Top Ten Strawmen in JFK Assassination
Dave Reitzes
not take them seriously enough. Rarely does one hear CTs blame themselves
for this, however, even when they vocally parrot theories and "evidence"
that was discredited long ago.
The following are some examples of issues that I consider strawmen in this
case -- issues that serve only to divert researchers from the real issues
and alienate us from the mainstream -- listed roughly in the order of
least to most problematic, i.e., from most to least widely discredited.
(I'm omitting a couple of almost universally discredited items from the
list, such as the "Oswald in the doorway" issue.)
Top Ten Strawmen in the JFK Assassination Case
10. "Mannlicher or Mauser?"
The Alyea film proves it was a Mannlicher.
9. "Ruby couldn't tell the truth in Dallas."
Translation: "I'm too lazy to read Ruby's testimony."
http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Kennedy/WCH/ruby_j1.html
http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Kennedy/WCH/ruby_j2.html
8. "Oswald didn't own a rifle."
Right -- and the Tooth Fairy faked all the evidence and convinced numerous
witnesses -- even George De Mohrenschildt -- to lie about it.
7. "The backyard photos are fake."
Several witnesses saw them well before the assassination.
6. "What about all those mysterious deaths?"
There are a few genuinely mysterious deaths; I've posted about at least
one. But the "mysterious deaths" lists are a total crock, consisting
almost exclusively of people with no connection to the assassination
whatsoever -- usually friends of witnesses or even friends of friends of
witnesses. Anybody need a repost?
5. "Oswald didn't kill Tippit."
Yes, he did. Read Dale Myers' *With Malice.* If early Warren Report
critiques had been as lame and desperate as the current "critiques" of
Myers' book, the assassination case would have been dead as a doornail in
1965.
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/myers.html
Numerous eyewitnesses also saw Oswald try to shoot the first police
officer that approached him in the Texas Theatre.
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/mcdonald.html
Any Oswald advocates care to explain that?
4. "Oswald never fired a shot!"
Read *First Day Evidence.* Read the DPD and FBI interviews in Larry
Sneed's *No More Silence.* Such books give us what the prosecution would
have had to provide at trial -- rebuttal witnesses to address the issues
brought up by the critics. The case for Oswald as a shooter turns out to
be far more compelling than even the Warren Commission knew. (Some
reactionaries will doubtless consider this an anti-conspiracy argument.
Pardon me if I refrain from responding to such posts.)
3. Crackpot witnesses
Here's a tentative list of the top ten crackpot witnesses. If you use any
of the following people to prove a case for conspiracy, you might as well
tattoo the words, "Don't take me seriously" on your forehead:
Dean Andrews
Gordon Arnold
Roger Craig
John Elrod
Jack Martin
Robert Morrow
Richard Case Nagell
Beverly Oliver
Delphine Roberts
Ricky Don White
I can hear the howls of protest already. Anybody care to debate the
evidence? I didn't think so. There are many more such "witnesses," but I'm
trying to restrict myself to those I see cited on the newsgroups with
relative frequency.
2. "Big Jim must have had something"
Do you believe that anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination?
Do you believe the CIA had a motive to kill JFK? Do you believe that David
Ferrie and Guy Banister were "suspicious"? I used to believe all of these
things, and I eventually realized that Big Jim made all of it up, even
fabricating whole pages of his memoirs out of thin air to justify his
groundless theories. For a number of examples, see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ripples.htm
And the Number One Strawman in the JFK Assassination Case . . .
Well, let's see if anybody wants to talk about these nine first. \:^)
Dave
Check out my Web site:
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
--
John McAdams
>
> Conspiracy-oriented researchers often complain that the mainstream does
> not take them seriously enough. Rarely does one hear CTs blame themselves
> for this, however, even when they vocally parrot theories and "evidence"
> that was discredited long ago.
>
> The following are some examples of issues that I consider strawmen in this
> case -- issues that serve only to divert researchers from the real issues
> and alienate us from the mainstream -- listed roughly in the order of
> least to most problematic, i.e., from most to least widely discredited.
> (I'm omitting a couple of almost universally discredited items from the
> list, such as the "Oswald in the doorway" issue.)
>
> Top Ten Strawmen in the JFK Assassination Case
>
[snipping]
>
> 6. "What about all those mysterious deaths?"
>
> There are a few genuinely mysterious deaths; I've posted about at least
> one. But the "mysterious deaths" lists are a total crock, consisting
> almost exclusively of people with no connection to the assassination
> whatsoever -- usually friends of witnesses or even friends of friends of
> witnesses. Anybody need a repost?
>
Maybe a repost would be good, since I don't remember what you've written
on this. Forgive me :-).
I do remember you having written on Cheramie.
My own page on this subject is here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm
And I would like to know which you consider "genuinely mysterious." Not
that I necessarily would deny that such a thing exists, but I do know
that the closer you look at any of these deaths, the less "mysterious"
it seems.
At least, that's been my experience so far.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
John McAdams
>
> Conspiracy-oriented researchers often complain that the mainstream does
> not take them seriously enough. Rarely does one hear CTs blame themselves
> for this, however, even when they vocally parrot theories and "evidence"
> that was discredited long ago.
>
All the smarter conspiracists understand this too. For example:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shannon.htm
http://www.redacted.com/enemy.htm
Although I hesitate a bit to include Adams, given his support for the
LaFontaines.
Dave Reitzes
>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
>> 6. "What about all those mysterious deaths?"
>>
>> There are a few genuinely mysterious deaths; I've posted about at least
>> one. But the "mysterious deaths" lists are a total crock, consisting
>> almost exclusively of people with no connection to the assassination
>> whatsoever -- usually friends of witnesses or even friends of friends of
>> witnesses. Anybody need a repost?
>>
>
>Maybe a repost would be good, since I don't remember what you've written
>on this. Forgive me :-).
Mostly pointers towards info on your site, which I don't suppose you'll
protest. \:^)
>I do remember you having written on Cheramie.
I've recently drawn up some preliminary conclusions on Cherami that will
be printed in the upcoming April issue of Walt Brown's *JFK/DPQ.* I omit
discussion of her death, which I feel was adequately investigated by the
local authorities in 1965. Anyone can get the records as part of Jim
Garrison's Cheramie file at NARA.
>My own page on this subject is here:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm
>
>And I would like to know which you consider "genuinely mysterious." Not
>that I necessarily would deny that such a thing exists, but I do know
>that the closer you look at any of these deaths, the less "mysterious"
>it seems.
>
>At least, that's been my experience so far.
>
>.John
Here's a repost, but first I'll cut to the chase:
One possibly mysterious death would be that of William Bruce Pitzer, who
worked at Bethesda Naval Hospital and allegedly committed suicide. A
friend of his, Dennis David, claims Pitzer had in his possession a motion
picture of John F. Kennedy's autopsy, an item not known to exist outside
of David's story.
