You call Bugliosi's book "dreadful" because...? Maybe because in your
> entire life you couldn't even approach writing a book -- CT or LN angle --
> of its magnitude with its massive research, in-depth discussion and
> analysis, and almost endless source of assassination information, both CT
> and LN.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm sensing this is not authentic sorrow . . . and that you might
be projecting some writerly shortcomings on me. Either that or you're
using that crystall ball that you got at the dollar store again.
Look, RH is dreadful for many reasons. At least Case Closed, as
wrong as it is, gives you the same exact result in hundreds of fewer
pages, without all the ridiculous minutiae, sloppiness, and JFK vs.
Lincoln myths.
I mean, do you really want to admit here that RH is your idea of a
high standard of scholarly writing? It seems strange to me, but you
are closer to admitting that than to the Odio incident being real.
And that's just plain wrong on so many levels.
>
>
> > Unfortunately, after establishing the event Bugliosi simply declines
> > to put forth any possible explanation as to when/where/how the
> > "friendship" began. He backs down. To him, it occurred in a vacuum.
>
> > If you could explain it, I'd think that was awesome.
>
> He "backs down," as you call it, because it doesn't lead anywhere. The
> alleged incident doesn't prove anything in the grand scheme of things. Do
> you have a problem understanding that?
>
> As a seasoned prosecutor, Bugliosi also explains that in almost every
> criminal case there is something that can't be completely proven to have,
> or not have, happened. It's the proverbial nature of the beast.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bugliosi establishes that two anti-Castro Cubans--who have never
been identified or heard from again--drove Oswald from New Orleans to
Dallas, on his way to allegedly join Castro's army via Mexico City.
He also establishes that Angelo and Leopoldo knew Oswald (in other
words, LHO didn't hitchhike).
Despite concerns about whether it can be answered now, a billion
years later, people who are sensible and open, who understand that
real events do not lose significance for the sole reason that they
were not explained in time, are within their right to incorporate the
Odio incident into their overall view of what happened, using the most
probable explanation for it.
For lone nut entusiasts with agendas, the way to go is to try
to cut Odio off at the knees, question its authenticity, or do what
Bugliosi does: admit it happened, but rely on the fact that it was
never solved to simply shelve it and move on.
>
> > > And it's pretty funny how a conspiracist can magically predict what
> > > the unfinished Reclaiming History series will be like...
> > > What crystal ball are you using?
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Yeah, hysterical! Except that we know the source material and stated
> > goals of Paxton, so it's actually very obvious what the film will be like.
> > Overall, I'm sure it will be very well made & acted, and will be
> > entertaining, despite being wrong.
>
> > They may choose to show the Odio incident in some way, but it will
> > be difficult. In Bugliosi's Odio chapter--which you have not read--he
> > establishes the Odio story but offers no explanation and sloppily
> > intercuts his narrative with disembodied histories of the Cuban Revolution
> > and the Bay of Pigs invasion, which have very little to do with the Odio
> > incident.
>
> > That's hard to get away with in a film. They can't jump around like
> > that or show Odio as it happened and not fit it into their lone nut story.
> > So my best guess is that it will be omitted, or they will take serious
> > liberties with it.
>
> Yes, your pre-film/pre-release critic of the Reclaiming History miniseries
> is hysterical.
>
> Again, what crystal ball are you using? Or, is it that you have exclusive
> access to the screenplay? If you do, I'd like to see it too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh boy. Again with the unfortunate crystall ball reference. That
has not been kind to you.
But look, I'll give you one thing. You were right about my
incredible sense of humor. I just did an open mike night at a local
comedy club, and the big highlight was when I said: "Bill Paxton is
not going to be able to explain the Odio incident. He's going to omit
it or take serious liberties with it."
Dude, it absolutely killed. Blew the roof off the joint. Went
over much better than my mother-in-law material.
slice...@comcast.net
> > > doubt, it still doesn't prove, or point to, any plot to kill JFK.
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Of course it does. You making a flat, indefensible statement like
> > that doesn't make it otherwise.
>
> > If you disagree with me, then please take your own hypothetical-- that
> > the Odio incident is "proved beyond a reasonable doubt"--and offer an
> > explanation that in no way even "points" to a conspiracy.
>
> Uh, sorry, you have this backasswards, as is quite common among the
> conspiracist community:
>
> YOU are the one challenging the official Warren Commission conclusion of
> no plot by saying the Odio incident shows there was a conspiracy,
> therefore YOU are the one with the burden of proof in demonstrating your
> alleged plot.
>
> Don't come sniffing around me for an answer, that's your job.
That's the condescension from authority I've come to know and love.
Complete with faulty reasoning that immediately collapses on itself. I
mean, you're the prosecution here, and the burden of proof is with you.
You actually said that it's with me! Holy frijoles!
You represent the side of this debate that has the case solved.
That's you. There's no wiggle room for you. Forget being a CT, you don't
even have the flexibility of a disinterested agnostic on this case. Your
side is based fundamentally on a concrete solution known to everyone with
a brain, except those wacky kook CTs. Despite what public opinion polls
say, you are the authority.
The CT side (with all its warts) is based on searching. The gaps
in the case are strong enough to keep it open. One of those gaps is the
Odio incident. You put forth a hypothetical--that the Odio incident is
real--yet from your exalted position, you refuse to offer *any* kind of
explanation for it. For a hypothetical!! Are you kidding me?
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't actually need an
explanation from you. I have one that I like a lot. I just wanted to see
if you could do it, and you can't.
ShutterBun
wrote:
> You represent the side of this debate that has the case solved.
> That's you. There's no wiggle room for you. Forget being a CT, you don't
> even have the flexibility of a disinterested agnostic on this case. Your
> side is based fundamentally on a concrete solution known to everyone with
> a brain, except those wacky kook CTs. Despite what public opinion polls
> say, you are the authority.
I'd certainly prefer the opinion of a seasoned researcher to the court of
"public opinion" any day. Have you seen the statistics on public opinion
as to WMD's in Iraq, or whether or not Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
They ought to give you some serious pause as to how much weight to give
the "public" and its collective opinion.
And seriously...you're trashing him for merely having reached a
conclusion? Sheesh, isn't that the whole point? To seek an answer? How
long can you expect someone to be an "agnostic" on the case? Many (if not
most) LN'ers probably started out as "agnostic" and by virtue of having
studied the evidence, arrived at their conclusion (i.e. found religion)
I don't see any less religious fervor in the CT community. In fact, you
appear to have tipped your hand a bit by implying that the CT'ers goal is
to merely prolong the inquiry, whatever it takes. Far from seeking the
truth, you seek only to keep the mystery alive. What kind of goal is
that?
> The CT side (with all its warts) is based on searching. The gaps
> in the case are strong enough to keep it open. One of those gaps is the
> Odio incident. You put forth a hypothetical--that the Odio incident is
> real--yet from your exalted position, you refuse to offer *any* kind of
> explanation for it. For a hypothetical!! Are you kidding me?
No, the gaps in the case are tantilizing enough for writers to exploit
them in order to sell books and create headlines. Most experienced legal
minds would agree that the case against Oswald is more than strong enough
to convict him, and the case against any possible conspiracy is not.
Just to satisfy you, here is an explanation for the Odio incident,
stipulating that it happened as she described, and that it really was
Oswald:
"Lee Harvey Oswald tried (not for the first time) to infiltrate a
community of anti-Castro Cubans. He met two men, used his Marine
credentials to gain their confidence, and accompanied them to meet Sylvia
Odio, who was the daughter of a well-connected anti-Castro leader. It
turns out they were more or less barking up the wrong tree, so they left
her, parted ways, and nothing ever came of the venture. One of the Cubans
later states that "we probably won't have anything to do with him, he is
kind of loco.""
It's hard to fault Bugliosi for placing this event "in a vacuum," since,
essentially, it was.
> Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't actually need an
> explanation from you. I have one that I like a lot. I just wanted to see
> if you could do it, and you can't.
What's yours?
jas
You really have a handle on that psycho-BS, I'll say that much. Ok, so you
want me to concede the Odio incident occurred? For the sake of discussion,
and to humor you, fine, it occurred. Make you feel better?
(I have a little time today, I'll play some.)
The problem is, and for some strange reason your comprehension suddenly
falters when it's put to you: The Odio incident doesn't lead anywhere.
Going on the assumption that it can be proved, or even demonstrated
adequately to even have happened, 2 words come to mind: So What?
The fact that Oswald was in the company of 2 anti-Castro Cubans doesn't
even fit his modus operandi. As everyone and their uncle knows, he was
pro-Castro. And, it's too much of a leap to conclude that Oswald would
entertain the thought of hanging around anti-Castro- ites to plan killing
JFK solely for a retaliation for the botched Bay of Pigs landing, or for
the anti-Castros to use a pro-Castro Oswald to kill JFK to instigate a
possible U.S. invasion of Cuba. A plan of that scope and magnitude -- to
attempt to kill a U.S. president for their cause -- would have been way
too risky and counter-productive for the anti-Castros to want to
undertake.
So, you say, the anti-Castros wanted to use Oswald as a "nut that'll shoot
anybody," so they thought they could use him to shoot Castro? Again, this
CT hypothesis is too much of a leap, and has no basis in any facts, only
hearsay. Why "recruit" Oswald, of all people? Out of all the hundreds
(thousands) of anti-Castro Cubans that wanted to kill Castro, what made
Oswald stand out so much? I'm sure there were plenty of disgruntled Cubans
that would have gladly, if presented with a viable chance, taken a shot at
the dictator. But, for some reason, Oswald as a pre-assassination nobody
-- which he was -- doesn't fit the CT scenario. CTs have to have Oswald as
being this big stand-out guy to the anti-Castros, capable of being their
"nutty hero," if you will, that they know for a fact will actually take a
shot at Kennedy, when in reality they knew nothing of his capabilities.
Really, nobody knew of Oswald's capabilities except maybe Marina because
of his telling her of his Walker attempt in April.
And to me the most important question is if the Odio incident indeed was
part of a plot to kill JFK, why doesn't there exist any credible proof,
even with Odio's recollections, that anything at that meeting pertained to
any actual JFK assassination plot? Nothing of the sort was ever discussed,
either at that so-called "meeting," or afterwards when Leopoldo called
Odio back supposedly asking her about what she thought of Oswald. And,
using that Oswald supposedly told Leopoldo that Kennedy should have been
assassinated doesn't work because we know Oswald did in fact assassinate
JFK, so that reasoning cancels itself out.
No, sorry. There are too many loose ends leading to nowhereland -- all
sizzle and no steak -- to conclude any visit from Oswald and 2 Cubans to
Odio had anything to do with Nov. 22, 1963.
My feeling is Odio made up, or at least embellished actual facts and
recollections, the Oswald-visit story post assassination. As we know, many
people siezed the opportunity to get their 15 minutes of fame -- for
whatever reasons they may have had -- money, recognition, notoriety, etc.
-- and Odio, to me, was one of these. If this wasn't the reason, her
demonstrated "loose cannon" personality was.
Speculation? Sure, but based on common sense. And with Odio speculation
is all we're left with.
John McAdams
>On Oct 19, 3:55�pm, "slicedm...@comcast.net" <slicedm...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> > > > And even if the incident was proved to have happened beyond a reasonable
>> > > > doubt, it still doesn't prove, or point to, any plot to kill JFK.
>>
>>
>> � � � �Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't actually need an
>> explanation from you. �I have one that I like a lot. �I just wanted to see
>> if you could do it, and you can't.
>
>You really have a handle on that psycho-BS, I'll say that much. Ok, so you
>want me to concede the Odio incident occurred? For the sake of discussion,
>and to humor you, fine, it occurred. Make you feel better?
>
>(I have a little time today, I'll play some.)
>
No reason not to concede that, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT.
But the Twiford testimony is really what kills the whole Odio
business.
We know that Oswald's visit to the Casa Roca was, in Oswald's mind, an
exercise in "infiltration." The Odio thing could have been too --
except for the fact that it never happened.
>My feeling is Odio made up, or at least embellished actual facts and
>recollections, the Oswald-visit story post assassination. As we know, many
>people siezed the opportunity to get their 15 minutes of fame -- for
>whatever reasons they may have had -- money, recognition, notoriety, etc.
>-- and Odio, to me, was one of these. If this wasn't the reason, her
>demonstrated "loose cannon" personality was.
>
>Speculation? Sure, but based on common sense. And with Odio speculation
>is all we're left with.
Well . . . she didn't actually seek publicity. I think there is good
reason to believe that three guys visited, just as she said.
But I think that, *after* the assassination, she conflated the guy who
was the anglo with the image of Oswald on TV.
So she was sincere, but just mistaken.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
slice...@comcast.net
> > That's you. There's no wiggle room for you. Forget being a CT, you don't
> > even have the flexibility of a disinterested agnostic on this case. Your
> > side is based fundamentally on a concrete solution known to everyone with
> > a brain, except those wacky kook CTs. Despite what public opinion polls
> > say, you are the authority.
>
> I'd certainly prefer the opinion of a seasoned researcher to the court of
> "public opinion" any day. Have you seen the statistics on public opinion
> as to WMD's in Iraq, or whether or not Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
> They ought to give you some serious pause as to how much weight to give
> the "public" and its collective opinion.
Hola ShutterBun...