Truth to tell, the more information that emerges about Pitzer's death --
thanks largely to the efforts of Allan R.J. Eaglesham and Harrison
Livingstone -- the less mysterious it seems to me. I recommend Eaglesham's
three excellent articles on the Pitzer case in Walt Brown's *JFK/Deep
Politics Quarterly* over the last couple of years. For info on *JFK/DPQ,*
please see:
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/angelic/96/jfkdpq.htm
Or e-mail: jfk...@aol.com
For the record, as I told Allan Eaglesham a while back, I suspect that
Dennis David is making up the story about the autopsy footage to motivate
some investigation into the death of his friend. Nevertheless, I support
research into Pitzer's death. If -- *if* -- Dennis David is telling the
truth, it would be of enormous significance.
Dave
Repost time, working from Sylvia Meagher's list of the "mysterious deaths"
in the three years following the assassination (*Accessories After the
Fact,* 298-300).
"Mysterious death" #1: Warren Reynolds
"Witnessed escape of Tippit killer . . . Shot in head (recovered) . . .
January 1964."
So the first person on the list didn't even DIE. He's included on
Meagher's list for "statistical purposes."
I'm afraid I have to go with what Wesley Liebeler once said about the
matter, though the person he was discussing it with scored a point or two
as well:
Mr. LIEBELER. Did Reynolds tell you that he thought there was some
connection between the attack on him and Oswald killing Tippit?
General WALKER. We discussed that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that he thought there was a
connection between the two?
General WALKER. He seemed to think there might be.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think there is?
General WALKER. Yes; I do.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any evidence to indicate that there is?
General WALKER. I think there is a definite--I don't know that you could
call it evidence but you can anticipate that people would like to shut up
anybody that knows anything about this case. People right here in Dallas.
And I don't think anybody knows or would have known at the time after
November 22 how much or how little Warren Reynolds knew.
Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, he doesn't know very much, does he?
General WALKER. He would become a very good example, regardless of
what he knew, to let everybody know that they better keep their mouths
shut.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, wouldn't it be fair to say that that is
pure speculation on your part?
General WALKER. Yes, but everything is speculation until you prove
it or disprove it (11 H 419).
So at any rate, that would seem to be the best theory as to why the
conspirators would take a shot at Warren Reynolds. Are we all agreed on
that?
Moving right along . . .
"Mysterious death" #2: Betty Mooney MacDonald "Ex-Ruby entertainer;
alibied suspect in the Reynolds shooting . . . February 1964."
So this now is the woman who was dating the guy who was arrested as a
suspect in the shooting of Warren Reynolds. General Walker discussed this
with Mr. Liebeler as well. I don't see any need to go into it in any
detail. If this sordid little melodrama had anything to do with the
assassination, no one's ever advanced any evidence whatsoever.
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death15
"Mysterious death" #3: Eddy Benavides
"Brother of eyewitness to Tippit shooting . . . Shot in back of head . . .
February 1964."
The BROTHER of an eyewitness to the TIPPIT shooting?
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death1
"Mysterious death" #4: Hank Killam
"Husband of Ruby employee; friend of fellow-roomer of Oswald's . . .
Throat cut. . . March 1964."
The HUSBAND of a Ruby employee AND a FRIEND of a FELLOW-ROOMER of
Oswald's! How on Earth did the conspiracy let this guy live a whole FIVE
MONTHS after the assassination?
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death12
General Walker's "very good example" theory would seem to be the only one
even remotely plausible thus far. Anyone disagree? If so, please be sure
to tell us all what "dangerous knowledge" Hank Killam possessed, and how
exactly he got whacked while his wife (the Ruby employee) and friend (the
ex-fellow-roomer of Oswald) somehow survived.
"Mysterious death" #5: Bill Chesher
"Believed to have information about a Ruby/Oswald link . . . Heart attack
. . . March 1964."
Okay, well, we're getting somewhere, I suppose. I wrote about Chesher
once. I said, "A December 11, 1963, DPD report signed by Detective S. W.
Biggio states that Oswald reportedly had been seen driving Jack Ruby's car
on several occasions. The source is an acquaintance of . . . [a] mechanic
who'd worked on Ruby's car, William J. Chesher, who Detectives Biggio and
Stringfellow attempted to contact -- apparently for the first time -- on
April 2, 1964. Their April 3 report states that Chesher had indicated
(presumably to the police's informant) that Oswald 'had been driving Jack
Ruby's automobile for approximately two months and that he (the mechanic)
knew this because Oswald had brought Ruby's car to his garage for
repairs." Unfortunately, 'the officers were informed that subject
[Chesher] had died on March 31, 1964, of a heart attack.'"
So here's someone who, hearsay had it, had believed that Oswald had been
driving Ruby's car. I have to wonder if this fellow couldn't be thinking
of Larry Crafard, but at any rate, he died before anyone questioned him.
So the question is going to be the one I'm going to ask about a lot of
these people: If Chesher had any dangerous knowledge, how come he was
allowed to live with that knowledge as long as he did?
The Congressional Research Service was unable to turn up any more evidence
on Chesher's "mysterious death":
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death5
"Mysterious death" #6: Bill Hunter
"Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment 11/24/63 . . . Gunshot wound . . .
April 23, 1964."
John McAdams has archived a fairly lengthy account I posted a little while
back about Bill Hunter and others, from Bill Sloan's *Breaking the
Silence*:
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death11.htm
Jim Koethe took some notes at Ruby's apartment, but didn't think the visit
worth writing about for the *Times Herald.* He told some colleagues there,
"It was just a dumpy apartment." Contrary to some published accounts, Gus
Rose and two other DPD officers had searched the apartment shortly before
Koethe and the others arrived, so it's doubtful any explosive evidence was
lying around.
Bill Hunter went back to the West Coast, then came back to Dallas to cover
the Ruby trial the following year for the *Long Beach Press-Telegram.* Six
weeks later he died in Long Beach. Bill Sloan writes:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At approximately 2 AM on the morning of April 23, 1964, Hunter was sitting
at his desk in the press room of the Long Beach police station and reading
a mystery novel entitled *Stop This Man,* when two detectives -- both of
whom were later described as "friends" of Hunter -- came into the room.
Initially, there was considerable confusion over exactly what happened
next. One officer was first quoted as saying he dropped his gun, causing
it to discharge as it struck the floor. Later, he changed his story to say
that he and the other detective were engaged in "horseplay" with their
loaded weapons when the tragedy occurred.
Whatever the case, a single shot suddenly rang out, striking Hunter where
he sat. An autopsy later showed that the .38-caliber bullet plowed
straight through Hunter's heart.
He died instantly, without ever moving or saying a word.
"My boss called me at 2 AM and told me Bill Hunter had been shot," Bill
Shelton recalls. "He wasn't satisfied with the story that the cop had
dropped his gun, and as it turned out, that wasn't what happened at all."
The newspaper charged police with covering up the facts in the case, which
Long Beach Police Chief William Mooney vigorously denied. Detectives
Creighton Wiggins, Jr., and Errol F. Greenleaf were relieved of their
duties and subsequently charged with involuntary manslaughter. In January
1965, both were convicted and given identical three-year probated
sentences.
Two weeks after the shooting, in a letter of resignation to his chief,
Detective Wiggins wrote: "It is a tragic thing that this must come about
in this manner, for I have lost a wonderful friend in Bill Hunter and so
have all the police officers of the department . . . he was truly the
policeman's friend."
. . . While Hunter's death made sensational headlines in California, it
was scarcely noted 2,000 miles away in Dallas. Jim Koethe surely mourned
his friend, but if he connected Hunter's death in any way with their visit
to Ruby's apartment five months earlier, he didn't mention it to any of
his acquaintances at the *Times Herald.*
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
Five months later, on September 21, 1964, Jim Koethe didn't show up for
work at the *Dallas Time Herald.* Later, police would find him in his
apartment, lying dead on his bedroom floor, wrapped in a blanket. The
Dallas County coroner ruled that Koethe had died the previous Saturday,
his neck broken by a blow to the throat. Sloan: "Homicide Detectives
Charles Dhority and E. R. Beck described the apartment as being in
disarray. There were signs of a scuffle, they said, and several items,
including two rifles, a pistol, and Koethe's wristwatch, were unaccounted
for." Koethe's car was also missing; it was found parked several blocks
away; no fingerprints could be found. Neither the police nor Koethe's
friends on the *Times Herald* staff had any luck tracking down a suspect.
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Several months later, an ex-convict named Larry Earl Reno was linked to
the Koethe killing after being arrested in an unrelated incident. One of
Koethe's guns had reportedly been found in the man's possession, and he
had no alibi for the time period in which Koethe had been killed.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reportedly, however, Koethe's relatives were urging state officials to
drop the case; a friend of Koethe's learned from a contact in the DA's
office that there were homosexual undertones to the murder that the family
did not want brought out. The evidence against Reno was never more than
circumstantial anyway, and the grand jury did not return an indictment. He
was arrested again in 1965 and convicted with the robbery and attempted
murder of an Oak Cliff hotel clerk. Koethe's death is still listed as an
unsolved crime.
Some also see a sinister hand behind Tom Howard's death in 1965. Howard
died of a heart attack well over a year after being dropped from Jack
Ruby's defense team. (Source: Bill Sloan, *Breaking the Silence,* pp.
69-83)
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death9
Who's next?
"Mysterious death" #7: Teresa Norton, aka Karen Lynn Bennett Carlin
"Dancer employed by Ruby . . . Shot to death in motel . . . August 1964."
We're skipping this one, folks. No one has yet proven that Mrs. Carlin is
even dead. No death certificate has ever been found, and if she died in
August 1964, it must have been awfully soon after testifying for the
Warren Commission on August 24, 1964. No one even seems to know where
Meagher got the information that Carlin ever used the name "Teresa
Norton."
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death16
And there's a short section in Harrison Livingstone's *High Treason 2*
about Carlin's alleged death. Also see below for some more relevant links.
"Mysterious death" #8: Jim Koethe
"Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment 11/24/63 with Hunter . . . Karate
chop to neck . . . September 21, '64."
See above, and also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death13
"Mysterious death" #9: Tom Howard
"One of Ruby's lawyers, was in police basement just before Oswald was shot . .
. Heart attack . . . March 27, 1965."
Again, if Howard had any dangerous knowledge, it's a miracle he lived as
long as he did, isn't it?
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death8
"Mysterious death" #10: William Whaley
"Taxi-driver who took Oswald to Oak Cliff . . . Motor vehicle accident . . .
December 1965."
Here we go again. A guy of no significance whatsoever, who lived over two
full years after the assassination.
For more on Whaley's "mysterious" death, please see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death7.htm
Unless you believe General Walker's "very good example" theory, you're
going to have your work cut out for you explaining what good these deaths
could have done any conspirators.
"Mysterious death" #11: David Goldstein
WHO?
"Helped FBI trace revolver used to shoot Tippit . . . Natural causes . . .
1965."
Oh, that's a gem, ain't it? John McAdams' Web site notes, "Every gunshop
owner in Dallas, including Goldstein, provided [an] affidavit saying he
did not sell Oswald pistol." Goldstein was simply one of many.
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death7
Next . . .
"Mysterious death" #12: Earlene Roberts
"Housekeeper, rooming house where Oswald lived . . . Heart attack . . .
January 9, 1966."
Well, considering that the only "mysterious" thing Roberts ever said (the
honking police car) has been debunked by Dale Myers, Roberts' age at the
time of her death, and the fact that she didn't die until 1966, I think we
can skip to the next one.
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death17
"Mysterious death" #13: Lee Bowers, Jr.
"Eyewitness [sic] to the assassination . . . Motor vehicle accident . . .
August 9, 1966."
Dave Perry examined it in detail, and one can read Perry's article on the
subject at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt
The bottom line is that Bowers' family has never considered Lee's death
mysterious.
"Mysterious death" #14: Marilyn Moone Walle ("Delilah")
"Dancer employed by Ruby 11/22/63 . . . Shot by husband after one month of
marriage . . . September 1, '66."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death6.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death19
Gosh -- a stripper getting shot. And only three years after the
assassination. Next . . .
"Mysterious death" #15: Levens (first name unknown) [!]
"Operator of Fort Worth strip joint, employed some Ruby entertainers . . .
Natural causes . . . November 5, '66."
There's another classic. Boy, I'll bet Ruby's competitors took all kinds of
dirty secrets to the grave. Next . . .
"Mysterious death" #16: James Worrell, Jr.
"Eyewitness to assassination; saw man escape from Book Depository . . . Motor
vehicle accident . . . November 5, '66."
Reposted from http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death8.htm:
DALLAS MORNING NEWS
NOVEMBER 6, 1966, P. A-11.
TWO KILLED IN A CRASH
---------------------
A man and woman in their 20's became Dallas' 115th and 116th
traffic fatalities of the year Saturday when they were killed in a
motorcycle accident shortly before 2:30 p.m. in the 2100 block of Gus
Thomasson.
Dead in arrival at Parkland Hospital was James R. Worrell Jr.,
23, of 13510 Winterhaven, Farmers Branch, operator of the motorcycle.
His passenger, Lee Hudgins, 22, of 9756 Skyview, died shortly
after arrival at Parkland.
Both suffered severe head and internal injuries.
Accident investigator J.N. Feinglass said Worrell was heading
north on Gus Thomasson in East Dallas when he apparently lost control
of the motorcycle, a 1965 Honda. It struck the median curb, jumped
the median, and overturned in the southbound traffic lane. Worrell
was thrown against the curbing.
Miss Hudgins was thrown into the front of a stopped car in the
southbound lane driven by H.E. Cooper, of 14229 Marsha Lane, Mesquite.
He was uninjured.
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death21
In other words, big deal.