Don't leave out the percentage of people who believe in angels. I'm
with you on that. I always cringe when CTs use that "75% of the public
agrees with us" argument, because while that number might be true, those
people don't know why they believe in a conspiracy. I feel a lot of that
is just bedrock American cynicism. I also feel that the number could
shift back to the LNs somewhat in the future. That's why I said "despite
public opinion" in my earlier post. Because the LN stance still claims the
authority and the official history of the event.
I agree that a "seasoned researcher" is good. But I prefer the
fearless journalist or scholar type, who doesn't have that sort of built
in "well a conspiracy just isn't possible" knee-jerk response, which
always seems to emerge as anger that anyone would even suggest the idea of
conspiracy. For me, Bugliosi and Posner are as far from seasoned
researchers as one can get. They are lawyers writing briefs, for paydays
CT writers would faint over. Their entire professional training is based
on the premise of argument for hire, not get to the truth no matter what.
> And seriously...you're trashing him for merely having reached a
> conclusion? Sheesh, isn't that the whole point? To seek an answer? How
> long can you expect someone to be an "agnostic" on the case? Many (if not
> most) LN'ers probably started out as "agnostic" and by virtue of having
> studied the evidence, arrived at their conclusion (i.e. found religion)
> I don't see any less religious fervor in the CT community. In fact, you
> appear to have tipped your hand a bit by implying that the CT'ers goal is
> to merely prolong the inquiry, whatever it takes. Far from seeking the
> truth, you seek only to keep the mystery alive. What kind of goal is
> that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey, conclusions are great. Everyone should have one. I've reached
my own conclusion, but inherit in mine is some leeway, because I accept
that very important and decisive gaps in the story remain open. Odio is
one of them. And JFK is not the first or last historical event to have
them. They're the kind of things you attach your best possible answer to.
Right now, the LN best possible answer for Odio is to remain cagey about
its authenticity while accepting other evidence of lesser or equal value;
or admit its authenticity but then say "whatever" because it wasn't solved
back in '64. And I'm sorry, but that is an inferior form of reasoning no
matter how you slice it.
It's not trashing someone to discuss that. It's a JFK discussion
forum.
I don't believe CTs are trying to keep the case going at all costs.
No CTs are raking it in from this, even those who publish. From what you
wrote it seems that you simply don't believe a person could legitimately
decide to keep the case open in their mind because some important issues
are unresolved. To answer your question, I think a person can remain a
sort of hybrid CT/agnostic a loooong time. People remain agnostic until
death all the time with regard to religion. What's the matter with that?
> > The CT side (with all its warts) is based on searching. The gaps
> > in the case are strong enough to keep it open. One of those gaps is the
> > Odio incident. You put forth a hypothetical--that the Odio incident is
> > real--yet from your exalted position, you refuse to offer *any* kind of
> > explanation for it. For a hypothetical!! Are you kidding me?
>
> No, the gaps in the case are tantilizing enough for writers to exploit
> them in order to sell books and create headlines. Most experienced legal
> minds would agree that the case against Oswald is more than strong enough
> to convict him, and the case against any possible conspiracy is not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There were some experienced legal minds on the HSCA and ARRB who
would disagree with that almost-blanket statement.
> Just to satisfy you, here is an explanation for the Odio incident,
> stipulating that it happened as she described, and that it really was
> Oswald:
>
> "Lee Harvey Oswald tried (not for the first time) to infiltrate a
> community of anti-Castro Cubans. He met two men, used his Marine
> credentials to gain their confidence, and accompanied them to meet Sylvia
> Odio, who was the daughter of a well-connected anti-Castro leader. It
> turns out they were more or less barking up the wrong tree, so they left
> her, parted ways, and nothing ever came of the venture. One of the Cubans
> later states that "we probably won't have anything to do with him, he is
> kind of loco.""
> It's hard to fault Bugliosi for placing this event "in a vacuum," since,
> essentially, it was.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First I want to thank you for actually posting this. This is all
I'm asking for, from any LN, and no one will do it! So thanks. That said,
you'll be shocked to hear I have problems with yours. I don't think it
answers the Odio incident, not by a mile.
You can't jibe Oswald's prior "infiltration" of a (CIA funded)
anti-Castro group in New Orleans with the the Angelo and Leopoldo mystery.
If they were remotely the same thing, then Angelo and Leopoldo would not
be able to remain unknown all this time, especially with the weight of the
federal gov't and WC crashing down on JURE and whoever else. It's just
not credible. Carlos Bringuier and the DRE were out immediately, in some
cases with taxpayer funds, publicizing their interaction with Oswald the
communist sypmathizer. Leopoldo and Angelo were not.
The other thing is the timeline. Bugliosi establishes that Leopoldo
and Angelo were Oswald's ride out of New Orleans. That's a long car ride.
And an important one. That's an entire question of where/how/when did
they meet. It's not credible that *in addition* to never finding out who
the Cubans were, there was never a remote inkling of backstory anywhere to
describe Oswald's meeting these two. Or even a situation which could've
led to his meeting them.
If you're hypothesizing that Oswald could've made "friends"
(Bugliosi's word) with them in some situtation that never made the offical
record, you would be going against the time honored LN mantra of
"everything about Oswald's movements are known." In doing so, you would
open up Oswald's schedule in New Orleans. At that point, he could be
meeting with anyone . . . even with a sheepdipper like Banister!
It would also mark the first time Oswald used his Marine
credentials to gain anyone's confidence, because to hear Bringuier tell
it, Oswald was really bad at it.
> > Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't actually need an
> > explanation from you. I have one that I like a lot. I just wanted to see
> > if you could do it, and you can't.
>
> What's yours?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh man. I'll try to keep this short.
For me, Odio is best viewed in the context of the Mexico City trip.
Yes, I believe Oswald went down there.
But certain important areas about that trip are not credible. The
Saturday (I think it was Saturday) phone call from the Cuban to Russian
embassy is not credible. The broken camera surveillance excuse for Oswald
is not credible. The "we erased the tape" story is not credible. I would
say that CIA HQ's explanation for witholding info on Oswald in their cable
back to Win Scott is not credible, but I'm not sure they ever offered an
explanation for that.
So it's not the advancement of a theory, it's the "negative
template;" it's acknowledging that Mexico City happened, but crucial
details are unsolved, and so far they point more toward a well covered up
(and now time-weathered) intelligence operation than to any other
explanation. The two unknown Cuban taxi drivers for Oswald on his way
down there contribute to that mightily.
tomnln
Sylvia Odio's recollection of Oswald's visit with 2 Anti-Castro Cubans is
a matter of record BEFORE the Assassination.
Her Sister Annie who was THERE !
Her friend Mrs. C L Connell. (who told others)
Her Doctor (Einspruch).
Her Father whom she wrote to in Cuba & he answered her (beware) in writing
ALL BEFORE THE Assassination.
I suggest you also look into the "Multiple Anti-Castro Groups" at 3126
Harlendale Street in Dallas.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:9kgvd5h0r62ofo64o...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
>WRONG Again John;
>
>Sylvia Odio's recollection of Oswald's visit with 2 Anti-Castro Cubans is
>a matter of record BEFORE the Assassination.
>
No, she was on record before the assassination saying that three men
visited.
She never said it was Oswald before the assassination.
>Her Sister Annie who was THERE !
A lot of witnesses who were *there* are mistaken.
>Her friend Mrs. C L Connell. (who told others)
>Her Doctor (Einspruch).
>Her Father whom she wrote to in Cuba & he answered her (beware) in writing
>ALL BEFORE THE Assassination.
Right. Three men visited.
She *later* came to ID one of them as Oswald.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
Sylvia Odio's recollection of Oswald's visit with 2 Anti-Castro Cubans is a
matter of record BEFORE the Assassination.
Her Sister Annie who was THERE !
Her friend Mrs. C L Connell. (who told others)
Her Doctor (Einspruch).
Her Father whom she wrote to in Cuba & he answered her (beware) in writing
ALL BEFORE THE Assassination.
I suggest you also look into the "Multiple Anti-Castro Groups" at 3126
Harlendale Street in Dallas.
The HSCA Believed Odio; HSCA Report page 139.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:9kgvd5h0r62ofo64o...@4ax.com...
tomnln
She recognized Oswald as one of the three men who visited her on the night
of September 26, 1963.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:2gmvd51korn2cvih4...@4ax.com...
tomnln
11/22/63.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:2gmvd51korn2cvih4...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
>>> You represent the side of this debate that has the case solved.
>>> That's you. There's no wiggle room for you. Forget being a CT, you don't
>>> even have the flexibility of a disinterested agnostic on this case. Your
>>> side is based fundamentally on a concrete solution known to everyone with
>>> a brain, except those wacky kook CTs. Despite what public opinion polls
>>> say, you are the authority.
>> I'd certainly prefer the opinion of a seasoned researcher to the court of
>> "public opinion" any day. Have you seen the statistics on public opinion
>> as to WMD's in Iraq, or whether or not Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
>> They ought to give you some serious pause as to how much weight to give
>> the "public" and its collective opinion.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Hola ShutterBun...
>
> Don't leave out the percentage of people who believe in angels. I'm
> with you on that. I always cringe when CTs use that "75% of the public
> agrees with us" argument, because while that number might be true, those
> people don't know why they believe in a conspiracy. I feel a lot of that
Yes, because you despise the public.
> is just bedrock American cynicism. I also feel that the number could
> shift back to the LNs somewhat in the future. That's why I said "despite
How can you claim on the one hand that the number is meaningless and
then claim that it can shift back on the other? All you are saying is
that you wish more people would agree with you.
yeuhd
> HSCA Report page 139.
>
> The HSCA "Believed" Sylvia Odio.
The HSCA also believed that Oswald fired all the shots that hit
President Kennedy and Governor Connally. So I guess that requires you
to believe that too.
jfk...@gmail.com
tomnln
You have always had the opportuniuty to debate me LIVE in my nightly audio
chat room that allows us to transfer files to one another instantly !
jas
I'll certainly agree with you that Odio could have been mistaken.
Who really knows? It could have been an honest mistaken identity thing, or
her just being caught up in the post-assassination investigation by being
nervous in some way. After all, Oswald was a plain-looking average guy --
average height and weight -- with nothing readily distinguishable to
remember him by.
I think the true litmus test is there is absolutely no evidence to show
the incident pertained to a JFK plot. All we really have left are just
people talking. I would think that if two powerful investigatory bodies as
the Warren Commission and the HSCA both couldn't go anywhere with it --
which they couldn't -- it just simply doesn't go anywhere, much to the
dismay of many conspiracists. And as you know Kaiser's "Road to Dallas' "
entire premise was the Odio incident-- a shaky foundation to base an
otherwise well-written book on.
Assuming Oswald was the Caucasian at Odio's door, I feel this is just
another conspiracist "anybody Oswald was with, or even just seen with,
pre-assassination *had* to have something to do with him and a plot to
kill JFK" argument.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:07d6e777-8e81-4c78...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
jas
> Jas should familiarize himself with the testimony>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
>
> "jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:07d6e777-8e81-4c78...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 21, 7:30 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
Funny how CTers love to cite the areas of the testimony as the big "a- ha"
when they think it fits their conspiracist agenda (which, of course, it
doesn't), but any testimony supporting the LN side is faked, mistaken,
embellished, coerced by the government, lies, altered, misunderstood,
etc., etc.
tomnln
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Funnier when you RUN from your own evidence/testimony.
http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I Notice you RUN from Odio's testimony ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
slice...@comcast.net
> > with you on that. I always cringe when CTs use that "75% of the public
> > agrees with us" argument, because while that number might be true, those
> > people don't know why they believe in a conspiracy. I feel a lot of that
>
> Yes, because you despise the public.
Actually, all I said was that most people don't know enough about the
case to know why they have CT leanings. The way you chose to respond to
that innocuous and equally non-CT and non-LN statement I think makes
pretty clear which one of us has more contempt for other human beings.
> > is just bedrock American cynicism. I also feel that the number could
> > shift back to the LNs somewhat in the future. That's why I said "despite
>
> How can you claim on the one hand that the number is meaningless and
> then claim that it can shift back on the other? All you are saying is
> that you wish more people would agree with you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, all I was saying was that the number is not based on any
widespread body of uniform knowledge, so it's open to some fluctuation.
Also a nonpartisan statement. Public opinion polls go up and down all the
time, on any subject.
In totally unrelated news, Tony, I happen to be pretty darn sure a
conspiracy occurred in the JFK assassination, so no, I don't need more
people to agree with me. Right now they do. I would like it if they knew
a little more about why, though.
Hey, you have a nice day now.
slice...@comcast.net
OK, maybe I'm missing something here. Could be. But how was Odio
supposed to identify Oswald *before* the assassination???
Please advise!
John McAdams
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 12:07=A0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 22 Oct 2009 00:04:32 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >WRONG Again John;
>>
>> >Sylvia Odio's recollection of Oswald's visit with 2 Anti-Castro Cubans i=
>s
>> >a matter of record BEFORE the Assassination.
>>
>> No, she was on record before the assassination saying that three men
>> visited.
>>
>> She never said it was Oswald before the assassination.
>>
>> >Her Sister Annie who was THERE !
>>
>> A lot of witnesses who were *there* are mistaken.
>>
>> >Her friend Mrs. C L Connell. (who told others)
>> >Her Doctor (Einspruch).
>> >Her Father whom she wrote to in Cuba & he answered her (beware) in writi=
>ng
>> >ALL BEFORE THE Assassination.
>>
>> Right. =A0Three men visited.