"Mysterious death" #17: Harold Russell
"Witnesses escape of Tippit killer . . . Killed by a policeman in brawl in bar
. . . February 1967."
The guy who saw Tippit's murderer flee from a distance lives some three
and a half years on borrowed time. Brilliant theory.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death18
And finally (on Meagher's 1967 list) . . .
"Mysterious death" #18: David Ferrie
"Alleged acquaintance of Oswald's and alleged assassination suspect . . .
Apparent suicide . . . February 22, '67."
What does the actual coroner's report (as posted by David Blackburst) say?
Autopsy Protocol W67-2-255:
"Classification of Death: Natural"
Certificate of Death 670001526:
"Classified by Coroner as a natural death"
1976 Certified copy of Coroner's record, Frank Minyard M.D., Coroner, Louis
Ivon, Administrator:
"Describe how injury occurred...Natural"
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death1.txt
Ferrie died of a ruptured berry aneurysm that had been developing for
quite some time. Jim Garrison himself told Richard Billings that Ferrie
was a sick man. Ferrie had even told several friends of his that he was
dying, which helps explain the two separate notes that Garrison called
"suicide notes," but which do not read like suicide notes:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death10.htm
No one can produce a shred of evidence linking Ferrie to the
assassination. The endlessly rehashed speculation is getting embarrassing.
How many of these deaths are really "mysterious"?
Well, if you ask me, just one: that of Karen Carlin, whose death has been
reported on two different dates, in two different cities (Penn Jones
listed it in a different city on a different date), under two different
names, but without even proof of ONE death ever surfacing. That's
certainly mysterious -- mysterious enough for some to accuse Penn Jones of
fabricating the story for Carlin's protection. See David Perry's articles
on the subject at:
http://www.flash.net/~dperry2/foolme.htm
http://www.flash.net/~dperry2/followup.htm
Some folks who didn't make Meagher's list include Albert Guy Bogard:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death2
Bogard was the automobile salesman who claimed that Oswald had been a
prospective customer of his and took a car for a test-drive.
Dorothy Kilgallen:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm#death11
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kilgallen.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death4.htm
William Bruce Pitzer:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/marvin.htm
Pitzer worked at Bethesda Naval Hospital and apparently committed suicide.
A friend of his, Dennis David, claims Pitzer had in his possession a
motion picture of John F. Kennedy's autopsy, an item not known to exist
outside of David's story.
In my opinion, Pitzer's death may be the one and only genuinely mysterious
death of them all, but the more information that emerges about it --
thanks largely to the efforts of Allan R.J. Eaglesham and Harrison
Livingstone -- admittedly, the less mysterious it seems (IMO). See
Eaglesham's three excellent articles on the Pitzer case in recent issues
of Walt Brown's *JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly.* For info on *JFK/DPQ,*
please see:
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/angelic/96/jfkdpq.htm
Or e-mail: jfk...@aol.com
Last but not least, there is the matter of Rose Cherami (correct spelling
-- no "E" at the end), who died in 1965. She was not on Meagher's 1967
list, as it was only later in 1967 that Cheramie's story was first
publicized by the Orleans Parish DA's office. I've written a brief
overview of the Cherami story for the upcoming April issue of *JFK/DPQ.*
Finally, of course, there are the deaths of Lee Harvey Oswald and J. D.
Tippit, which are the subjects of numerous other threads, and the death of
Jack Ruby in early 1967, which was a result of cancer. Gary Mack has
posted about Ruby's death in response to Jim Marrs' "cancer injection"
theory.
Dave Reitzes
Dave Reitzes
>
>although i am tempted to ignore trolls such as this, for the sake of the
>newbie it
>seems valid to define a context.
Translation: "I will smear anyone with whom I disagree as a troll, thus
evading any discussion of actual issues or evidence."
it is unfortunate that there isn't an
>alt.nonconspiracy.jfk newsgroup, where a post like this would fit well.
>
>imo there is no credible evidence that lho was at the 6th floor window during
>the
>shooting,
So it's just a coincidence that a rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald was
found on the sixth floor of Oswald's workplace with Oswald's fingerprints
on it?
Have you read *First Day Evidence,* Pam? A simple yes or no will suffice.
>or that he even had a motive to shoot president kennedy.
What was his motive for bringing his rifle to work and *not* shooting
anybody, Pam? I'll never understand this belief that motive is somehow an
LN issue.
those
>ln'ers
>who are comfortable tagging him as the 'lone assassin'
No one's doing that but you, Pam. So let's call this Strawman #11 --
implying that any suggestion of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt is tantamount to
arguing against the possibility of conspiracy. Exactly the sort of
attitude that has made conspiracy-oriented researchers a joke in the eyes
of the mainstream.
are by inference also
>comfortable attempting to destroy the character of an ex-marine,
Who shot a police officer and attempted to shoot another.
"Snip, snip, snip" go the facts that Pam doesn't like . . .
the fact
>that this
>case never came to trial (because lho was murdered) and the fact that the
>entire
>warren commission report was skewed only to show his guilt, even though he
>proclaimed his innocence to his last breath.
Tell that to J. D. Tippit.
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/myers.html
>Or Nick McDonald.
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/mcdonald.html
I'd challenge Pam to refute the evidence point by point, but that joke's
getting old. If Pam could do so, she would have done it in this post
instead of engaging in hollow rhetoric and pointless spleen-venting.
Some example for all those newbies of yours, Pam.
>so, is presenting lho as the 'lone assassin' the one real strawman of this
>discussion?
>
>pamela
You tell me, Pam -- you're the one who brought it up.
Dave
Reposting all that evil stuff Pam snipped . . .
Top Ten Strawmen in the JFK Assassination Case
Conspiracy-oriented researchers often complain that the mainstream does
not take them seriously enough. Rarely does one hear CTs blame themselves
for this, however, even when they vocally parrot theories and "evidence"
that was discredited long ago.
The following are some examples of issues that I consider strawmen in this
case -- issues that serve only to divert researchers from the real issues
and alienate us from the mainstream -- listed roughly in the order of
least to most problematic, i.e., from most to least widely discredited.
(I'm omitting a couple of almost universally discredited items from the
list, such as the "Oswald in the doorway" issue.)
Top Ten Strawmen in the JFK Assassination Case
10. "Mannlicher or Mauser?"
The Alyea film proves it was a Mannlicher.
9. "Ruby couldn't tell the truth in Dallas."
Translation: "I'm too lazy to read Ruby's testimony."
http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Kennedy/WCH/ruby_j1.html
http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Kennedy/WCH/ruby_j2.html
8. "Oswald didn't own a rifle."
Right -- and the Tooth Fairy faked all the evidence and convinced numerous
witnesses -- even George De Mohrenschildt -- to lie about it.
7. "The backyard photos are fake."
Several witnesses saw them well before the assassination.
6. "What about all those mysterious deaths?"
There are a few genuinely mysterious deaths; I've posted about at least
one. But the "mysterious deaths" lists are a total crock, consisting
almost exclusively of people with no connection to the assassination
whatsoever -- usually friends of witnesses or even friends of friends of
witnesses. Anybody need a repost?
5. "Oswald didn't kill Tippit."
Yes, he did. Read Dale Myers' *With Malice.* If early Warren Report
critiques had been as lame and desperate as the current "critiques" of
Myers' book, the assassination case would have been dead as a doornail in
1965.
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/myers.html
Numerous eyewitnesses also saw Oswald try to shoot the first police
officer that approached him in the Texas Theatre.
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/mcdonald.html
Any Oswald advocates care to explain that?
4. "Oswald never fired a shot!"
Read *First Day Evidence.* Read the DPD and FBI interviews in Larry
Sneed's *No More Silence.* Such books give us what the prosecution would
have had to provide at trial -- rebuttal witnesses to address the issues
brought up by the critics. The case for Oswald as a shooter turns out to
be far more compelling than even the Warren Commission knew. (Some
reactionaries will doubtless consider this an anti-conspiracy argument.
Pardon me if I refrain from responding to such posts. [Likewise, try to
pardon me if I respond.])
3. Crackpot witnesses
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ripples.htm
Dave
P.S. We have to squeeze the Walker shooting in there somewhere.
--
Llliibb
Your profession requires some familiarity with statistical analysis. My
total knowledge of the subject is "small number bias." Posner the
Inerrant in Appendix B allows for a total of 48 "unnatrual" deaths between
1963 and 1977. Curiously(?), vehicular deaths were 60% of the total in
1965 [3 of 5], 40% in 1966 [2 of 5], 25% in 1967 [1 of 4]. No vehicular
deaths prior to 1965 and after 1968 through 1977. Is this within norm?
Bill B
>Subject: Re: Top Ten Strawmen in JFK Assassination
>From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>Date: 3/12/00 1:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <38CB33...@mu.edu>
>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
>>
>> Conspiracy-oriented researchers often complain that the mainstream does
>> not take them seriously enough. Rarely does one hear CTs blame themselves
>> for this, however, even when they vocally parrot theories and "evidence"
>> that was discredited long ago.
>>
>> The following are some examples of issues that I consider strawmen in this
>> case -- issues that serve only to divert researchers from the real issues
>> and alienate us from the mainstream -- listed roughly in the order of
>> least to most problematic, i.e., from most to least widely discredited.
>> (I'm omitting a couple of almost universally discredited items from the
>> list, such as the "Oswald in the doorway" issue.)
>>
>> Top Ten Strawmen in the JFK Assassination Case
>>
>
>[snipping]
>
>
>>
>> 6. "What about all those mysterious deaths?"
>>
>> There are a few genuinely mysterious deaths; I've posted about at least
>> one. But the "mysterious deaths" lists are a total crock, consisting
>> almost exclusively of people with no connection to the assassination
>> whatsoever -- usually friends of witnesses or even friends of friends of
>> witnesses. Anybody need a repost?
>>
>
>Maybe a repost would be good, since I don't remember what you've written
>on this. Forgive me :-).
>
>I do remember you having written on Cheramie.
>
>My own page on this subject is here:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm
>
>And I would like to know which you consider "genuinely mysterious." Not
>that I necessarily would deny that such a thing exists, but I do know
>that the closer you look at any of these deaths, the less "mysterious"
>it seems.
>
>At least, that's been my experience so far.
>
>.John
>--
>Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jaykhill
>>
****
One of the supposed "mysterious deaths"on that list is Kenneth
O'Donnell, one of the original Irish Mafia, a close advisor/friend of JFKs
since the first run for Congress.
Of course, Kenny died of heart trouble complicated by liver involvement.
Petra, his widown, will tell you so. She is was the aerobics instructor
for a friend of mine, who was shocked to find O'Donnell's name on the
mysterious list.
My friend is an actuary, also believes in conspiracy to murder JFK.
But they both find Kenny's name on a mystery list absurd.
John in VA
--
Jaykhill
>deaths prior to 1965 and after 1968 through 1977.
*****
Lessee, Bill B: That was about the time the U.S. auto industry hit it's
stride with 409s, 434s, what were some of those other big powerful
cars'and before seat belts were mandatory in many states; and before gas
lines began to reduce horsepower on American cars.
Those years from 65 through 77 were pretty dangerous times to be on
the road, methinks.
John in vA
--
John McAdams
>
> Conspiracy-oriented researchers often complain that the mainstream does
> not take them seriously enough. Rarely does one hear CTs blame themselves
> for this, however, even when they vocally parrot theories and "evidence"
> that was discredited long ago.
>
> The following are some examples of issues that I consider strawmen in this
> case -- issues that serve only to divert researchers from the real issues
> and alienate us from the mainstream -- listed roughly in the order of
> least to most problematic, i.e., from most to least widely discredited.
> (I'm omitting a couple of almost universally discredited items from the
> list, such as the "Oswald in the doorway" issue.)
>
> Top Ten Strawmen in the JFK Assassination Case
>
[snipping]
>
> And the Number One Strawman in the JFK Assassination Case . . .
>
I know it's your list, but I'll give you mind: "the bullet would have
had to zig and zag in midair to hit both Kennedy and Connally."
John McAdams
>
> John--
>
> Your profession requires some familiarity with statistical analysis. My
> total knowledge of the subject is "small number bias." Posner the
> Inerrant in Appendix B allows for a total of 48 "unnatrual" deaths between
> 1963 and 1977. Curiously(?), vehicular deaths were 60% of the total in
> deaths prior to 1965 and after 1968 through 1977. Is this within norm?
>
The standard error of a proportion is very large indeed with numbers so
small. Thus there is no way this could be "statistically significant"
-- meaning that it's quite likely that a difference this big happened by
change.
Then you might ask this: is it reasonable to believe that the Evil
Minions of The Conspiracy were killing people with automobiles during
the first coupld of years after the assassination, and then developed
better technologies and didn't need to do that any more?
John McAdams
>
> Conspiracy-oriented researchers often complain that the mainstream does
> not take them seriously enough. Rarely does one hear CTs blame themselves
> for this, however, even when they vocally parrot theories and "evidence"
> that was discredited long ago.
>
> The following are some examples of issues that I consider strawmen in this
> case -- issues that serve only to divert researchers from the real issues
> and alienate us from the mainstream -- listed roughly in the order of
> least to most problematic, i.e., from most to least widely discredited.
> (I'm omitting a couple of almost universally discredited items from the
> list, such as the "Oswald in the doorway" issue.)
>
> Top Ten Strawmen in the JFK Assassination Case
>
[snipping]
>
> 3. Crackpot witnesses
>
> Here's a tentative list of the top ten crackpot witnesses. If you use any
> of the following people to prove a case for conspiracy, you might as well
> tattoo the words, "Don't take me seriously" on your forehead:
>
> Dean Andrews
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/andrews.txt
> Gordon Arnold
I really need a page on him.