>>
>> She *later* came to ID one of them as Oswald.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> OK, maybe I'm missing something here. Could be. But how was Odio
>supposed to identify Oswald *before* the assassination???
>
> Please advise!
>
Well, you could have an actual record (rather than just her memory)
showing that the fellow was named "Lee Oswald."
Remember, Mrs. Twiford *did* produce two documents that linked them to
Oswald -- an envelope and a coupon, if memory serves.
There is really nothing to link Oswald to Odio except her *post
assassination* testimony.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
slice...@comcast.net
You really have a handle on that psycho-BS, I'll say that much. Ok,
so you
> want me to concede the Odio incident occurred? For the sake of discussion,
> and to humor you, fine, it occurred. Make you feel better?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, it does make me feel better!
> (I have a little time today, I'll play some.)
>
> The problem is, and for some strange reason your comprehension suddenly
> falters when it's put to you: The Odio incident doesn't lead anywhere.
> Going on the assumption that it can be proved, or even demonstrated
> adequately to even have happened, 2 words come to mind: So What?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sure it leads somewhere. From New Orleans to Mexico City, two places
where the official explanation for Oswald's actions and associations are
not credible.
But you've agreed to Odio now (at least hypothetically). In doing
so, you've given credibility to the CT narrative that Oswald was working
in some capacity with anti-Castro forces in New Orleans. Because that's
the best possible explanation for how he met Angelo and Leopoldo. At
least until you come up with a better one. You've freed up Oswald's
schedule to form the friendship, so in the space you've created, it's not
far fetched to say he was hanging around with Guy Banister or whoever.
Especially considering that terrible investigation into whether or not
Oswald was ever at Banister's. That's the beginning of the answer to "so
what."
The lack of IDs on Angelo and Leopoldo also support that CT argument.
Most LNs agree that a trio of men showed up at Odio's that night. So
assuming the white guy was not Oswald, it makes the inability to find any
of them harder to explain. After all, the WC did not share your blase
attitude about getting to the bottom of this. They thought it was more
important than saying so what.
> The fact that Oswald was in the company of 2 anti-Castro Cubans doesn't
> even fit his modus operandi. As everyone and their uncle knows, he was
> pro-Castro. And, it's too much of a leap to conclude that Oswald would
> entertain the thought of hanging around anti-Castro- ites to plan killing
> JFK solely for a retaliation for the botched Bay of Pigs landing, or for
> the anti-Castros to use a pro-Castro Oswald to kill JFK to instigate a
> possible U.S. invasion of Cuba. A plan of that scope and magnitude -- to
> attempt to kill a U.S. president for their cause -- would have been way
> too risky and counter-productive for the anti-Castros to want to
> undertake.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everyone and their uncle doesn't know that Oswald was pro- Castro.
The same way we don't know, as CTs often allege, that all of his
pro-Castro rhetoric was an act. Nobody's politics are so easy to define.
People are complicated. You would likely not accept a similar black &
white assessment of your politics if it was done to you.
And Oswald was complicated. He had the capacity for warmth, but he
was also an absolute prick to a lot of people. He was smart, but also a
conniver and a whiner. In many ways he was not a good guy. He was also a
child. It's not psycho-BS to say that someone like that has political
beliefs which can change or hide, or remain strong but take a backseat to
other circumstances, such as who his associations were and what he thought
he could gain from them.
It's not far fetched for anti-Castro forces to try to lay the blame
for JFK at Castro's feet. Anti-Castro forces were not nearly so
risk-adverse, and their hatred for JFK and sense of purpose was dreadfully
certain.
> So, you say, the anti-Castros wanted to use Oswald as a "nut that'll shoot
> anybody," so they thought they could use him to shoot Castro?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, I didn't say that.
Again, this
> CT hypothesis is too much of a leap, and has no basis in any facts, only
> hearsay. Why "recruit" Oswald, of all people? Out of all the hundreds
> (thousands) of anti-Castro Cubans that wanted to kill Castro, what made
> Oswald stand out so much? I'm sure there were plenty of disgruntled Cubans
> that would have gladly, if presented with a viable chance, taken a shot at
> the dictator. But, for some reason, Oswald as a pre-assassination nobody
> -- which he was -- doesn't fit the CT scenario. CTs have to have Oswald as
> being this big stand-out guy to the anti-Castros, capable of being their
> "nutty hero," if you will, that they know for a fact will actually take a
> shot at Kennedy, when in reality they knew nothing of his capabilities.
> Really, nobody knew of Oswald's capabilities except maybe Marina because
> of his telling her of his Walker attempt in April.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not sure what conspiracy theory you're knocking down here. I
don't know of anyone who thinks Oswald as a known and ardent pro-
Castroite was recruited by anti-Castro forces to kill anyone.
But even this hypothetical CT makes no sense. If this was an
intelligence operation run by anti-Castroites and some select CIA people,
they would not want a "big stand-out" pro-Castroite. They would want
someone off-kilter and easy to manipulate, because someone has to take the
blame for the whole thing. And that fits Oswald perfectly.
> And to me the most important question is if the Odio incident indeed was
> part of a plot to kill JFK, why doesn't there exist any credible proof,
> even with Odio's recollections, that anything at that meeting pertained to
> any actual JFK assassination plot? Nothing of the sort was ever discussed,
> either at that so-called "meeting," or afterwards when Leopoldo called
> Odio back supposedly asking her about what she thought of Oswald. And,
> using that Oswald supposedly told Leopoldo that Kennedy should have been
> assassinated doesn't work because we know Oswald did in fact assassinate
> JFK, so that reasoning cancels itself out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That Oswald was with these two points to conspiracy, not that they
showed up at Odio's. Perhaps Oswald refused to stay in the car and they
decided to knock on her door anyway. One possible reason for Leopoldo's
call was damage control, in that he knew ahead of time that it was bad to
have been seen with Oswald, so he called Silvia and started giving her
this odd, unsolicited information about Oswald wanting to kill JFK, and
how loco he was, in case something ever got back to him.
But since he was never found, we don't get to ask him those
things!
> No, sorry. There are too many loose ends leading to nowhereland -- all
> sizzle and no steak -- to conclude any visit from Oswald and 2 Cubans to
> Odio had anything to do with Nov. 22, 1963.
>
> My feeling is Odio made up, or at least embellished actual facts and
> recollections, the Oswald-visit story post assassination. As we know, many
> people siezed the opportunity to get their 15 minutes of fame -- for
> whatever reasons they may have had -- money, recognition, notoriety, etc.
> -- and Odio, to me, was one of these. If this wasn't the reason, her
> demonstrated "loose cannon" personality was.
>
> Speculation? Sure, but based on common sense. And with Odio speculation
> is all we're left with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If it's unanswered, fine, let's all get in the time machine and take
it up with the WC. But spare me the immediately disprovable nonsense that
Odio was looking for attention. She wasn't. Or that she was a "loose
cannon." That's far from common sense. That's a smear. If we're heading
down that road, you may as well go back to saying so what.
tomnln
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e4126068-36e3-469f...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Please advise!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When She & her Sister Annie saw Oswald on TV on the night of 11/22/63 they
BOTH recognized Oswald as the guy who visited them on the evening of
September 26, 1963.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
She never said it was Oswald before the assassination.
Sylvia discussed it with others BEFORE the Assassination.
Her Sister Annie who was THERE !
Her friend Mrs. C L Connell. (who told others)
Her Doctor (Einspruch).
Her Father whom she wrote to in Cuba & he answered her (beware) in writing
ALL BEFORE THE Assassination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ae384a9....@news.supernews.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia discussed Oswald's visit with 4 people BEFORE the Assassination ! !
!
Her Sister Annie
Her Fathet via letter
Her Dr. Einspruch
Her friend Mrs. Connell.
If you wanna talk about LIARS, start with officer Baker.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
You should work your way around those FIVE (5) Different accounts in about
300 years ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------
John McAdams
>On 11/22/63;
>She recognized Oswald as one of the three men who visited her on the night
>of September 26, 1963.
>
You don't seem to understand the concept "Oswald sighting."
>
>
>
>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>news:2gmvd51korn2cvih4...@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Oct 2009 00:04:32 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>WRONG Again John;
>>>
>>>Sylvia Odio's recollection of Oswald's visit with 2 Anti-Castro Cubans is
>>>a matter of record BEFORE the Assassination.
>>>
>>
>> No, she was on record before the assassination saying that three men
>> visited.
>>
>> She never said it was Oswald before the assassination.
>>
>>
>>>Her Sister Annie who was THERE !
>>
>> A lot of witnesses who were *there* are mistaken.
>>
>>
>>>Her friend Mrs. C L Connell. (who told others)
>>>Her Doctor (Einspruch).
>>>Her Father whom she wrote to in Cuba & he answered her (beware) in writing
>>>ALL BEFORE THE Assassination.
>>
>> Right. Three men visited.
>>
>> She *later* came to ID one of them as Oswald.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Right. Which is perfectly good evidence that *some* three men visited
her.
It's no evidence at all that it's Oswald.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:vfh7e5lkgr5lq5qk8...@4ax.com...
tomnln
ps;
The HSCA Believed her ! ! !
SEE page 139 of the HSCA Report.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:uhh7e515godvn43a2...@4ax.com...
tomnln
BASED on prior conversations with FOUR other people "BEFORE" the
Assassination.
tomnln
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e4126068-36e3-469f...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Please advise!
That's just McAdams' way of "Reaching at Straws".
tomnln
Supporters.
I can't find a single one who is willing to debate me on evidence/testimony.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
John McAdams DID agree to debate me but, ha gave NO Official Citations ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e44cc8f2-93bc-4329...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
Here's a guy who Believes Specter's Fantasy SBT>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
Here's a guy who will NOT believe Odio>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
ps;
The HSCA Report page 139 "Believed Sylvia Odio".
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:vfh7e5lkgr5lq5qk8...@4ax.com...
tomnln
Hey John;
Do you think Brennan had a BETTER/LONGER look at Oswald in the window????
You don't seem to have any trouble accepting that LIAR's testimony.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/howard_brennan.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
Your "Bias" is showing John.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
jas
On Oct 24, 6:01 pm, "slicedm...@comcast.net" <slicedm...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> You really have a handle on that psycho-BS, I'll say that much. Ok,
> so you> want me to concede the Odio incident occurred? For the sake of discussion,
> > and to humor you, fine, it occurred. Make you feel better?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Yes, it does make me feel better!
>
> > (I have a little time today, I'll play some.)
>
> > The problem is, and for some strange reason your comprehension suddenly
> > falters when it's put to you: The Odio incident doesn't lead anywhere.
> > Going on the assumption that it can be proved, or even demonstrated
> > adequately to even have happened, 2 words come to mind: So What?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Sure it leads somewhere. From New Orleans to Mexico City, two places
> where the official explanation for Oswald's actions and associations are
> not credible.
No, Oswald showing up at Odio's door in Dallas is the incident that is
not credible as it can't be proven to actually have occurred in the
first place. Other than Odio and Co. there is no other sighting of
Oswald at any other location by any other witness in Dallas to
collaborate her story of him being there in late Sept.
On the other hand, sightings of him, as well as testimonies of his
movements and actions in New Orleans and Mexico City are far more
numerous and by many different people, thereby making them far more
credible.
>
> But you've agreed to Odio now (at least hypothetically). In doing
> so, you've given credibility to the CT narrative that Oswald was working
> in some capacity with anti-Castro forces in New Orleans. Because that's
> the best possible explanation for how he met Angelo and Leopoldo. At
> least until you come up with a better one. You've freed up Oswald's
> schedule to form the friendship, so in the space you've created, it's not
> far fetched to say he was hanging around with Guy Banister or whoever.
> Especially considering that terrible investigation into whether or not
> Oswald was ever at Banister's. That's the beginning of the answer to "so
> what."
Oswald even knowing Banister is another CT crock, sorry.
>
> The lack of IDs on Angelo and Leopoldo also support that CT argument.
> Most LNs agree that a trio of men showed up at Odio's that night. So
> assuming the white guy was not Oswald, it makes the inability to find any
> of them harder to explain. After all, the WC did not share your blase
> attitude about getting to the bottom of this. They thought it was more
> important than saying so what.
Yes, they investigated, but came up with no link to any plot to kill
JFK.
Maybe Oswald went to a Krispy Kreme donut shop too, does that mean he
was plotting to kill JFK with the guy sitting next to him?
This is exactly the problem conspiracists have. You are dead sure
Oswald was at Odio's door with two anti-Castro Cubans, but you can't
make any solid link between that and what he did on Nov. 22, 1963.
> > The fact that Oswald was in the company of 2 anti-Castro Cubans doesn't
> > even fit his modus operandi. As everyone and their uncle knows, he was
> > pro-Castro. And, it's too much of a leap to conclude that Oswald would
> > entertain the thought of hanging around anti-Castro- ites to plan killing
> > JFK solely for a retaliation for the botched Bay of Pigs landing, or for
> > the anti-Castros to use a pro-Castro Oswald to kill JFK to instigate a
> > possible U.S. invasion of Cuba. A plan of that scope and magnitude -- to
> > attempt to kill a U.S. president for their cause -- would have been way
> > too risky and counter-productive for the anti-Castros to want to
> > undertake.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Everyone and their uncle doesn't know that Oswald was pro- Castro.
> The same way we don't know, as CTs often allege, that all of his
> pro-Castro rhetoric was an act. Nobody's politics are so easy to define.