> Roger Craig
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm
> John Elrod
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf.htm
> Jack Martin
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm#jackmartin
> Robert Morrow
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morrow.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morrow2.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cowtown.txt
> Richard Case Nagell
I could certainly use a good debunking essay on him :-).
> Beverly Oliver
A page on her is long overdue on my site.
> Delphine Roberts
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/delphine.txt
> Ricky Don White
>
Apparently not even Marrs believes him!
http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/1990/dec/mandarin.1.html
http://www.flash.net/~dperry2/roscoew.htm
> I can hear the howls of protest already. Anybody care to debate the
> evidence? I didn't think so. There are many more such "witnesses," but I'm
> trying to restrict myself to those I see cited on the newsgroups with
> relative frequency.
>
You probably need Julia Ann Mercer on the list. After all, she made the
cut for "JFK" :-).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#mercer
stephen nipperess
> 7. "The backyard photos are fake."
>
> Several witnesses saw them well before the assassination.
Including his wife that admitted she took the photos.
--
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
>> >From: pamela mcelwain-brown pam...@primenet.com
>> >
>> >although i am tempted to ignore trolls such as this, for the sake of the
>> >newbie it
>> >seems valid to define a context.
>>
>> Translation: "I will smear anyone with whom I disagree as a troll, thus
>evading
>> any discussion of actual issues or evidence."
>>
>
>evidence'. their reasoning began with the conclusion that lho alone was
>guilty and
>all else was ignored.
>
>>
>> it is unfortunate that there isn't an
>> >alt.nonconspiracy.jfk newsgroup, where a post like this would fit well.
>> >
>> >imo there is no credible evidence that lho was at the 6th floor window
>during
>> >the
>> >shooting,
>>
>> So it's just a coincidence that a rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald was
>found on
>> the sixth floor of Oswald's workplace with Oswald's fingerprints on it?
>
>a
>rifle? yes. is it logical that his prints would be on it? yes. none of
>this was
>taken to a court of law because lho didn't live long enough. the wc did not
>permit
>him a defense.
>
>>
>>
>> Have you read *First Day Evidence,* Pam? A simple yes or no will suffice.
>
>in
>fact, i doubt that 'a' book would do that, although 'a' book might make me
>search
>further.
>
>>
>> >or that he even had a motive to shoot president kennedy.
>>
>> What was his motive for bringing his rifle to work and *not* shooting
>anybody,
>> Pam? I'll never understand this belief that motive is somehow an LN issue.
>
>testimony
>does not jive with the size of the package, for one.
>
>motive is a valuable issue, imo. some time ago, one ln poster compared lho
>to the
>collumbine murderers. they had motive. they stated motive. lho stated no
>motive,
>not even to marina, who didn't try to attribute one even though the ss had
>kept her
>sequestered and threatened her with deportation.
>
>>
>>
>> those
>> >ln'ers
>> >who are comfortable tagging him as the 'lone assassin'
>>
>> No one's doing that but you, Pam. So let's call this Strawman #11 --
>implying
>> that any suggestion of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt is tantamount to arguing
>> against the possibility of conspiracy. Exactly the sort of attitude that
>has
>> made conspiracy-oriented researchers a joke in the eyes of the mainstream.
>
>playing
>field, where evidence is valid or not based on the information it carries.
>
>lho was never proven guilty in a court of law. by definition he is supposed
>to be
>considered innocent until that time.
>
>>
>> are by inference also
>> >comfortable attempting to destroy the character of an ex-marine,
>>
>> Who shot a police officer and attempted to shoot another.
>
>
>> "Snip, snip, snip" go the facts that Pam doesn't like . . .
>
>
>>
>> the fact
>> >that this
>> >case never came to trial (because lho was murdered) and the fact that the
>> >entire
>> >warren commission report was skewed only to show his guilt, even though he
>> >proclaimed his innocence to his last breath.
>>
>> Tell that to J. D. Tippit.
>
>been to
>his grave. he died way before his time. i am not convinced lho was his
>killer.
>if you choose to believe the wc myth, that is your right. i don't. and your
>hysterics are doing nothing to win me over.
>
>pamela
Yoo hooooo, Pammy . . .
>> >Or Nick McDonald.
>>
>> http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/mcdonald.html
>>
>> I'd challenge Pam to refute the evidence point by point, but that joke's
>> getting old. If Pam could do so, she would have done it in this post
>instead of
>> engaging in hollow rhetoric and pointless spleen-venting.
Strawman #12 -- pretending that the absence of a trial absolves a murderer
forever.
Strawman #13 -- accusing people of engaging in 'hysterics' and
uncritically accepting 'myths' in lieu of discussing actual evidence.
Pam's got a million of them, but in that she's not alone. She only happens
to be the one who decided to post about it. For that, I thank her.
Dave
--
Dave Reitzes
>
>> 7. "The backyard photos are fake."
>>
>> Several witnesses saw them well before the assassination.
>
> Including his wife that admitted she took the photos.
Sure, but that will never persuade the CT who says Marina simply can't be
trusted. Look at all the people who believe Oswald didn't shoot at Walker,
despite the documentary evidence that supports Marina's story.
Dave
--
Jaykhill
>trusted.
*****
Negatives from the filmgate of a particular camera are as reliable a guide as
rifling marks on a bullet--maybe more.
A surviving negative from the backyard shoot was matched the the Oswald
family's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all others.
John in VA
--
Michael Russ
>
> John--
>
> Your profession requires some familiarity with statistical analysis. My
> total knowledge of the subject is "small number bias." Posner the
> Inerrant in Appendix B allows for a total of 48 "unnatrual" deaths between
> 1963 and 1977. Curiously(?), vehicular deaths were 60% of the total in
> 1965 [3 of 5], 40% in 1966 [2 of 5], 25% in 1967 [1 of 4]. No vehicular
> deaths prior to 1965 and after 1968 through 1977. Is this within norm?
>
>
his is just bad statistical analysis. There is no norm here, because
there is no control group. That is why the entire statistic analysis of
the convenient deaths is useless.
It is dubious to apply statistical analysis to unique circumstances.
Statistics by definition require relationships between the items being
studied. This is the major reason I am suspicious much of the
statistical analysis related to this case, including the accoustic
analysis.
Mike
> >Subject: Re: Top Ten Strawmen in JFK Assassination
> >From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
> >Date: 3/12/00 1:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <38CB33...@mu.edu>
> >
> >Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Conspiracy-oriented researchers often complain that the mainstream does
> >> not take them seriously enough. Rarely does one hear CTs blame themselves
> >> for this, however, even when they vocally parrot theories and "evidence"
> >> that was discredited long ago.
> >>
> >> The following are some examples of issues that I consider strawmen in this
> >> case -- issues that serve only to divert researchers from the real issues
> >> and alienate us from the mainstream -- listed roughly in the order of
> >> least to most problematic, i.e., from most to least widely discredited.
> >> (I'm omitting a couple of almost universally discredited items from the
> >> list, such as the "Oswald in the doorway" issue.)