> People are complicated. You would likely not accept a similar black &
> white assessment of your politics if it was done to you.
>
> And Oswald was complicated. He had the capacity for warmth, but he
> was also an absolute prick to a lot of people. He was smart, but also a
> conniver and a whiner. In many ways he was not a good guy. He was also a
> child. It's not psycho-BS to say that someone like that has political
> beliefs which can change or hide, or remain strong but take a backseat to
> other circumstances, such as who his associations were and what he thought
> he could gain from them.
Maybe-- no one really knew exactly what Oswald's inner thoughts and
demons were. We do know however that he was extremely disillusioned
with life in general -- his failed move to his "utopian" Soviet Union,
his failing marriage, his attitude against authority. We also know he
was insolent, violent, and capable of murder.
>
> It's not far fetched for anti-Castro forces to try to lay the blame
> for JFK at Castro's feet. Anti-Castro forces were not nearly so
> risk-adverse, and their hatred for JFK and sense of purpose was dreadfully
> certain.
>
> > So, you say, the anti-Castros wanted to use Oswald as a "nut that'll shoot
> > anybody," so they thought they could use him to shoot Castro?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> No, I didn't say that.
It was a figure of speech.
>
> Again, this> CT hypothesis is too much of a leap, and has no basis in any facts, only
> > hearsay. Why "recruit" Oswald, of all people? Out of all the hundreds
> > (thousands) of anti-Castro Cubans that wanted to kill Castro, what made
> > Oswald stand out so much? I'm sure there were plenty of disgruntled Cubans
> > that would have gladly, if presented with a viable chance, taken a shot at
> > the dictator. But, for some reason, Oswald as a pre-assassination nobody
> > -- which he was -- doesn't fit the CT scenario. CTs have to have Oswald as
> > being this big stand-out guy to the anti-Castros, capable of being their
> > "nutty hero," if you will, that they know for a fact will actually take a
> > shot at Kennedy, when in reality they knew nothing of his capabilities.
> > Really, nobody knew of Oswald's capabilities except maybe Marina because
> > of his telling her of his Walker attempt in April.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I'm not sure what conspiracy theory you're knocking down here. I
> don't know of anyone who thinks Oswald as a known and ardent pro-
> Castroite was recruited by anti-Castro forces to kill anyone.
When conspiracists say Oswald was at Sylvia Odio's door with two anti-
Castro Cubans, and that Leopoldo phoned her the next day asking what
she thought about Oswald, they are saying Oswald was in some way
connected to them in JFK's assassination. That's the conspiracy theory
I'm talking about.
Which one are you talking about?
>
> But even this hypothetical CT makes no sense. If this was an
> intelligence operation run by anti-Castroites and some select CIA people,
> they would not want a "big stand-out" pro-Castroite. They would want
> someone off-kilter and easy to manipulate, because someone has to take the
> blame for the whole thing. And that fits Oswald perfectly.
>
> > And to me the most important question is if the Odio incident indeed was
> > part of a plot to kill JFK, why doesn't there exist any credible proof,
> > even with Odio's recollections, that anything at that meeting pertained to
> > any actual JFK assassination plot? Nothing of the sort was ever discussed,
> > either at that so-called "meeting," or afterwards when Leopoldo called
> > Odio back supposedly asking her about what she thought of Oswald. And,
> > using that Oswald supposedly told Leopoldo that Kennedy should have been
> > assassinated doesn't work because we know Oswald did in fact assassinate
> > JFK, so that reasoning cancels itself out.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> That Oswald was with these two points to conspiracy, not that they
> showed up at Odio's. Perhaps Oswald refused to stay in the car and they
> decided to knock on her door anyway. One possible reason for Leopoldo's
> call was damage control, in that he knew ahead of time that it was bad to
> have been seen with Oswald, so he called Silvia and started giving her
> this odd, unsolicited information about Oswald wanting to kill JFK, and
> how loco he was, in case something ever got back to him.
>
> But since he was never found, we don't get to ask him those
> things!
Only your speculation, of course. For all we know Leopoldo had the
hots for Odio and called her back to get a date!
We can speculate all we want, but tell me this-- just curious: Who or
what gives conspiracists the right to think their speculations are the
ones right on the money? Do you guys all have some devine omniscient
power of some sort, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound?
The Odio story is just that -- a story.
>
> > No, sorry. There are too many loose ends leading to nowhereland -- all
> > sizzle and no steak -- to conclude any visit from Oswald and 2 Cubans to
> > Odio had anything to do with Nov. 22, 1963.
>
> > My feeling is Odio made up, or at least embellished actual facts and
> > recollections, the Oswald-visit story post assassination. As we know, many
> > people seized the opportunity to get their 15 minutes of fame -- for
> > whatever reasons they may have had -- money, recognition, notoriety, etc.
> > -- and Odio, to me, was one of these. If this wasn't the reason, her
> > demonstrated "loose cannon" personality was.
>
> > Speculation? Sure, but based on common sense. And with Odio speculation
> > is all we're left with.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If it's unanswered, fine, let's all get in the time machine and take
> it up with the WC. But spare me the immediately disprovable nonsense that
> Odio was looking for attention. She wasn't. Or that she was a "loose
> cannon." That's far from common sense. That's a smear. If we're heading
> down that road, you may as well go back to saying so what.
Who knows why Odio said the white guy was Oswald, I was only offering
my opinion. Maybe a wrong opinion, I'll concede. But, unlike you who
seems to think their speculations and opinions are the correct ones at
least I admit my speculation could be incorrect.
And, my "loose cannon" reference was to Odio's documented mental
problems, not my attempt at a "smear," as you allege.
Nice chatting with you.
Peter Fokes
Do you have any evidence Oswald ate doughnuts?
Is this just a wild speculation by an LN? This is exactly the problem
LNs have.
>
>This is exactly the problem conspiracists have. You are dead sure
>Oswald was at Odio's door with two anti-Castro Cubans, but you can't
>make any solid link between that and what he did on Nov. 22, 1963.
Maybe he was there. Maybe he took her some Krispy Kreme doughnuts?
>
>
>> > The fact that Oswald was in the company of 2 anti-Castro Cubans doesn't
>> > even fit his modus operandi. As everyone and their uncle knows, he was
>> > pro-Castro. And, it's too much of a leap to conclude that Oswald would
>> > entertain the thought of hanging around anti-Castro- ites to plan killing
>> > JFK solely for a retaliation for the botched Bay of Pigs landing, or for
>> > the anti-Castros to use a pro-Castro Oswald to kill JFK to instigate a
>> > possible U.S. invasion of Cuba. A plan of that scope and magnitude -- to
>> > attempt to kill a U.S. president for their cause -- would have been way
>> > too risky and counter-productive for the anti-Castros to want to
>> > undertake.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Everyone and their uncle doesn't know that Oswald was pro- Castro.
>> The same way we don't know, as CTs often allege, that all of his
>> pro-Castro rhetoric was an act. Nobody's politics are so easy to define.
>> People are complicated. You would likely not accept a similar black &
>> white assessment of your politics if it was done to you.
>>
>> And Oswald was complicated. He had the capacity for warmth, but he
>> was also an absolute prick to a lot of people. He was smart, but also a
>> conniver and a whiner. In many ways he was not a good guy. He was also a
>> child.
Nope. He was not a child.
>>It's not psycho-BS to say that someone like that has political
>> beliefs which can change or hide, or remain strong but take a backseat to
>> other circumstances, such as who his associations were and what he thought
>> he could gain from them.
>
>Maybe-- no one really knew exactly what Oswald's inner thoughts and
>demons were.
How do you know he had any demons?
>We do know however that he was extremely disillusioned
>with life in general -- his failed move to his "utopian" Soviet Union,
Not really. He found a pretty woman, got married and came back to the
U.S.A. Mariina had another baby, but was starry eyed about material
possessions. Oswald got a job! Things were looking up. Marina
probably would have moved back in with him. I'd imagine some of the
10%+ Americans unemployed today would have felt fortunate to get a job
at the Book Depository.
>his failing marriage, his attitude against authority.
Seemed to follow orders at Book Depository ok.
> We also know he
>was insolent, violent, and capable of murder.
There are two sides to every individual.
>
>>
>> It's not far fetched for anti-Castro forces to try to lay the blame
>> for JFK at Castro's feet. Anti-Castro forces were not nearly so
>> risk-adverse, and their hatred for JFK and sense of purpose was dreadfully
>> certain.
>>
>> > So, you say, the anti-Castros wanted to use Oswald as a "nut that'll shoot
>> > anybody," so they thought they could use him to shoot Castro?
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> No, I didn't say that.
>
>It was a figure of speech.
>
>>
>> Again, this> CT hypothesis is too much of a leap, and has no basis in any facts, only
>> > hearsay. Why "recruit" Oswald, of all people?
Why not? If he was an unwitting patsy, he could be anyone. As
Nechiporenko points out, all that was needed for a successful
conspiracy was getting hold of Oswald's rifle. Did anyone see Oswald
carry a rifle from the Paines to the TSBD, or just a paper bag?
Out of all the hundreds
>> > (thousands) of anti-Castro Cubans that wanted to kill Castro, what made
>> > Oswald stand out so much? I'm sure there were plenty of disgruntled Cubans
>> > that would have gladly, if presented with a viable chance, taken a shot at
>> > the dictator. But, for some reason, Oswald as a pre-assassination nobody
>> > -- which he was -- doesn't fit the CT scenario. CTs have to have Oswald as
>> > being this big stand-out guy to the anti-Castros, capable of being their
>> > "nutty hero," if you will, that they know for a fact will actually take a
>> > shot at Kennedy, when in reality they knew nothing of his capabilities.
>> > Really, nobody knew of Oswald's capabilities except maybe Marina because
>> > of his telling her of his Walker attempt in April.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> I'm not sure what conspiracy theory you're knocking down here. I
>> don't know of anyone who thinks Oswald as a known and ardent pro-
>> Castroite was recruited by anti-Castro forces to kill anyone.
>
>When conspiracists say Oswald was at Sylvia Odio's door with two anti-
>Castro Cubans, and that Leopoldo phoned her the next day asking what
>she thought about Oswald, they are saying Oswald was in some way
>connected to them in JFK's assassination. That's the conspiracy theory
>I'm talking about.
Forget conspiracists. What does ODIO say?
Was he just there bringing Krispy Kreme doughnuts?
Ah, that's why you think he brought her doughnut? The way to a
women's heart is her stomach!
>
>We can speculate all we want, but tell me this-- just curious: Who or
>what gives conspiracists the right to think their speculations are the
>ones right on the money?
Free speech.
>Do you guys all have some devine omniscient
>power of some sort, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound?
Do you?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > And even if the incident was proved to have happened beyond a reasonable
>> > > doubt, it still doesn't prove, or point to, any plot to kill JFK.
>>
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > � � Of course it does. �You making a flat, indefensible statement like
>> > that doesn't make it otherwise.
>>
>> > � � If you disagree with me, then please take your own hypothetical-- that
>> > the Odio incident is "proved beyond a reasonable doubt"--and offer an
>> > explanation that in no way even "points" to a conspiracy.
>>
>> Uh, sorry, you have this backasswards, as is quite common among the
>> conspiracist community:
>>
>> YOU are the one challenging the official Warren Commission conclusion of
>> no plot by saying the Odio incident shows there was a conspiracy,
>> therefore YOU are the one with the burden of proof in demonstrating your
>> alleged plot.
>>
>> Don't come sniffing around me for an answer, that's your job.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> That's the condescension from authority I've come to know and love.
>Complete with faulty reasoning that immediately collapses on itself. I
>mean, you're the prosecution here, and the burden of proof is with you.
>You actually said that it's with me! Holy frijoles!
>
> You represent the side of this debate that has the case solved.
>That's you. There's no wiggle room for you. Forget being a CT, you don't
>even have the flexibility of a disinterested agnostic on this case. Your
>side is based fundamentally on a concrete solution known to everyone with
>a brain, except those wacky kook CTs. Despite what public opinion polls
>say, you are the authority.
>
> The CT side (with all its warts) is based on searching. The gaps
>in the case are strong enough to keep it open. One of those gaps is the
>Odio incident. You put forth a hypothetical--that the Odio incident is
>real--yet from your exalted position, you refuse to offer *any* kind of
>explanation for it. For a hypothetical!! Are you kidding me?
>
Twiford.
Look it up.
Quit ignoring it.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Gee, I should have rejected a lot of your posts, since the are
spamming the newsgroup with redundant material.
Try to concentrate Tom: there is good evidence that *some* three men
visited Odio.
The evidence is that, on the night of September 25, Oswald was in
Houston trying to contact Horace Twiford.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
jas
>
> read more »
Maybe Oswald preferred Dunkin Donuts, I just don't know.
slice...@comcast.net
> On 19 Oct 2009 18:55:28 -0400, "slicedm...@comcast.net"
John, your double standard on what kind of evidence you will accept
is so exposed at this point it deserves at least an NC-17 rating. Your
inability to explain your acceptance of (for example) Howard Brennan's ID
of Oswald over the Odios, given drastically different sighting
circumstances which favor Odio, really hurts yor credibility.
Or you place an impossible standard that no one--not even other
LNs--would place on Odio; something you said in earlier post along the
lines of: "she should've had some kind of documentary evidence
beforehand." That's laughable. Was Oswald supposed to sign her guest
register or something? Odio is not less genuine for not remembering
Oswald's exact name before 11/22/63.
Unlike some of the other LNs who at least took a shot at explaining
Odio, you're firmly entrenched in the "deny, deny, deny" world of cop-out
excuses. Sorry, it won't fly. Denying it won't make it go away.
But since you're denying it, you're saved from having to explain
how, when, and where Oswald came to meet the 2 anti-Castro Cubans who
drove him 500+ miles on his way to join Castro's revolution.
As for Twiford--*this* is how you totally dispel Odio? Two eye
witnesses, one who was in his company for several minutes, close-up, with
good lighting, who talked about the visit before 11/22/63, who no one in
the world but someone with an agenda would expect to "document" his name
before then, is trumped by a telephone call that came in from who knows
where? Oh which night??
The Odio incident is better evidence, which you would accept
immediately if all the same sighting factors were involved but it pointed
in an LN direction. And there's nothing in the Odio incident that would
rule out the Twiford call anyway. Let me borrow from the LNs and say that
Mrs. Twiford was "mistaken" when she assumed the call was local. Man,
that's easy. She was mistaken. Problem solved.
If you won't come out of hiding and offer an LN-friendly explanation
for how Lee Harvey Oswald fell in with Leopoldo and Angelo, then you
should at least offer some kind of rational explanation for why far more
accomplished "Oswald did it" theorists like Bugliosi and (to an extent)
the HSCA don't agree with you.
John McAdams
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 9:56 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 19 Oct 2009 18:55:28 -0400, "slicedm...@comcast.net"
>>
>>
>>
>> > The CT side (with all its warts) is based on searching. The gaps
>> >in the case are strong enough to keep it open. One of those gaps is the
>> >Odio incident. You put forth a hypothetical--that the Odio incident is
>> >real--yet from your exalted position, you refuse to offer *any* kind of
>> >explanation for it. For a hypothetical!! Are you kidding me?
>>
>> Twiford.
>>
>> Look it up.
>>
>> Quit ignoring it.
>>
>> .John
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> John, your double standard on what kind of evidence you will accept
>is so exposed at this point it deserves at least an NC-17 rating. Your
>inability to explain your acceptance of (for example) Howard Brennan's ID
>of Oswald over the Odios, given drastically different sighting
>circumstances which favor Odio, really hurts yor credibility.
>
When I have I mentioned Howard Brennan?
I agree with the Warren Commission on him.
Do you know what the Warren Commission said? Look it up. It's
probably different from what you think.
> Or you place an impossible standard that no one--not even other
>LNs--would place on Odio; something you said in earlier post along the
>lines of: "she should've had some kind of documentary evidence
>beforehand." That's laughable. Was Oswald supposed to sign her guest
>register or something? Odio is not less genuine for not remembering
>Oswald's exact name before 11/22/63.
>
You don't understand the concept "Oswald sighting," do you?
Do you have any *idea* how many people came forward after the
assassination and claimed to have seen Oswald some place he could not
have been?
You could start by looking at the Sports Drome sightings.
> Unlike some of the other LNs who at least took a shot at explaining
>Odio, you're firmly entrenched in the "deny, deny, deny" world of cop-out
>excuses. Sorry, it won't fly. Denying it won't make it go away.
>
Asserting it won't make it real.
> But since you're denying it, you're saved from having to explain
>how, when, and where Oswald came to meet the 2 anti-Castro Cubans who
>drove him 500+ miles on his way to join Castro's revolution.
>
Why should I have to explain something that isn't true?
> As for Twiford--*this* is how you totally dispel Odio? Two eye
>witnesses, one who was in his company for several minutes, close-up, with
>good lighting, who talked about the visit before 11/22/63, who no one in
>the world but someone with an agenda would expect to "document" his name
>before then, is trumped by a telephone call that came in from who knows
>where? Oh which night??
>
It had to be the night of September 25. And if Oswald was in Houston,
and not in Dallas, that means no Odio connection.
It was not only a phone call, it was the Twiford number in Oswald's
address book, it was a coupon Oswald filled out and sent to the
Socialist Labor Party in New York (forwarded along to Twiford) and it
was -- IIRC -- the envelope with Oswald's return address.
Oswald wasn't in Houston any other night.
Mrs. Twiford thought it was a local call -- and before digital
transmission you could *tell* a long distance call.
And he wanted to come over and see Horace Twiford.
> The Odio incident is better evidence, which you would accept
>immediately if all the same sighting factors were involved but it pointed
>in an LN direction. And there's nothing in the Odio incident that would
>rule out the Twiford call anyway. Let me borrow from the LNs and say that
>Mrs. Twiford was "mistaken" when she assumed the call was local. Man,
>that's easy. She was mistaken. Problem solved.
>
Oswald virtually never made long distance calls, and he was apparently
in Houston that evening, on his way to Mexico City.
Mr. Twiford was away -- Mrs. Twiford recalls -- and indeed records
show that Mr. Twiford was on a ship on the Gulf of Mexico on that
date.
> If you won't come out of hiding and offer an LN-friendly explanation
>for how Lee Harvey Oswald fell in with Leopoldo and Angelo, then you
>should at least offer some kind of rational explanation for why far more
>accomplished "Oswald did it" theorists like Bugliosi and (to an extent)
>the HSCA don't agree with you.
>
>
Bugliosi isn't a "far more accomplished theorist."
tomnln
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eaa62ede-316a-40c2...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ae72acd....@news.supernews.com...
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ae72acd....@news.supernews.com...
jas
wrote:
You need to stop saying that Bugliosi flatly believes Oswald was the white
man with the two Cubans and be more truthful in referring to his
accessment of the incident.
What's more accurate to say is he thoroughly discusses the possibilities
on both sides of the argument and concludes that, in the end, we really
can't say for sure whether it was Oswald that appeared at her door, only
that he tends to believe in Odio's credibilty, truthfulness, and
integrity, and because of these attributes, believes she very well could
be correct. So, what is closer to the truth is he doesn't come to any
definitive conclusion either way, just explaining why he is not in total
agreement with the Warren Commission's rejection of Odio's story.
"My belief in Odio's story, though I'm not prepared to take it to the
bank, and though it admittedly does not rise to the status of certainty or
even beyond a reasonable doubt, necessarily constitutes a rejection of the
Warren Commission's conclusion that Odio's story is not
believeable...(Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 1310)
Since it's already been established long ago that there indeed exist flaws
in the Warren Commission's investigation of the assassination, and this is
generally agreed upon by both CT and LN camps, Bugliosi's assessment and
discussion of the Odio incident is nothing new or remarkable in the field
of JFK assassination research. He happens to feel Odio is telling the
truth. But, the fact remains he still thinks there's no proof of any link
between Odio's story and a possible plot to kill JFK. If he did, his book
would obviously have had a totally different ending and he would have
revealed himself as a conspiracy believer. He didn't, and he hasn't.
Bugliosi also says, "Although we have seen that the evidence of time and
place compels the conclusion that Oswald could not have visited Odio on
September 26th or 27th, 1963, and most probably did not do so on September
25, there nevertheless are countervailing reasons why we cannot
automatically dismiss Odio's allegations -- namely, her credibility and
corroberating evidence." (Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 1307.)
In other words, because of the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E -- that nasty thing that is
oh-so-valuable in court that keeps creeping up in the JFK investigation
that conspiracists just can't seem to understand -- it looks like the Odio
incident didn't happen. However, we can listen to her story and believe
she honestly thinks she's telling the truth, which *could* make it
possible, and not dismiss her as a complete kook.
So why do you refer to Bugliosi's writing in your conspiracy- mongering?
Are you simply not able to understand that Odio is *not* proof of an
assassination plot?
Better be careful -- as a devout CTer the fact that you use any part of
Bugliosi's discussions to bolster your conspiracy argument is tricky. It
begs the question of "if you truly agree with Bugliosi on one item you say
proves a conspiracy, how do you explain your rejection of the LN
conclusion of his book?" In other words, you are in effect agreeing with
Bugliosi, therefore he must have the LN conclusion correct.
Like Ricky says, you'd have some " 'splainin to do."
jas
oops-- typo. in the first paragraph accessment should be assessment.
sorry
slice...@comcast.net
> >On Oct 26, 9:56 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 19 Oct 2009 18:55:28 -0400, "slicedm...@comcast.net"
>
> >> > The CT side (with all its warts) is based on searching. The gaps
> >> >in the case are strong enough to keep it open. One of those gaps is the
> >> >Odio incident. You put forth a hypothetical--that the Odio incident is
> >> >real--yet from your exalted position, you refuse to offer *any* kind of
> >> >explanation for it. For a hypothetical!! Are you kidding me?
>
> >> Twiford.
>
> >> Look it up.
>
> >> Quit ignoring it.
>
> >> .John
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > John, your double standard on what kind of evidence you will accept
> >is so exposed at this point it deserves at least an NC-17 rating. Your
> >inability to explain your acceptance of (for example) Howard Brennan's ID
> >of Oswald over the Odios, given drastically different sighting
> >circumstances which favor Odio, really hurts yor credibility.
>
> When I have I mentioned Howard Brennan?
>
> I agree with the Warren Commission on him.
>
> Do you know what the Warren Commission said? Look it up. It's
> probably different from what you think.
The point of Brennan was to bring up a witness who had poorer
conditions in which to view Oswald than Odio. Substitute most of the
Tippit witnesses if you like. I'm flexible. (BTW: I'm not saying these
people didn't see Oswald--I'm just comparing the sighting conditions.)
If you agree with the WC on Brennan, then you're agreeing that
Brennan saw a man "who closely resembled LHO," and that "Brennan believes
the man he saw was in fact LHO." You incorrectly assumed I thought the WC
heartily endorsed Brennan. What they do is fit one witness who believed
he saw LHO into their narrative, while punting on another (Odio) who had
better viewing conditions. You agree with that.
As a side note, the textbook definition of punting on Odio reads like
this: "While the FBI has not yet completed its investigation into this
matter at the time the report went to press, the Commission has concluded
that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio's apartment in September,
1963." That gem is on p324.
Not even Ray Guy couldn't have written that better!
> > Or you place an impossible standard that no one--not even other
> >LNs--would place on Odio; something you said in earlier post along the
> >lines of: "she should've had some kind of documentary evidence
> >beforehand." That's laughable. Was Oswald supposed to sign her guest
> >register or something? Odio is not less genuine for not remembering
> >Oswald's exact name before 11/22/63.
>
> You don't understand the concept "Oswald sighting," do you?
> Do you have any *idea* how many people came forward after the
> assassination and claimed to have seen Oswald some place he could not
> have been?
>
> You could start by looking at the Sports Drome sightings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All eye witness testimony regarding Oswald is a "sighting" at first,
until the context and other facts and circumstances are examined in
conjunction with the sighting. Then the "sighting" either falls apart or
gains credibility. Unlike you, I'm not going to assume that you don't
understand this basic truth. You can't not know that. What you do,
however, is make selective definitions of good and bad sightings because
you have an agenda.
I mean, here you are scrambling to equate Odio with the Sports Drome
sightings. That can't be with a straight face. One of those witnesses
claimed he saw Oswald *after* the assassination. Others gave wrong
descriptions or times when there was better evidence for LHO's wherabouts.
Yet *that's* what you're putting up against Odio's several minutes
of close contact, corroboration by Annie, and her discussion of the event
pre-assassination. It's utterly transparent and indefensible. But I
guess just say it and make it so!
> > Unlike some of the other LNs who at least took a shot at explaining
> >Odio, you're firmly entrenched in the "deny, deny, deny" world of cop-out
> >excuses. Sorry, it won't fly. Denying it won't make it go away.
>
> Asserting it won't make it real.
> > But since you're denying it, you're saved from having to explain
> >how, when, and where Oswald came to meet the 2 anti-Castro Cubans who
> >drove him 500+ miles on his way to join Castro's revolution.
>
> Why should I have to explain something that isn't true?
> > As for Twiford--*this* is how you totally dispel Odio? Two eye
> >witnesses, one who was in his company for several minutes, close-up, with
> >good lighting, who talked about the visit before 11/22/63, who no one in
> >the world but someone with an agenda would expect to "document" his name
> >before then, is trumped by a telephone call that came in from who knows
> >where? Oh which night??
>
> It had to be the night of September 25. And if Oswald was in Houston,
> and not in Dallas, that means no Odio connection.
>
> It was not only a phone call, it was the Twiford number in Oswald's
> address book, it was a coupon Oswald filled out and sent to the
> Socialist Labor Party in New York (forwarded along to Twiford) and it
> was -- IIRC -- the envelope with Oswald's return address.
>
> Oswald wasn't in Houston any other night.
>
> Mrs. Twiford thought it was a local call -- and before digital
> transmission you could *tell* a long distance call.
>
> And he wanted to come over and see Horace Twiford.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You've included all this other evidence to show Oswald called
Twiford--great. I never tried to deny, deny, deny that Oswald called
them.
But like the Sports Drome sightings, you're elevating a voice on a
phone (let's call it Oswald's), on an unknown date, calling from an
unknown location, to the level of the Odio sighting, where she stood face
to face with him. You're equating a call that likely left no impression
on Mrs. Twiford at the time to Odio's impressions of the 3 weirdos at her
door. You're trying to argue Mrs. Twiford's memory of the quality of the
call--which she was asked to dredge up long after it happened--to *verify*
that it was made locally.