> >>
> >> Top Ten Strawmen in the JFK Assassination Case
> >>
> >
> >[snipping]
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 6. "What about all those mysterious deaths?"
> >>
> >> There are a few genuinely mysterious deaths; I've posted about at least
> >> one. But the "mysterious deaths" lists are a total crock, consisting
> >> almost exclusively of people with no connection to the assassination
> >> whatsoever -- usually friends of witnesses or even friends of friends of
> >> witnesses. Anybody need a repost?
> >>
> >
> >Maybe a repost would be good, since I don't remember what you've written
> >on this. Forgive me :-).
> >
> >I do remember you having written on Cheramie.
> >
> >My own page on this subject is here:
> >
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm
> >
> >And I would like to know which you consider "genuinely mysterious." Not
> >that I necessarily would deny that such a thing exists, but I do know
> >that the closer you look at any of these deaths, the less "mysterious"
> >it seems.
> >
> >At least, that's been my experience so far.
> >
> >.John
> >--
> >Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
--
pamela mcelwain-brown
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
> > >From: pamela mcelwain-brown pam...@primenet.com
> > >
> > >although i am tempted to ignore trolls such as this, for the sake of the
> > >newbie it
> > >seems valid to define a context.
> >
> > Translation: "I will smear anyone with whom I disagree as a troll, thus
> evading
> > any discussion of actual issues or evidence."
> >
>
> vitriolic baloney. the warren commission 'discussed' no 'actual issues or
> evidence'. their reasoning began with the conclusion that lho alone was guilty
> and
> all else was ignored.
>
> >
> > it is unfortunate that there isn't an
> > >alt.nonconspiracy.jfk newsgroup, where a post like this would fit well.
> > >
> > >imo there is no credible evidence that lho was at the 6th floor window during
>
> > >the
> > >shooting,
> >
> > So it's just a coincidence that a rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald was found
> on
> > the sixth floor of Oswald's workplace with Oswald's fingerprints on it?
>
> 'co-incidence'? no. does that mean lho put the rifle there? no. did he own a
> rifle? yes. is it logical that his prints would be on it? yes. none of this
> was
> taken to a court of law because lho didn't live long enough. the wc did not
> permit
--
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Llliibb wrote:
> >
> > John--
> >
> > Your profession requires some familiarity with statistical analysis. My
> > total knowledge of the subject is "small number bias." Posner the
> > Inerrant in Appendix B allows for a total of 48 "unnatrual" deaths between
> > 1963 and 1977. Curiously(?), vehicular deaths were 60% of the total in
> > 1965 [3 of 5], 40% in 1966 [2 of 5], 25% in 1967 [1 of 4]. No vehicular
> > deaths prior to 1965 and after 1968 through 1977. Is this within norm?
> >
>
> small. Thus there is no way this could be "statistically significant"
> -- meaning that it's quite likely that a difference this big happened by
> change.
>
> Then you might ask this: is it reasonable to believe that the Evil
> Minions of The Conspiracy were killing people with automobiles during
> the first coupld of years after the assassination, and then developed
> better technologies and didn't need to do that any more?
>
FYI, read the CIA's assassination manual. There are many ways that they
suggest killing people. Making it look like a car accident is just one
way. If they use the same method each time, perhaps ricin, eventually
even people like you might get suspicious. If you think that no one has
ever tried to disguise a murder as a car accident, just ask Dr. Henry
Lee.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
--
JerryOrganS
Was that manual edited by Robert F. Kennedy in 1961-63?
> There are many ways that they suggest
> killing people. Making it look like a car
> accident is just one way.
That's the one Ted Kennedy used. Now I see, Teddy was following his
brother's advice.
> If they use the same method each time,
> perhaps ricin, eventually even people like
> you might get suspicious. If you think that
> no one has ever tried to disguise a murder
> as a car accident, just ask Dr. Henry Lee.
Was Dr. Lee working near Chappaquiddick in July 1969?
Jerry Organ
----------
--
Dave Reitzes
>
>Dave,
>
>The point I'm trying to make is that the evidence you cite one would expect
>to
>be there whether Oswald fired or someone else fired with Oswald's weapon. In
>other words: Oswald's fingerprints would still be on his rifle whether he
>fired or not. Oswald's rifle would still be in the window if someone was
>trying to frame him or if he fired at the Pres. You'll never be able to
>fully convince someone that it wasn't just someone firing with Oswald's
>weapon.
Stu, I appreciate your efforts, but you may recall that a year ago I was
arguing the same sort of position to which Pam occasionally refers when
she's not leaping to silly conclusions about people and spewing ad hominem
attacks. I doubt that there is a soul on Earth who could have changed my
mind then; I had to figure things out for myself, and neither fingerprints
nor anything else recovered from the sixth floor of the TSBD had much to
do with it.
I was simply trying to get Pam to talk issues instead of insults, and I
succeeded in that endeavor no more than I expected. I could have told you
up front that people who can argue the evidence don't need to resort to
all the insults.
>However, the other things you point out suggest at the least that Oswald was
>scared, and as I noted, someone had to arrange for him to at least be
>somewhere
>without alibi witnesses. Combining those, if Oswald was completely
>innocent,
>why was he scared, and why didn't he rat out the people who told him to be in
>the lunchroom. The conclusion is that Oswald was involved with a conspiracy
>whether he actually fired the weapon or not.
>
>-Stu
I appreciate your input, Stu. Unless someone with a dissenting view
decides to come forward and discuss these issues in good faith, though, I
don't see much point in continuing.
Dave
--
Dave Reitzes
>
>> FYI, read the CIA's assassination manual.
>
>Was that manual edited by Robert F. Kennedy in 1961-63?
Probably.
>> There are many ways that they suggest
>> killing people. Making it look like a car
>> accident is just one way.
>
>That's the one Ted Kennedy used. Now I see, Teddy was following his
>brother's advice.
Cheap shot.
Dave
--
cyndi...@my-deja.com
assassination squad, it is more reasonable to assume that the
intended victim of that car wreck was Kennedy. But just like
the ignorant claim that Kennedy started the Vietnam war,
everything about the Kennedys is deliberately distorted:
http://www.atmosphere.be/media/sea/vietnam.htm
but history has sorted it all out
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
JerryOrganS
> Cheap shot.
And this isn't a cheap shot?" -- Implying some unnamed conspiracy cabel used a
"CIA assassination manual" to silence JFK witnesses.
Go after those type of cheap shots, Dave. Stand up for the innocents whom the
CTers smear with their groundless speculation and meanspirited innuendo.
Jerry Organ
-------------
--
AEFFECTS
>>>
>>> Several witnesses saw them well before the assassination.
>>
>> Including his wife that admitted she took the photos.
>
>
>Sure, but that will never persuade the CT who says Marina simply can't be
>trusted. Look at all the people who believe Oswald didn't shoot at Walker,
>despite the documentary evidence that supports Marina's story.