As if Oswald could not have called from anywhere else. As if Oswald
would never make a long distance call, even in a situation where he was
travelling. As if Oswald definitely would've followed through on visiting
Twiford if he was home and agreeable.
Nothing about the Twiford call makes the Odio incident impossible.
> > The Odio incident is better evidence, which you would accept
> >immediately if all the same sighting factors were involved but it pointed
> >in an LN direction. And there's nothing in the Odio incident that would
> >rule out the Twiford call anyway. Let me borrow from the LNs and say that
> >Mrs. Twiford was "mistaken" when she assumed the call was local. Man,
> >that's easy. She was mistaken. Problem solved.
>
> Oswald virtually never made long distance calls, and he was apparently
> in Houston that evening, on his way to Mexico City.
>
> Mr. Twiford was away -- Mrs. Twiford recalls -- and indeed records
> show that Mr. Twiford was on a ship on the Gulf of Mexico on that
> date.
>
> > If you won't come out of hiding and offer an LN-friendly explanation
> >for how Lee Harvey Oswald fell in with Leopoldo and Angelo, then you
> >should at least offer some kind of rational explanation for why far more
> >accomplished "Oswald did it" theorists like Bugliosi and (to an extent)
> >the HSCA don't agree with you.
>
> Bugliosi isn't a "far more accomplished theorist."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, I won't ask you to explain that in light of Bugliosi's public
profile and payday for RH. Forget Vince. I'd settle for knowing why J.
Lee Rankin was concerned about Odio. And I hope in your answer you give
Rankin his genuine concern and not claim he was only trying to mollify
potential critics of the WC.
Or the HSCA. Why are you more reliable in establishing a) what
really happened and b) what should be done about it than those two?
Or why did Liebler wrote the following about Odio and not the Sports
Drome sightings: "There are problems. Odio may well be right. The
Commission will look bad if it turns out that she is. There is no need to
look foolish by grasping at straws to avoid admitting that there is a
problem."
Why oh why oh why.
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-
tomnln
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cdb2790b-43a3-4ed2...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
slice...@comcast.net
> man with the two Cubans and be more truthful in referring to his
> accessment of the incident.
"No one examining the evidence in the Odio matter can feel too
sanguine about the conclusion he reaches, yet I feel that the slight
preponderance of the evidence is that Oswald was, in fact, the American
among the three men who visited Odio. I say that for several reasons."
What? Several reasons? Read page 1309 of RH to find out more!
And I don't feel too sanguine about the prospects of this
conversation, if you, totally exposed on this, have to resort to telling
me I "need to stop" saying what is plainly stated in RH. Or that I need
to be "more truthful" about it. Really? You're telling me I need to be
more truthful? Is that what you're doing?
> What's more accurate to say is he thoroughly discusses the possibilities
> on both sides of the argument and concludes that, in the end, we really
> can't say for sure whether it was Oswald that appeared at her door, only
> that he tends to believe in Odio's credibilty, truthfulness, and
> integrity, and because of these attributes, believes she very well could
> be correct. So, what is closer to the truth is he doesn't come to any
> definitive conclusion either way, just explaining why he is not in total
> agreement with the Warren Commission's rejection of Odio's story.
> "My belief in Odio's story, though I'm not prepared to take it to the
> bank, and though it admittedly does not rise to the status of certainty or
> even beyond a reasonable doubt, necessarily constitutes a rejection of the
> Warren Commission's conclusion that Odio's story is not
> believeable...(Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 1310)
> Since it's already been established long ago that there indeed exist flaws
> in the Warren Commission's investigation of the assassination, and this is
> generally agreed upon by both CT and LN camps, Bugliosi's assessment and
> discussion of the Odio incident is nothing new or remarkable in the field
> of JFK assassination research. He happens to feel Odio is telling the
> truth. But, the fact remains he still thinks there's no proof of any link
> between Odio's story and a possible plot to kill JFK. If he did, his book
> would obviously have had a totally different ending and he would have
> revealed himself as a conspiracy believer. He didn't, and he hasn't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're operating under the fanciful idea that Norton didn't know what
kind of JFK book they were spending all that money on. Obviously, RH was a
LN enterprise from the start, so Bugliosi has to be mindful of those
concerns. However, the lawyer in him can't escape the "ring of truth" of
Odio (because of the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E), so he's kinda stuck. You're
letting his tap dancing and qualifiers blur out the fact that he thinks
Oswald was at Odio's door.
Perhaps he would've dropped a few of those qualifiers if he had
entertained--for one second--some kind of discussion as to how, when, and
where Oswald had occasion to hook up with the 2 Cubans. You see, that
naturally follows AFTER you state (as he did) that he believes Oswald was
at Odio's door. It's not conspiracy mongering. It's following the
E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, that pesky thing you keep ignoring when it comes to the
Odio incident.
> Bugliosi also says, "Although we have seen that the evidence of time and
> place compels the conclusion that Oswald could not have visited Odio on
> September 26th or 27th, 1963, and most probably did not do so on September
> 25, there nevertheless are countervailing reasons why we cannot
> automatically dismiss Odio's allegations -- namely, her credibility and
> corroberating evidence." (Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 1307.)
>
> In other words, because of the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E -- that nasty thing that is
> oh-so-valuable in court that keeps creeping up in the JFK investigation
> that conspiracists just can't seem to understand -- it looks like the Odio
> incident didn't happen. However, we can listen to her story and believe
> she honestly thinks she's telling the truth, which *could* make it
> possible, and not dismiss her as a complete kook.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The best E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E so far, after 46 years, is that the Odio
incident happened, either on the 24th or 25th. No one is arguing for the
26th or 27th. In the Bugliosi quote you used to debunk this, he even
mentions Odio's corroborating E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, so you must be thoroughly
confused at this point.
The Warren Report already sets a low standard for what kind of E-
V-I-D-E-N-C-E they will incorporate into their narrative, from Howard
Brennan to any discussion of Oswald's motive. Yet Odio is out of bounds.
That's a double standard that you have failed time and time again to
'splain. You've also failed to 'splain how people like Wesley Liebler and
J. Lee Rankin believed Odio.
You've also failed to 'splain how it is possible that the WC and FBI
were unable to figure out who the 3 men at Odio's door were if Oswald was
NOT the American.
> So why do you refer to Bugliosi's writing in your conspiracy- mongering?
> Are you simply not able to understand that Odio is *not* proof of an
> assassination plot.
> Better be careful -- as a devout CTer the fact that you use any part of
> Bugliosi's discussions to bolster your conspiracy argument is tricky. It
> begs the question of "if you truly agree with Bugliosi on one item you say
> proves a conspiracy, how do you explain your rejection of the LN
> conclusion of his book?" In other words, you are in effect agreeing with
> Bugliosi, therefore he must have the LN conclusion correct.
>
> Like Ricky says, you'd have some " 'splainin to do."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Your notion that if
Bugliosi gets one thing right--in 4 billion pages--then his whole argument
must be right, is just silly.
Bugliosi does represent a great leap forward in evolution for LNs
though. Until RH, no LN would dare to field the WC's punt on Odio. The
tried and true LN approach was to deny, deny, deny, like John still does.
The reason for that is clear. You might not, but John understands that
when a LN says, "I feel that the slight preponderance of the evidence is
that Oswald was, in fact, the American among the three men who visited
Odio," he is opening himself up for a whole lot 'splaining, none of which
LNs can do without entertaining conspiracy. So the wagons get circled
instead.
Bugliosi is to be applauded for having enough sense to acknowledge
what can't be denied. It's a baby step, because he quickly drops the ball
afterward, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day.
ps - can you define "devout CTer" please? I need you to tell me exactly
what I believe regarding all the various conspiracy angles.
John McAdams
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Bugliosi does represent a great leap forward in evolution for LNs
>though. Until RH, no LN would dare to field the WC's punt on Odio. The
>tried and true LN approach was to deny, deny, deny, like John still does.
>The reason for that is clear. You might not, but John understands that
>when a LN says, "I feel that the slight preponderance of the evidence is
>that Oswald was, in fact, the American among the three men who visited
>Odio," he is opening himself up for a whole lot 'splaining, none of which
>LNs can do without entertaining conspiracy. So the wagons get circled
>instead.
>
Nonsense.
First, you guys just flat refuse to acknowledge or deal with the
Twiford evidence. Remember: actual handwriting samples and an entry
in Oswald's address book linking them to Oswald.
But as for "entertaining conspiracy:" it just makes no sense from a
conspiracy perspective. Here is Oswald, who presumably has been told
to act like a pro-Castro Communist, hanging around with *anti-Castro*
types.
The only halfway sensible explanation for his doing that would be like
the Casa Roca: he was "infiltrating" anti-Castro forces.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
>
> Like Ricky says, you'd have some " 'splainin to do."
Actually, that's a myth. Ricky Ricardo never said that on "I Love
Lucy".
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:7232f51mp88fetmp9...@4ax.com...
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
The Bug is simply a bully re-spouting WC GIGO. Unfortunately, that is
what cannot be denied -- except perhaps by those who do not choose to
think for themselves.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:7232f51mp88fetmp9...@4ax.com...
TheTruth
> On 4 Nov 2009 00:07:12 -0500, "slicedm...@comcast.net"
LOL Bugliosi doesnt even own a computer....HELLO MCFLY!!!!!
yeuhd
> The "Twiford" phone call was made in LATE OCTOBER !
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
Interesting that you failed to include these two affidavits that say
the call occurred in late September:
Affidavit of Estelle Twiford, and affidavit of Horace Elroy Twiford:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0095a.htm
jas
wrote:
> > You need to stop saying that Bugliosi flatly believes Oswald was the white
> > man with the two Cubans and be more truthful in referring to his
> > accessment of the incident.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "No one examining the evidence in the Odio matter can feel too
> sanguine about the conclusion he reaches, yet I feel that the slight
> preponderance of the evidence is that Oswald was, in fact, the American
> among the three men who visited Odio. I say that for several reasons."
>
> What? Several reasons? Read page 1309 of RH to find out more!
I've already read it. As I said, if you were to actually read my post, all
Bugliosi is doing is discussing both sides of the argument. By saying
"slight preponderance of the evidence" he is NOT coming to any definitive
conclusion.
But kudos on posting a quote from his book that supports my statement.
>
> And I don't feel too sanguine about the prospects of this
> conversation, if you, totally exposed on this, have to resort to telling
> me I "need to stop" saying what is plainly stated in RH. Or that I need
> to be "more truthful" about it. Really? You're telling me I need to be
> more truthful? Is that what you're doing?
Maybe.
Huh? You're only parroting what I've already said.
>
> > Bugliosi also says, "Although we have seen that the evidence of time and
> > place compels the conclusion that Oswald could not have visited Odio on
> > September 26th or 27th, 1963, and most probably did not do so on September
> > 25, there nevertheless are countervailing reasons why we cannot
> > automatically dismiss Odio's allegations -- namely, her credibility and
> > corroberating evidence." (Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 1307.)
>
> > In other words, because of the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E -- that nasty thing that is
> > oh-so-valuable in court that keeps creeping up in the JFK investigation
> > that conspiracists just can't seem to understand -- it looks like the Odio
> > incident didn't happen. However, we can listen to her story and believe
> > she honestly thinks she's telling the truth, which *could* make it
> > possible, and not dismiss her as a complete kook.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The best E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E so far, after 46 years, is that the Odio
> incident happened, either on the 24th or 25th. No one is arguing for the
> 26th or 27th. In the Bugliosi quote you used to debunk this, he even
> mentions Odio's corroborating E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, so you must be thoroughly
> confused at this point.
The main day of contention is the 25th. He says "most probably did not do
so on the 25th." Read it, and stop cherry-picking words as you see fit.
Sometimes conspiracists think it's alright to use the cheap tactic of
conveniently changing the Odio-visit dates around to suite their argument.
Kaiser even went so far as to say it could have been the first week in
October, AFTER Odio had moved out!
Pray tell, what date do *you* think is appropriate?
>
> The Warren Report already sets a low standard for what kind of E-
> V-I-D-E-N-C-E they will incorporate into their narrative, from Howard
> Brennan to any discussion of Oswald's motive. Yet Odio is out of bounds.
> That's a double standard that you have failed time and time again to
> 'splain. You've also failed to 'splain how people like Wesley Liebler and
> J. Lee Rankin believed Odio.
>
> You've also failed to 'splain how it is possible that the WC and FBI
> were unable to figure out who the 3 men at Odio's door were if Oswald was
> NOT the American.
Some information and leads don't always pan out in the course of criminal
investigations, and in one of the opening paragraphs in the Odio section
of Bugliosi's book he refers to this. If you don't understand this basic
and well-known fact, not only do you not understand the fundamentals of
human error, frailties, and shortcomings in general, you also don't
understand how they apply to ALL criminal investigations.
Tip: try educating yourself a bit further on this by referring to some
more Bugliosi material, as he is a demonstrated expert in criminal
investigations.
Or, take a psychology 101 class.
>
> > So why do you refer to Bugliosi's writing in your conspiracy- mongering?
> > Are you simply not able to understand that Odio is *not* proof of an
> > assassination plot.
> > Better be careful -- as a devout CTer the fact that you use any part of
> > Bugliosi's discussions to bolster your conspiracy argument is tricky. It
> > begs the question of "if you truly agree with Bugliosi on one item you say
> > proves a conspiracy, how do you explain your rejection of the LN
> > conclusion of his book?" In other words, you are in effect agreeing with
> > Bugliosi, therefore he must have the LN conclusion correct.
>
> > Like Ricky says, you'd have some " 'splainin to do."
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Your notion that if
> Bugliosi gets one thing right--in 4 billion pages--then his whole argument
> must be right, is just silly.
In your conspiracist mind-set, yes.
>
> Bugliosi does represent a great leap forward in evolution for LNs
> though. Until RH, no LN would dare to field the WC's punt on Odio. The
> tried and true LN approach was to deny, deny, deny, like John still does.
> The reason for that is clear. You might not, but John understands that
> when a LN says, "I feel that the slight preponderance of the evidence is
> that Oswald was, in fact, the American among the three men who visited
> Odio," he is opening himself up for a whole lot 'splaining, none of which
> LNs can do without entertaining conspiracy. So the wagons get circled
> instead.
>
> Bugliosi is to be applauded for having enough sense to acknowledge
> what can't be denied. It's a baby step, because he quickly drops the ball
> afterward, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day.
So, your 'baby step" of possibly putting Oswald at Odio's door is proof of
a conspiracy, and Bugliosi should have not "dropped the ball" by not
exploring it like David Kaiser already has, only to come up empty like
Kaiser? No way. Bugliosi, like the HSCA, already did explore it and came
up with zero.
All Bugliosi did is discuss the possibilities of both sides of the coin,
and it still doesn't add up to any proof of a conspiracy in the killing of
JFK.
>
> ps - can you define "devout CTer" please? I need you to tell me exactly
> what I believe regarding all the various conspiracy angles.
Heck if I know why you ignore the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E and try to eek out
some illusive "conspiracy pot" at the end of the rainbow. That's
something only you can wrap your mind around.
You are a devout CTer if you think the Odio incident proves a
conspiracy, which is apparently what you are alluding to in this
particular discussion. That's why I called you that.
Other than Marina moving back there with Ruth Paine, pre- assassination
Dallas was just another city. You guys want to somehow think that Dallas
-- alone with New Orleans -- are these all-important cities in your own
concocted "pre-assassination planning" phase of your JFK conspiracy, and
that Oswald just HAD to make this Mecca-like overnight pilgrimage to
Dallas on his way to Mexico to plan some fantastic scheme with some
anti-Castro Cubans. The only reason Oswald ended up there in the weeks
before the assassination is because he was trying desperately to reconcile
his failed marriage, AND, the only reason he shot JFK there was because,
while he was trying to win back Marina, he became employed in a building
to support himself, and that building turned out to be along the motorcade
route.
The assassination could have happened in any other U.S. city in 1963. But
suddenly, AFTER the assassination, all the "Monday-morning quarterbacking"
conspiracists paint Dallas as this "hotbed" of their anti-Castro,
anti-JFK, anti-Communist, seedy Mafia-types, anti-left, anti-whatever
groups, when these groups WERE, IN FACT, ALL OVER THE U.S. So, the very
foundation of the alleged Odio incident -- that Oswald traveled to Dallas
on his way to Mexico City sometime in late Sept. '63 -- fails to uphold a
conspiracy angle on its very premise: no motive to do so. That, along with
the fact that there is absolutely no proof that any alleged Dallas meeting
had anything to do with any plan to assassinate JFK.
What I believe happened re the Odio extravaganza is simple: Oswald was
nowhere NEAR Dallas on his way to Mexico City. The time lines and evidence
shows there is an extremely slim chance of this alleged trip happening,
and common sense asks "why the heck would Oswald back track all the way
north to Dallas -- completely out of the way -- in such a hurried way on
his way to Mexico from New Orleans?" Simply put, he had no REASON to
travel to Dallas at that time, as I explained above, other than to see
Marina, which we know he didn't.
Oswald's most common sense action, given the evidence of the date of his
last being in New Orleans to cash his unemployment check, and his phone
call to Twiford in Houston, is that he traveled straight to Houston --
straight west from New Orleans, the shortest way there.
All conspiracists have in defending the Odio incident as fact -- and an
old, worn out and over-used argument, I might add -- is lack of any solid
proof of Oswald's whereabouts in a slim time frame of activity between New
Orleans and Twiford and crossing the border. So, what do they do?
Automatically fill in the hole with a conspiracy story.
And that, my friend, is ALL you have
jas
Oh really?
Then, I'm saying it.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
It always amuses me when people who buy into the myths created by the
myriad of conspiracy authors, hook, line, and sinker accuse others of
not thinking for themselves.
Bud
> On Oct 16, 6:48 pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 7:09 am, "slicedm...@comcast.net" <slicedm...@comcast.net>
> > > It's OK. It's human nature to reject and gloss over unpleasant
> > > facts in order to achieve some kind of release from them. And there
> > > are all kinds of "outs" to take in the JFK case. But just like you,
> > > Dave, Paxton is not going to have an answer for why Oswald showed up
> > > at Silvia Odio's door with two anti-Castro Cubans on his way to defect
> > > to Cuba in Mexico City, so rather than a movie "for the ages," what
> > > you're more likely to get is an LN equivalent of Stone's movie, which
> > > will be ripped apart with the same intensity that JFK was (just
> > > without help from the major media this time).
>
> > Mmmmmmm....
>
> > And your proof that Oswald was, in fact, at Odio's door at all
> > is________?
>
> > (Just curious-- what conspiracy books/authors are you deriving your
> > information from?)
>
> Actually, even Vincent Bugliosi thinks that it is more likely than not
> that Oswald was the "Leon" who visited Sylvia Odio's apartment with
> the two Cubans.
>
> He writes:
>
> --------------------
> And despite the countless claims of conspiracy by the conspiracy
> theorists throughout the years, it remains a fact that the Odio
> incident, if true, was, and continues to be, the only event where
> Oswald is put allegedly in the company of a mysterious companion
> (here, two) shortly before the assassination, and where he allegedly
> uttered the desirability of Kennedy's murder in the presence of at
> least one other person.…
Thats one strange alibi.
> No one examining the evidence in the Odio matter can feel too sanguine
> about the conclusion he reaches, yet I feel that the slight
> preponderance of evidence is that Oswald was, in fact, the American
> among the three men who visited Odio.
> --------------------
>
> Evidence in favor of the man being Oswald:
>
> 1. The man's companions mentioned twice that his name was "Leon
> Oswald".
> 2. After the assassination, both Odio and her sister identified Oswald
> as the man at Odio's door.
> 3. The man spoke little Spanish beyond "Hola" and a few phrases;
> Oswald likewise.
> 4. The Cubans said they had just come from New Orleans, where Oswald
> lived.
> 5. Oswald had tried once before to infiltrate a group of anti-Castro
> Cubans in New Orleans.
> 6. Odio wrote about the incident to her father shortly after it
> happened, and we have his letter in response.
> 7. Odio's psychiatrist verified that she told him about the incident
> too, prior to the assassination, although he did not recall whether
> she mentioned the name of the third man.
> 8. One of the Cubans told Odio that "Leon" was an ex-marine.
> 9. The FBI interviewed Odio's friends and her psychiatrist, and
> virtually all vouched for her intelligence and credibility.
> 10. Odio did not contact the authorities or seek publicity with her
> story after the assassination, but was approached by the FBI after
> they heard about the incident from a friend of hers. Nor has she
> sought publicity over the years since then.
>
> Arguing against the man being Oswald are:
>
> 1. The time frame between when Oswald was last known to be in New
> Orleans and when he was next seen on a bus going to Mexico, crossed
> with the time frame in which Odio said the visit occurred, is tight —
> but still possible.
> 2. The two Cubans have never been identified.
slice...@comcast.net
> On 4 Nov 2009 00:07:12 -0500, "slicedm...@comcast.net"
>
> <slicedm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Bugliosi does represent a great leap forward in evolution for LNs
> >though. Until RH, no LN would dare to field the WC's punt on Odio. The
> >tried and true LN approach was to deny, deny, deny, like John still does.
> >The reason for that is clear. You might not, but John understands that
> >when a LN says, "I feel that the slight preponderance of the evidence is
> >that Oswald was, in fact, the American among the three men who visited
> >Odio," he is opening himself up for a whole lot 'splaining, none of which
> >LNs can do without entertaining conspiracy. So the wagons get circled
> >instead.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> First, you guys just flat refuse to acknowledge or deal with the
> Twiford evidence. Remember: actual handwriting samples and an entry
> in Oswald's address book linking them to Oswald.
Not only did I acknowledge and deal with the Twiford evidence, I
gave you a simple and logical comparison to make about the quality of
that evidence compared to Odio's. You did not respond to *any* of it,
for obvious reasons. For the sake of argument, I even said let's call
the voice on Twiford's phone Oswald. Yet only cricket sounds from
you. Now you're back in this post, repeating like a robot that CTs
won't discuss it.
Shall we try again?
Mrs. Twiford was asked to remember details about a phone call
long after it occurred, that likely left no impression on her at the
time. The date and time of the call are not known. The identity of
the caller is not known (even though in this instance we're saying
it's Oswald). Whether the call was long distance or not is not known.
Silvia Odio had extended face to face contact with Oswald for
several minutes in good lighting. Her story is corroborated by Annie,
who also saw him. The visit left a strong impression at the time,
which Odio recorded and talked about before the assassination.
Can you please explain why Twiford's memory of a meaningless (at
the time) phone call trumps the ideal circumstances of the Odio
incident?
Most of your argument has been trying to establish that Oswald
was the person who called--a point which I did not dispute. The rest
of your argument boils down to assertions like "Oswald wouldn't have
called long distance," or the notion that Oswald definitely would've
gone to the Twiford's house if he had been home. Or Mrs. Twiford
could "tell" that the call was made locally. Those are things you
cannot know. You're just saying them. They're utterly baseless. The
Odio incident (as established by Bugliosi and other LNs) has zero,
nil, nada, no factors whatsoever that would make Oswald calling
Twiford impossible in addition to visiting Odio. If you have any, you
should post them. It would make for better reading than just
repeating over and over that CTs won't deal with Twiford. It's dealt
with.
> But as for "entertaining conspiracy:" it just makes no sense from a
> conspiracy perspective. Here is Oswald, who presumably has been told
> to act like a pro-Castro Communist, hanging around with *anti-Castro*
> types.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well who do you think "told" him to act pro-Castro in the first
place? Genuine pro-Castroites? Real communists? Why would they do
that? For your hypothetical CT scenario to work, it would have to be
*anti-Castro* forces "telling" Oswald to act pro-Castro. So his
presence in the company of two real anti-Castroites makes perfect
sense from a CT perspective.
> The only halfway sensible explanation for his doing that would be like
> the Casa Roca: he was "infiltrating" anti-Castro forces.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This isn't the most sensible explanation because it leaves too
much unexplained (when explanations should've been attainable) and it
goes against some things that are known about Oswald. First, Oswald
was a creep and was bad at "infiltrating." Carlos Bringuier and his
boys would not have driven Oswald to the corner if he'd asked, yet
somehow you have him turning on the charm and getting Leopoldo and
Angelo to drive him to Texas.
But OK, say he managed it. You're next confronted by the
incongruity of how each "infiltration" played out. Bringuier couldn't
start publicizing his Oswald connection fast enough (sometimes with
CIA funds). Oswald's dealings with the DRE are known (except why he
orchestrated it the way he did). In contrast, Leopoldo and Angelo
emerge from the ether and disappear back into it immediately. Nothing
is known about how Oswald met them.
And even with their apparent innocence in your scenario, even
with seeing that nothing bad came to Bringuier as a result of his
association with Oswald, and even with the FBI moving heaven and earth
to find them, we still don't know who those two were. In the other LN
scenario, where the Odio visit happened *without* Oswald, there is
even less of a reason for no identifications on those three. Yet
that's what we've got. And it's not credible.
So the best possible explanation right now for Odio, taking the
full picture of New Orleans and Mexico City into account, is that
Oswald maintained some kind of connection to anti-Castro forces in New
Orleans that the WC was unable or unwilling to find. And he did that
despite whatever his personal admiration for Castro was.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6984bfd-c156-466e...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
By Golly ! ! !
You just described "REASONABLE DOUBT" ! ! !
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6984bfd-c156-466e...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
You have just described "REASONABLE DOUBT" ! ! !
slice...@comcast.net
> On Nov 3, 10:07 pm, "slicedm...@comcast.net" <slicedm...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > You need to stop saying that Bugliosi flatly believes Oswald was the white
> > > man with the two Cubans and be more truthful in referring to his
> > > accessment of the incident.
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > "No one examining the evidence in the Odio matter can feel too
> > sanguine about the conclusion he reaches, yet I feel that the slight
> > preponderance of the evidence is that Oswald was, in fact, the American
> > among the three men who visited Odio. I say that for several reasons."
>
> > What? Several reasons? Read page 1309 of RH to find out more!
>
> I've already read it. As I said, if you were to actually read my post, all
> Bugliosi is doing is discussing both sides of the argument. By saying
> "slight preponderance of the evidence" he is NOT coming to any definitive
> conclusion.
>
> But kudos on posting a quote from his book that supports my statement.
He said it and you're denying it. That's what you're reduced
to. Not every decision one reaches comes with an overpowering sense
of finality, but people can, and do, come to decisions with less than
that. Happens that way most of the time. And that's what Bugliosi
has done here. Yes, we know, he did so after heavy deliberation. But
he still made the decision. Oswald was--in fact--the American at
Odio's door. His words. That part of the debate is over. But there
you go again: deny, deny deny . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How is this parroting what you've said? Because you have an
agenda, you focused on the fact that Bugliosi is not overwhelmed by
his decision that Oswald was at Odio's. Despite the fact that he made
that decision, because the evidence for it compelled him to do so, as
he explains clearly in RH.