>
>Dave
This CT'er says "She can be trusted". For the uninitiated peek behind the
scenes as to who carted her off to that undisclosed motel room and kept as a
virtual prisoner, might also want to checkout the organization that *owned it*
the motel that is, find out about her new found friend who helped discover the
*bus stub* (without that bus stub ole Lee ain't in Mexico) and asissted in a
book deal (paid also upfront don'tcha know) that took years to publish. Oh yes,
Marina can be *trusted*. Oh, Marina don't forget, when we send you back to
Russia, the kids stay here .... Oh, yes....Marina can be trusted ...
You mean that Lee *Sgt.York* Oswald, the meanest shot in the southwest could
actually miss a stationary target (unmoving sitting at his desk) such skill for
an excellent marksman.
DavidH
--
AEFFECTS
Ahh, Jerry seems to have forgot: Mark Lane and his obliteration of Howard
Hunt. Was that *groundless speculation* ?
--
Michael Russ
>
> In article <20000313223540...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
> drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
> > >From: jerry...@aol.com (JerryOrganS)
> > >
> > >> FYI, read the CIA's assassination manual.
> > >
> > >Was that manual edited by Robert F. Kennedy in 1961-63?
> >
> > Probably.
> >
> > >> There are many ways that they suggest
> > >> killing people. Making it look like a car
> > >> accident is just one way.
> > >
> > >That's the one Ted Kennedy used. Now I see, Teddy was following his
> > >brother's advice.
> >
> > Cheap shot.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > --
> >
> > Given the fact that Kennedy was the target of Richard Nixon's
> assassination squad,
Yeah right, Tony Ulasewicz, Presidential hit man.
Mike
> it is more reasonable to assume that the
> intended victim of that car wreck was Kennedy. But just like
> the ignorant claim that Kennedy started the Vietnam war,
> everything about the Kennedys is deliberately distorted:
>
> http://www.atmosphere.be/media/sea/vietnam.htm
>
> but history has sorted it all out
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
> --
--
Dave Reitzes
Dave Reitzes
>
>>>> 7. "The backyard photos are fake."
>>>>
>>>> Several witnesses saw them well before the assassination.
>>>
>>> Including his wife that admitted she took the photos.
>>
>>
>>Sure, but that will never persuade the CT who says Marina simply can't be
>>trusted. Look at all the people who believe Oswald didn't shoot at Walker,
>>despite the documentary evidence that supports Marina's story.
>>
>>Dave
>
>This CT'er says "She can be trusted". For the uninitiated peek behind the
>scenes as to who carted her off to that undisclosed motel room and kept as a
>virtual prisoner, might also want to checkout the organization that *owned
>it*
>the motel that is, find out about her new found friend who helped discover
>the
>*bus stub* (without that bus stub ole Lee ain't in Mexico) and asissted in a
>book deal (paid also upfront don'tcha know) that took years to publish. Oh
>yes,
>Marina can be *trusted*. Oh, Marina don't forget, when we send you back to
>Russia, the kids stay here .... Oh, yes....Marina can be trusted ...
We all await some evidence. Sarcasm doesn't cut it.
>You mean that Lee *Sgt.York* Oswald, the meanest shot in the southwest could
>actually miss a stationary target (unmoving sitting at his desk) such skill
>for
>an excellent marksman.
>DavidH
If you did your homework, you would know why Oswald missed. It's no secret.
Dave
--
joez...@my-deja.com
aeff...@aol.com (AEFFECTS) wrote:
> >> Cheap shot.
> >
> >And this isn't a cheap shot?" -- Implying some unnamed conspiracy cabel
> >used a
> >"CIA assassination manual" to silence JFK witnesses.
> >
> >Go after those type of cheap shots, Dave. Stand up for the innocents whom
> >the
> >CTers smear with their groundless speculation and meanspirited innuendo.
> >
> >Jerry Organ
> >
>
> Ahh, Jerry seems to have forgot: Mark Lane and his obliteration of Howard
> Hunt. Was that *groundless speculation* ?
>
>
Even Lane admitted Hunt wasn't in Dallas on 11/22/63.
>
--
"We're really in nut country now, Toto."
AEFFECTS
>>Hunt. Was that *groundless speculation* ?
>
>
>
>Dave
Plausible Denial reviewed on your website perchance?
--
Dave Reitzes
>
>Dave wrote:
>
>> Cheap shot.
>
>And this isn't a cheap shot?" -- Implying some unnamed conspiracy cabel used
>a
>"CIA assassination manual" to silence JFK witnesses.
>
>Go after those type of cheap shots, Dave. Stand up for the innocents whom the
>CTers smear with their groundless speculation and meanspirited innuendo.
>
>Jerry Organ
Jerry, let's not change the subject. Everyone knows that Anthony Marsh is
full of straw. It does no one any good for you to post garbage and then
insist that your garbage is less offensive than others'.
Dave
--
Dave Reitzes
One of the most pointless JFK books I've ever read. Speak now or forever
hold your straw peace.
Dave
AEFFECTS
>> >
>> >And this isn't a cheap shot?" -- Implying some unnamed conspiracy cabel
>> >used a
>> >"CIA assassination manual" to silence JFK witnesses.
>> >
>> >Go after those type of cheap shots, Dave. Stand up for the innocents
>whom
>> >the
>> >CTers smear with their groundless speculation and meanspirited innuendo.
>> >
>> >Jerry Organ
>> >
>>
>> Hunt. Was that *groundless speculation* ?
>>
>>
>
>Even Lane admitted Hunt wasn't in Dallas on 11/22/63.
>
would you point me to that 'cite' please.
DavidH
AEFFECTS
>>>Sure, unless you can explain this alleged "obliteration."
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>Plausible Denial reviewed on your website perchance?
>
>
>One of the most pointless JFK books I've ever read. Speak now or forever
>hold your straw peace.
>
>Dave
Why's that Dave? I would of thought you'd relish the opportunity to tear
another trial transcript apart, granted the the theatrics weren't on the
same level as say Garrison and his antic's, but I'd say he gave a lot of
folk's some food for *thought*. But to the point, you don't agree that
Howard Hunt was a strawman? Afterall the CIA did hang him out to dry. Why
do you suppose that is?
DavidH
Dave Reitzes
bobwh...@my-deja.com
drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
> >From: jerry...@aol.com (JerryOrganS)
> >
> >> FYI, read the CIA's assassination manual.
> >
> >Was that manual edited by Robert F. Kennedy in 1961-63?
>
> Probably.
>
> >> There are many ways that they suggest
> >> killing people. Making it look like a car
> >> accident is just one way.
> >
> >That's the one Ted Kennedy used. Now I see, Teddy was following his
> >brother's advice.
>
> Cheap shot.
>
> Dave
>
> --
>
http://www.atmosphere.be/media/sea/expo.htm
joez...@my-deja.com
With pleasure. See pages 297 - 298 of Plausible Denial. Maybe you
missed it on your first reading.
> DavidH
>
>
--
"We're really in nut country now, Toto."