You claim to love evidence soooooo much! You’re the evidence
guy! Yet the second it leads away from what you want to hear, you
deny it. And you STILL have not offered any explanation for the
comparatively low standard of other evidence which made it into the
WC, like Howard Brennan. You’re never going to, are you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You introduced a quote by Bugliosi in which he rules out the 26th
and 27th. I responded in part by agreeing with him on those two
days. You call that cherry-picking. Cherry-picking what???
If you want to argue with Kaiser, or any other CT who thinks Odio
happened in October, then you should seek them out. I doubt you’ll do
that though, because you seem to enjoy assigning a rigid set of
uniform beliefs to every CT. That speaks more to your desire for
control than anything else, but you would save yourself some typing if
you waited to hear what the other person actually thinks before you
react. In this case, I answered you last time. Odio happened on
either the 25th, or possibly, with some doing, the 24th.
It's worth noting that the Bugliosi quote you used to cast some
doubt on the 25th came on page 1307, while he's still deliberating.
His decision, that Oswald was "in fact" at Odio's comes after that, on
page 1309. He says it again on page 1312: "If, as I believe it
appears, Oswald did visit Odio with the two Cubans, what conclusion
should be drawn from this incident?"
How is it that you're still denying Bugliosi's opinion that
Oswald was at Odio's? It just looks weird at this point.
>
>
> > The Warren Report already sets a low standard for what kind of E-
> > V-I-D-E-N-C-E they will incorporate into their narrative, from Howard
> > Brennan to any discussion of Oswald's motive. Yet Odio is out of bounds.
> > That's a double standard that you have failed time and time again to
> > 'splain. You've also failed to 'splain how people like Wesley Liebler and
> > J. Lee Rankin believed Odio.
>
> > You've also failed to 'splain how it is possible that the WC and FBI
> > were unable to figure out who the 3 men at Odio's door were if Oswald was
> > NOT the American.
>
> Some information and leads don't always pan out in the course of criminal
> investigations, and in one of the opening paragraphs in the Odio section
> of Bugliosi's book he refers to this. If you don't understand this basic
> and well-known fact, not only do you not understand the fundamentals of
> human error, frailties, and shortcomings in general, you also don't
> understand how they apply to ALL criminal investigations.
>
> Tip: try educating yourself a bit further on this by referring to some
> more Bugliosi material, as he is a demonstrated expert in criminal
> investigations.
>
> Or, take a psychology 101 class.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey, you already complimented me on being a master of psycho-BS.
Are you saying you didn’t really mean it???
Bugliosi is a skillful lawyer in that he begins the Odio chapter
with an apology of sorts, the old “every case has unexplained gaps
that don’t really amount to a hill of beans” disclaimer. I feel he
does this to soften the reader up for what comes next, mainly an
admission that the best evidence puts Oswald at Odio’s door. And
maybe, just maybe, to cover up a tiny bit of embarrassment that he
couldn’t dismantle and shout down the Odio incident like he tries to
do with everything else.
I also feel that his disclaimer acted as a soothing balm which
prevented you from having to engage critically with the reality of the
Odio incident. Because you’re still denying that Bugliosi thinks it
happened. But by saying that every case has unexplained gaps in it,
Bugliosi is further supporting the idea that Odio happened. If he
didn’t believe Odio happened, he would have no reason to give the old
“some cases have unexplained gaps” line. Make sense? He’s trying to
lessen the damage.
By the way, I agree with the premise that criminal investigations
often have something freaky in them which can’t be explained. So you
don’t have to respond to this telling me I don’t.
In With Malice there’s a compelling and strange bit about a wallet
found at the Tippit scene which doesn’t match up to Oswald’s wallet in
the archives. Something like that, hey, who knows. Bugliosi’s
disclaimer applies.
But if you’re trying to lecture me on the imperfections of
criminal investigations, you should admit that it’s equally true—yes,
equally true—that many criminal cases have unexplained gaps which are
important to the outcome of the case. And just like the meaningless
ones, those gaps also come about as a result of “human error,
frailties, and shortcomings” on the part of those investigating.
Cases are reopened and people are set free all the time. It’s likely
that if more people in prison could afford better lawyers, we’d be
seeing even more of it. The Odio incident is *NOT* the only important
gap. It’s connected to others that we haven’t talked about. But
you’re still denying that Odio happened at all, so it’s been kinda
tough to move this thing forward with you.
>
>
> > > So why do you refer to Bugliosi's writing in your conspiracy- mongering?
> > > Are you simply not able to understand that Odio is *not* proof of an
> > > assassination plot.
> > > Better be careful -- as a devout CTer the fact that you use any part of
> > > Bugliosi's discussions to bolster your conspiracy argument is tricky. It
> > > begs the question of "if you truly agree with Bugliosi on one item you say
> > > proves a conspiracy, how do you explain your rejection of the LN
> > > conclusion of his book?" In other words, you are in effect agreeing with
> > > Bugliosi, therefore he must have the LN conclusion correct.
>
> > > Like Ricky says, you'd have some " 'splainin to do."
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Your notion that if
> > Bugliosi gets one thing right--in 4 billion pages--then his whole argument
> > must be right, is just silly.
>
> In your conspiracist mind-set, yes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then explain my mindset to me, because your answer makes zero
sense.
>
>
> > Bugliosi does represent a great leap forward in evolution for LNs
> > though. Until RH, no LN would dare to field the WC's punt on Odio. The
> > tried and true LN approach was to deny, deny, deny, like John still does.
> > The reason for that is clear. You might not, but John understands that
> > when a LN says, "I feel that the slight preponderance of the evidence is
> > that Oswald was, in fact, the American among the three men who visited
> > Odio," he is opening himself up for a whole lot 'splaining, none of which
> > LNs can do without entertaining conspiracy. So the wagons get circled
> > instead.
>
> > Bugliosi is to be applauded for having enough sense to acknowledge
> > what can't be denied. It's a baby step, because he quickly drops the ball
> > afterward, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day.
>
> So, your 'baby step" of possibly putting Oswald at Odio's door is proof of
> a conspiracy, and Bugliosi should have not "dropped the ball" by not
> exploring it like David Kaiser already has, only to come up empty like
> Kaiser? No way. Bugliosi, like the HSCA, already did explore it and came
> up with zero.
>
> All Bugliosi did is discuss the possibilities of both sides of the coin,
> and it still doesn't add up to any proof of a conspiracy in the killing of
> JFK.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve stated before that Odio is not the lone dramatic lynchpin
which proves conspiracy beyond a doubt. You like to gloss over this
because, I dunno, it makes you feel good to tell me what I believe?
The best chance of solving Odio vanished when the WC punted on
her. The true meaning of Odio is now an unknown. It’s *OK* to have
unknowns in the historical record. When the HSCA took on the Odio
incident 14 years had passed. You don’t have to be the criminal
investigation expert that you obviously are to understand that the
passage of 14 years will greatly harm one’s chances of solving any
case, be it Odio or a stolen bike.
For the HSCA, Fonzi said many times that the lack of a good
investigation in 63-64 was harmful to the case. In his book, he
talked about a surveillance operation in Florida that potentially
could’ve identified the Odio Cubans but was shut down by Blakey. No
guarantee it would’ve panned out, of course, but he was trying.
Because it was still important in the 70’s, and still is today.
The HSCA believed Odio despite being unable to solve it. So you
misrepresented the HSCA on Odio a little bit. It seems you
automatically deem any unresolved area of the case to be unimportant.
That equation doesn’t make sense. Does that view apply to everything
in life or just JFK?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those cities, especially New Orleans, are important only as they
relate to who Oswald was, and what he did while he lived in them. So
their respective level of right wing, anti-Castro activity compared to
any other city is not that important. There *were* plenty of anti-
Castro nutjobs in New Orleans, and Oswald had interactions with them.
The official explanations for some are lacking, and nonexistent for
others.
*Part* of the reason why those explanations are lacking is
because, somewhere in the New Orleans narrative, Oswald formed some
kind of friendship with Angelo and Leopoldo. That actually happened,
despite you wishing it away. And we still don’t know anything about
it.
In your last paragraph up there you struggled to present a
hypothetical conspiracy theory. Let me help: It’s not that Oswald
had any motive to go to Odio’s. Obviously, it was Leopoldo and Angelo
who had reason to see her, and they were driving. Oswald didn’t
drive.
In this hypothetical conspiracy, Oswald is not running the show.
He’s part of some kind of intelligence operation which involves
getting him to Mexico City, and then at least making an effort to get
into Cuba. Angelo and Leopoldo are taking him on the first leg of the
trip. Oswald didn’t have to have any idea why his two (call them)
handlers stopped at Odio’s. Much of the conversation was in Spanish
and he couldn’t follow anyway. Perhaps the Cubans were sheep-dipping
Oswald to embarrass JURE. Perhaps they really wanted to secure
support from Odio’s family and mistakenly thought they could do it
while Oswald was with them.
One thing is certain, no CT I ever heard of has ever claimed
that “any alleged Dallas meeting [at Odio’s] had anything to do with
any plan to assassinate JFK.” That’s a straw man.
> What I believe happened re the Odio extravaganza is simple: Oswald was
> nowhere NEAR Dallas on his way to Mexico City. The time lines and evidence
> shows there is an extremely slim chance of this alleged trip happening,
> and common sense asks "why the heck would Oswald back track all the way
> north to Dallas -- completely out of the way -- in such a hurried way on
> his way to Mexico from New Orleans?" Simply put, he had no REASON to
> travel to Dallas at that time, as I explained above, other than to see
> Marina, which we know he didn't.
>
> Oswald's most common sense action, given the evidence of the date of his
> last being in New Orleans to cash his unemployment check, and his phone
> call to Twiford in Houston, is that he traveled straight to Houston --
> straight west from New Orleans, the shortest way there.
>
> All conspiracists have in defending the Odio incident as fact -- and an
> old, worn out and over-used argument, I might add -- is lack of any solid
> proof of Oswald's whereabouts in a slim time frame of activity between New
> Orleans and Twiford and crossing the border. So, what do they do?
> Automatically fill in the hole with a conspiracy story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope, sorry, you left out some stuff. In addition to the time
where Oswald’s whereabouts are not known, there is also the rock solid
testimony of Silvia (and Annie) Odio, who met and viewed Oswald under
ideal conditions, and the documented fact that Silvia discussed the
visit before the assassination. All of it evidence that would’ve been
admissible at trial.
There’s also the fact--not an opinion, and not open for debate--
that Oswald could’ve made the Twiford call from anywhere, at any time
(if he made it at all), so it does not constrict the Odio timeline in
any way, shape, or form. John has had two opportunities so far to
explain how Twiford overrules or infringes on Odio and has not been
able to do it. If you can, I'm all ears.
There’s also a couple of arguments which buttress Odio (but are
not necessary to it), arguments that you are not able to answer:
1) Is it credible that the FBI and WC--provided they were seriously
trying, which is a maybe--would never be able to find Leopoldo and
Angelo? If so, please explain how.
2) Is it credible that the FBI and WC would never be able to find all
three men, if Oswald was not the American? Wouldn’t that have been
*easier* to do?
It’s one thing for the HSCA to believe Odio. But the fact that
Bugliosi begrudgingly believes it, as well as key WC people, really
stands as a testament to how strong the Odio E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E is. As
far as I know, Wesley Liebler never turned CT, but he still had sense
enough to say: “There are problems. Odio may well be right. The
Commission will look bad if it turns out that she is. There is no need
to look foolish by grasping at straws to avoid admitting that there is
a problem.”
That’s the first step to recovery, my man. You have to admit you
have a problem!
yeuhd
> "yeuhd" <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b6984bfd-c156-466e...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 4, 12:29 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > The "Twiford" phone call was made in LATE OCTOBER !
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> Interesting that you failed to include these two affidavits that say
> the call occurred in late September:
>
>
> By Golly ! ! !
>
> You just described "REASONABLE DOUBT" ! ! !
Explain what you mean by "reasonable doubt". Explain it now.
You still haven't explained why you left out those two affidavits.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a910fbe-ae35-4a3b...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
> The "Twiford" phone call was made in LATE OCTOBER !
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
You STILL haven't explained why you omitted these two affidavits,
which say the phone call was made in late September:
tomnln
I produced enough "Official" Records to Prove you side LIED ! ! !
yeuhd
> I produced enough "Official" Records to Prove you side LIED ! ! !
No, you produced "a" record. Not "records". And it was a report of an
interview with one person. It contained no quotations and was not
signed by the subject. In other words, it is hearsay.
The other two documents you refused to acknowledge — signed affidavits
by the Twifords — say that the call occurred in late September, not
in October.
tomnln
On Nov 9, 10:08 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> I produced enough "Official" Records to Prove you side LIED ! ! !
No, you produced "a" record. Not "records". And it was a report of an
interview with one person. It contained no quotations and was not signed
by the subject. In other words, it is hearsay.
The other two documents you refused to acknowledge ? signed affidavits by
the Twifords ? say that the call occurred in late September, not in
October.
Your position is NOT very stable when yoy keep SNIPPING my citations.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm