Marcello-Ferrie-Oswald Connecting the perps
Robert Harris
In addition to his confession that he ordered the JFK assassination,
Carlos Marcello also talked about David Ferrie whom he described as his
pilot, and that he introduced him to Oswald. This is from Legacy of
Secrecy, p.50.
(quote)
Before talking to the informant about JFK's assassination, Marcello
first mentioned his contacts with Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby, in a
casual way, while talking about this criminal operations in New Orleans.
There was only one other inmate whom Marcello felt comfortable talking
to about his activities there. The informant "had another friend at
Texarkana (prison) that had worked for Marcellos's brother, as a
bartender. The 'little man' would let him come to our room and they
would talk about New Orleans for hours. One night, Marcellos was talking
about the Kennedys. He told me and my friend about a meeting with
Oswald. He had been introduced to Oswald by a man named Ferris (Ferrie)
who was Marcello's pilot. He said that the (meeting) had taken place in
his brother's restaurant. He said that he thought that Oswald was crazy.
They had several meetings before he left town."
Source - letter from the informant to to Carl Podsiadly, FBI, San
Francisco office.
Robert Harris
cdddraftsman
Well I don't believe this proves anything RH , but you still have the
Lockless Munster .
:-)
tl
John McAdams
wrote:
OK, good. That moves the discussion forward.
I don't have LEGACY OF SECRECY handy, but from what I can gather from
the snippits shown in the Mary Ferrell Archive, this informant was
trying to get himself out of jail, and would have quite an incentive
to tell "interesting" stories.
Whether this informant was reliable would be something that would be
shown in *other* documents.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>
So Marcello met with Oswald "several" times even though Oswald was
"crazy"?
So he had "crazy" Oswald kill Kennedy? A top Mob boss has a crazy man
do the deed? Are you sure you want to buy into that?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
p. 47 LoS
The Marcello informant's credibility was confirmed to us by two former FBI
agents who worked on the case, including the supervisor of the operation,
Thomas A. Kimmel. The files themselves also confirm the informant's
reliability. FBI memos note that a federal judge found the informant's
reporting so solid that he authorized extraordinary surveillance on
Marcello while he was in prison. This included not just phone taps, but
even an FBI bug in a special transistor radio the informant kept in the
small prison cell he eventually shared with Marcello. These devices
yielded "hundreds of hours" of tapes of Marcello, according to the files,
a trove of information previously unknown to historians and journalists.
Robert Harris
Steve Thomas
Didn't you beat me over the head over some hearsay contained in FBI
documents about Garrison and some hookers? I was just asking a
question about the Garrison stuff, but hell, you firmly believe this
Marcello stuff.
Steve Thomas
Do you have a name on this informant? You repeatedly said how
reliable he was.
timstter
Legacy Of Secrecy features terrible errors of research.
The authors conclude that the Walker shooting incident was staged,
using sources like Dick Russell's book as evidence.
Even rudimentary research on their part would have revealed the
problems with Russell's research, which they simply copied for their
book.
Their view that the Walker shooting was staged is as absurd as your
own view that Oswald's Canal Street FPCC fight was staged by anyone
but Oswald, who wanted to get to Cuba.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Robert Harris
<920aa0ca-7262-4803...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 1:18?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In addition to his confession that he ordered the JFK assassination,
> > Carlos Marcello also talked about David Ferrie whom he described as his
> > pilot, and that he introduced him to Oswald. This is from Legacy of
> > Secrecy, p.50.
> >
> > (quote)
> >
> > Before talking to the informant about JFK's assassination, Marcello
> > first mentioned his contacts with Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby, in a
> > casual way, while talking about this criminal operations in New Orleans.
> > There was only one other inmate whom Marcello felt comfortable talking
> > to about his activities there. The informant "had another friend at
> > Texarkana (prison) that had worked for Marcellos's brother, as a
> > bartender. The 'little man' would let him come to our room and they
> > would talk about New Orleans for hours. One night, Marcellos was talking
> > about the Kennedys. He told me and my friend about a meeting with
> > Oswald. He had been introduced to Oswald by a man named Ferris (Ferrie)
> > who was Marcello's pilot. He said that the (meeting) had taken place in
> > his brother's restaurant. He said that he thought that Oswald was crazy.
> > They had several meetings before he left town."
> >
> > Source - letter from the informant to to Carl Podsiadly, FBI, San
> > Francisco office.
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Legacy Of Secrecy features terrible errors of research.
I'm sure we are grateful to you, for preserving bandwidth by failing to
present a single word of evidence or specific analysis to prove anything
that you claimed.
But let's make the incredible leap you want us to make, and suppose that
you are correct that Russell and Waldron were wrong about the Walker
shooting.
What does that have to do with verifiable documents in the National
Archives, which came directly from the FBI?
Oh, and after you do that, perhaps you will explain to us exactly how you
came to conclude that those guys were wrong about the Walker case?
Robert Harris
Rudy Lasparri
<920aa0ca-7262-4803...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, let's see . . . LHO was supposed to fire at a target moving away from
him with pinpoint accuracy -- but at Walker's house he fired at a
stationary target at reasonably close range and missed?? So LHO was both
an incredibly great shot and a miserably poor shot?
I do agree that basing research on other research rather than performing
new primary research is less desirable. Especially when the researcher is
Waldron.
Anthony Marsh
Anthony Marsh
If, and I am not sure he was, but if Oswald was a shooter in Dealey
Plaza, he missed terribly on two out of three very easy shots. I don't
call that being an excellent shot.
timstter
> In article
> <920aa0ca-7262-4803-9b35-691650924...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Well, I thought I'd put it out there and gauge your reaction. :-)
> But let's make the incredible leap you want us to make, and suppose that
> you are correct that Russell and Waldron were wrong about the Walker
> shooting.
>
It's an *incredible leap* to make that Russell and Waldron are wrong
when they claim the Walker shooting was a staged incident?!! I would
have thought that the opposite was true.
> What does that have to do with verifiable documents in the National
> Archives, which came directly from the FBI?
>
You mean those little snippet views Waldron offers at the back of his
book? If his research is so good, why isn't he showing the document(s)
in full? John Newman showed plenty of good documents in full in Oswald
& The CIA, for example.
> Oh, and after you do that, perhaps you will explain to us exactly how you
> came to conclude that those guys were wrong about the Walker case?
>
Oh sure. It was reported in the press at the time that Walker was
slightly wounded when the attempt to kill him was made. This was also
mentioned in the police reports about the incident. In fact, reporters
on the scene helped to extract sliver(s) of metal from Walker's arm
when they arrived on the scene. This hardly gells with Waldron's book,
which states on page 265 that:
QUOTE ON:
Walker liked to tell the dramatic story of how he avoided death by
lowering his head only a moment before the bullet came whizzing by-but
we have only Walker's word that he was even in the room at the time.
Given the outrageous claims in Walker's speeches, his credibility
seems doubtful.
and
Ultimately, there is no proof the original shooting was anything more
than a publicity stunt.
QUOTE OFF
Waldron then footnotes to Russell's book as a source for his
conclusions. The reality? This from the Weather Vane column of The
Dallas Morning News, Section 3-3, Sunday, April 14, 1963, by Lorrie
Brooks:
QUOTE ON:
Newsmen who talked with Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker on the night he was
narrowly missed by a sniper were firmly convinced that the incident
was no *publicity gag* after they struggled for 15 minutes in na
attempt to help the former Army commander dig out a piece of shrapnel
from the 3.06 [sic] shell which was embedded in his right elbow. A
pair of tweezers finally removed the sliver, about one-half inch long.
QUOTE OFF
A little bit hard for Walker not to have been in the room if he was
actually injured by the bullet, I would have thought. It's a shame
Waldron couldn't be bothered to do basic research on the incident,
like checking newspaper morgues, and instead chose to simply recycle
Russell's material, especially if he was going to conclude that the
incident was *staged.*
What does that say about the rest of his book?
> Robert Harris
Steve Thomas
You're dealing with facts Tim, i'm sureBob has no interest.
timstter
> In article
> <920aa0ca-7262-4803-9b35-691650924...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
Well Walker himself, in his WC testimony, gives an explanation of what
might have happened @ XI H 410:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0210b.htm
> I do agree that basing research on other research rather than performing
> new primary research is less desirable. Especially when the researcher is
> Waldron.
That seems wise. Here is another quote from Waldron's LoS on page 265:
QUOTE ON:
Despite the FBI's claim, Marina was not the first to link Oswald to
the Walker shooting incident after JFK's murder-an article about it
appeared on November 29, 1963, in the right-wing, West German
newspaper Deutsche National-Zeitung und Soldaten-Zeitung.
QUOTE OFF
Waldron basically repeats a factoid from Dick Russell's The Man Who
Knew Too Much on page 199, where Russell says the following:
QUOTE ON:
The first mention of Oswald's attempt on Walker had appeared in the
Deutsche National-Zeitung und Soldaten-Zeitung, a right-wing newspaper
out of Munich, West Germany, on November 29, 1963. Yet Marina Oswald
would not tell her story to the FBI until four days later, purportedly
the first awareness anybody had of it.
QUOTE OFF
The reality? This small item from Section 1-15 of The Dallas Morning
News of Saturday, November 23, 1963:
QUOTE ON:
Officials Recall Sniper Shooting At Walker Home
Police Friday were not overlooking a possibility that President
Kennedy's assassin may have been the mystery sniper who shot at Maj.
A. Walker last April 10.
A rifle bullet was fired into the study of Walker's North Dallas home
at 4011 Turtle Creek by a sniper who used a backyard fence to steady
his aim. The bullet slammed into a wall barely an inch from the former
general's head.
Police determined that the bullet was fired from a 30.06 rifle.
The sniper attack occurred two nights after Walker had returned from a
coast-to-coast anti-Communist crusade which he called *Midnight
Alert.*
QUOTE OFF
Oswald is already extensively identified as the assassin of the
President earlier in the very same edition of the DMN! That's what you
get for retreading factiods from a book that proposes Richard Case
Nagell as having anything of value to say about who hilled JFK.
Robert Harris
<cc299af6-0ff0-4186...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, it always helps to have at least some vague clue of what you are
talking about, when you do that.
For starters, Waldron and Russell held much different views about the
Walker incident. But Russell, who obviously put a lot more time into
this issue, had actually interviewed Walker.
The citation you were bitching about, was from that interview. It was an
important part of history, and Waldron had every right to cite it.
>
> > But let's make the incredible leap you want us to make, and suppose that
> > you are correct that Russell and Waldron were wrong about the Walker
> > shooting.
> >
>
> It's an *incredible leap* to make that Russell and Waldron are wrong
> when they claim the Walker shooting was a staged incident?!! I would
> have thought that the opposite was true.
>
> > What does that have to do with verifiable documents in the National
> > Archives, which came directly from the FBI?
> >
>
> You mean those little snippet views Waldron offers at the back of his
> book? If his research is so good, why isn't he showing the document(s)
> in full? John Newman showed plenty of good documents in full in Oswald
> & The CIA, for example.
Oh bullshit!!
Virtually ALL nonfiction books are sourced that way. Look at Posner and
Bugliosi's books and you will see hundreds of references which do not
include the entire documents.
>
> > Oh, and after you do that, perhaps you will explain to us exactly how you
> > came to conclude that those guys were wrong about the Walker case?
> >
>
> Oh sure. It was reported in the press at the time that Walker was
> slightly wounded when the attempt to kill him was made. This was also
> mentioned in the police reports about the incident. In fact, reporters
> on the scene helped to extract sliver(s) of metal from Walker's arm
> when they arrived on the scene. This hardly gells with Waldron's book,
> which states on page 265 that:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> Walker liked to tell the dramatic story of how he avoided death by
> lowering his head only a moment before the bullet came whizzing by-but
> we have only Walker's word that he was even in the room at the time.
> Given the outrageous claims in Walker's speeches, his credibility
> seems doubtful.
Walker was crazy as a loon. He was put under psychiatric watch by JFK.
He told his troops that Eisenhower was a communist traitor, secretly
trying to bring down the government. He (Walker) thought he was going to
be President and take over the country.
It is not unreasonable to think that he was capable of jamming a piece
of metal into his own arm, especially when he knew the press was on the
way.
FWIW, however, I also disagree with Waldron on this particular issue,
though for other reasons. His documentation and research skills are
impeccable, but he seems locked into the belief that Oswald was totally
innocent of any kind of participation in the attack.
Russell nailed this one. One of these times soon, I need to write
something about that.
And no, it says "nothing" about the rest of the book. His belief that
this was a publicity stunt is not at all unreasonable and it is shared
by a LOT of other researchers.
I have never in my life, read a book on the JFK case that was either
100% false or 100% true. To point to one statement that you believe is
false, does not indict the rest of the book and especially those parts
that are solidly documented.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
You'll need a better argument than that if you hope to ever refute
Waldron, john.
Marcello couldn't have cared less if Oswald even fired a gun that day.
He and Ferrie ONLY wanted a "patsy", to take the blame for the attack,
and to make it appear that Castro was behind it.
The only real mystery here is whether Oswald was acting in character, on
behalf of the FBI when he seemed "crazy" or if it was just the real
Oswald coming out.
The people Odio spoke with about Oswald, described him in exactly the
same way that Marcello did.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
The wall it smashed into was only an inch from Walker's head? I don't
think they measured it.
Anthony Marsh
Ok, where are these supposed slivers from Walker's arm? Did he remove
them himself or where they removed at a hospital. They should have been
kept as evidence. A 2-second test would have proved that they are
copper, not steel. But that's too much work for the DPD. So they let the
attacker roam flee to shoot at others.
Sandy McCroskey
> In article
> <920aa0ca-7262-4803-9b35-691650924...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
Oswald's shot actually came quite close to hitting, and maybe killing,
Walker. From Texas Monthly, November 1983: "The police said [Walker] had
moved his head at the last moment. Walker disagreed. In his opinion the
light in the room had flooded out the window frame from Oswald's
perspective. The bullet had struck the frame and been deflected." To be
more precise, the bullet hit a thin wooden divider in the middle of the
window.
/sandy
timstter
Hi Steve,
LOL! Well, it's sure beginning to look that way.
BTW, Waldron's treatment of the Walker shooting in his previous book,
Ultimate Sacrifice, is even worse. He must have concluded he could get
away with shoddy research after that effort.
Bud
>
> Ok, where are these supposed slivers from Walker's arm? Did he remove
> them himself or where they removed at a hospital. They should have been
> kept as evidence. A 2-second test would have proved that they are
> copper, not steel. But that's too much work for the DPD. So they let the
> attacker roam flee to shoot at others.
They had the bullet, what did they need slivers for?
Bud
> In article
> <920aa0ca-7262-4803-9b35-691650924...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
No, if Oswald was aiming at Kennedy`s head he missed twice, and if
he was aiming at Kennedy`s body he missed twice. Hardly pinpoint
accuracy.
>but at Walker's house he fired at a
> stationary target at reasonably close range and missed??
Yah, and if Kennedy was lucky enough to have his shoot deflect by an
intervening object like Walker did, he might have survived Oswald`s
attack also.
> So LHO was both
> an incredibly great shot and a miserably poor shot?
Using this logic, if a basketball player makes a three pointer, that
means he can`t miss an easy lay-up.
timstter
If you've read enough newspaper reports about the Walker shooting you'd
know that it means it hit the wall beside Walker about an inch above
Walker's head.
But it seems you haven't read any newspaper reports about the Walker
shooting because you didn't know he was injured in the attack; a fact that
was widely reported.
Bud
Perhaps Oswald thought that was a possibility also. Marina related
Oswald`s proactive policy about how it is acceptable to use
assassination against right-wingers before they get in power. Offered
that it should have been done against Hitler.
> It is not unreasonable to think that he was capable of jamming a piece
> of metal into his own arm, especially when he knew the press was on the
> way.
<snicker> But it is unreasonable to think your Mafia sources are
lying?
> FWIW, however, I also disagree with Waldron on this particular issue,
> though for other reasons. His documentation and research skills are
> impeccable, but he seems locked into the belief that Oswald was totally
> innocent of any kind of participation in the attack.
Saint Oswald, Patron Saint of Kooks.
Robert Harris
<44b96706-adf2-4d93...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Yep, Oswald told his wife a LOT of things. Good thing he wasn't strong
enough to open the bathroom door while Marina held it, or he would have
taken a potshot at Nixon too, right Bud:-)
>
> > It is not unreasonable to think that he was capable of jamming a piece
> > of metal into his own arm, especially when he knew the press was on the
> > way.
>
> <snicker> But it is unreasonable to think your Mafia sources are
> lying?
It is unreasonable to think they lied about something like that.
Marcello KNEW he was a suspect, because he was hauled in by the HSCA.
That's why he threatened to kill the informant if he repeated what he
had told him.
>
> > FWIW, however, I also disagree with Waldron on this particular issue,
> > though for other reasons. His documentation and research skills are
> > impeccable, but he seems locked into the belief that Oswald was totally
> > innocent of any kind of participation in the attack.
>
> Saint Oswald, Patron Saint of Kooks.
Yes, Oswald was definitely a kook.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Wonderful. That's an inch ABOVE his head, not an inch away. Not the same
thing.
> But it seems you haven't read any newspaper reports about the Walker
> shooting because you didn't know he was injured in the attack; a fact that
> was widely reported.
>
Show me these jacket slivers.
Anthony Marsh
The meeting rails.
> /sandy
timstter
LOL! So you AGREE with Waldron and Russell that the Walker shooting
incident was nothing more than a hoax, is that it?
> For starters, Waldron and Russell held much different views about the
> Walker incident. But Russell, who obviously put a lot more time into
> this issue, had actually interviewed Walker.
>
They both seemed to conclude that it was a hoax.
> The citation you were bitching about, was from that interview. It was an
> important part of history, and Waldron had every right to cite it.
>
It was hardly an important piece of history. It was just a piece of
weak minded drivel that Dick Russell chose to give weight to.
>
>
>
>
> > > But let's make the incredible leap you want us to make, and suppose that
> > > you are correct that Russell and Waldron were wrong about the Walker
> > > shooting.
>
> > It's an *incredible leap* to make that Russell and Waldron are wrong
> > when they claim the Walker shooting was a staged incident?!! I would
> > have thought that the opposite was true.
>
> > > What does that have to do with verifiable documents in the National
> > > Archives, which came directly from the FBI?
>
> > You mean those little snippet views Waldron offers at the back of his
> > book? If his research is so good, why isn't he showing the document(s)
> > in full? John Newman showed plenty of good documents in full in Oswald
> > & The CIA, for example.
>
> Oh bullshit!!
>
> Virtually ALL nonfiction books are sourced that way. Look at Posner and
> Bugliosi's books and you will see hundreds of references which do not
> include the entire documents.
>
Say, couldn't help bit notice that you skipped a few points. Your point is
not well made. MANY JFK books feature documents in their entirety,
especially when they are important to the tenor of the book. If Waldron's
point is SO important, and he can show a snippet of it, why can't he show
the whole document? Presumably because it won't withstand too much
scrutiny, LOL!
>
>
>
>
> > > Oh, and after you do that, perhaps you will explain to us exactly how you
> > > came to conclude that those guys were wrong about the Walker case?
>
> > Oh sure. It was reported in the press at the time that Walker was
> > slightly wounded when the attempt to kill him was made. This was also
> > mentioned in the police reports about the incident. In fact, reporters
> > on the scene helped to extract sliver(s) of metal from Walker's arm
> > when they arrived on the scene. This hardly gells with Waldron's book,
> > which states on page 265 that:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > Walker liked to tell the dramatic story of how he avoided death by
> > lowering his head only a moment before the bullet came whizzing by-but
> > we have only Walker's word that he was even in the room at the time.
> > Given the outrageous claims in Walker's speeches, his credibility
> > seems doubtful.
>
> Walker was crazy as a loon. He was put under psychiatric watch by JFK.
> He told his troops that Eisenhower was a communist traitor, secretly
> trying to bring down the government. He (Walker) thought he was going to
> be President and take over the country.
>
> It is not unreasonable to think that he was capable of jamming a piece
> of metal into his own arm, especially when he knew the press was on the
> way.
>
He didn't know the press were on the way. He knew the police were on
their way.
> FWIW, however, I also disagree with Waldron on this particular issue,
> though for other reasons. His documentation and research skills are
> impeccable, but he seems locked into the belief that Oswald was totally
> innocent of any kind of participation in the attack.
>
His documentation and research skills are hardly *impeccable* given
the conclusions he reaches about the Walker matter, based on
secondhand research. He was too lazy to even look properly into the
matter himself, LOL! He made an abysmal effort.
> Russell nailed this one. One of these times soon, I need to write
> something about that.
>
He hardly *nailed* it. He spouted a whole lot of tosh and is provably
wrong on the German newspaper being the first time anyone linked
Oswald to the Walker shooting. Waldron simply repeated his nonsense.
> And no, it says "nothing" about the rest of the book. His belief that
> this was a publicity stunt is not at all unreasonable and it is shared
> by a LOT of other researchers.
>
LOL! It says EVERYTHING about his research style, in my view. Even you
apparently disagreed with his conclusions but now are back agreeing
with him that it was a publicity stunt? That is a preposterous
conclusion, given the historic record.
> I have never in my life, read a book on the JFK case that was either
> 100% false or 100% true. To point to one statement that you believe is
> false, does not indict the rest of the book and especially those parts
> that are solidly documented.
>
> Robert Harris
Goes to credibility. If he's going to make such a slovenly hash of the
Walker shooter I'd be taking anything else he concludes with a major dose
of salt, personally
Steve Thomas
Waldron and Hartman already have a webpage devoted to their book.
They don't even have to put the files in the book, just put them on the
webpage. They don't seem to want any scrutiny period.
Bud
Was it the lock or his wife`s disapproval that stopped him?
But I forgot, you conspiracy types reserve the right to disregard any
information you don`t like on any grounds you want to. Who would be
interested in what the person closest to the strongest suspect had to say
anyway? It isn`t like you are even remotely interested in the actual truth
about what occurred.
> > > It is not unreasonable to think that he was capable of jamming a piece
> > > of metal into his own arm, especially when he knew the press was on the
> > > way.
>
> > <snicker> But it is unreasonable to think your Mafia sources are
> > lying?
>
> It is unreasonable to think they lied about something like that.
<snicker> Narcissists such as these Mafia types, with their own personal
immoral code of conduct, would lie about anything at any time to anyone if
they saw any benefit to themselves in telling those lies.
> Marcello KNEW he was a suspect, because he was hauled in by the HSCA.
> That's why he threatened to kill the informant if he repeated what he
> had told him.
>
>
>
> > > FWIW, however, I also disagree with Waldron on this particular issue,
> > > though for other reasons. His documentation and research skills are
> > > impeccable, but he seems locked into the belief that Oswald was totally
> > > innocent of any kind of participation in the attack.
>
> > Saint Oswald, Patron Saint of Kooks.
>
> Yes, Oswald was definitely a kook.
I was referring to Waldron, and others of his ilk.
Anthony Marsh
We reserve the right to question anything. You WC defenders just swallow
WC fiction without questioning anything.
Robert Harris
<cf41cf20-4890-44cf...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Neither, it was his sense of humor.
>
> But I forgot, you conspiracy types reserve the right to disregard any
> information you don`t like on any grounds you want to. Who would be
> interested in what the person closest to the strongest suspect had to say
> anyway? It isn`t like you are even remotely interested in the actual truth
> about what occurred.
LOL!! I don't think there is any doubt about who is disregarding the
information, especially since you are clueless about what Marina said.
There was no lock on the door. She just pulled on the doorknob:-)
Everything Oswald told his wife and everyone else, related to being a
communist, was a lie. Marcello was right when he said Oswald was
"crazy". Silvia Odio was told exactly the same thing by other exiles who
knew him. Read her WC testimony, bud. They told her that Oswald said the
Cuban exiles should have killed JFK because he failed to support them at
the Bay of Pigs.
Funny isn't it, that Mr. Ferrie got pulled down from a podium for saying
exactly the same thing.
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
?!
It's exactly the same thing. An inch above, below, to the right or left or
at any angle, is an inch "away" from his head. But I'd really enjoy
hearing your explanation how it isn't! Please!
/sandy
Bud
> Budwrote:
And answer nothing.
>You WC defenders just swallow
> WC fiction without questioning anything.
It has nothing to do with the WC. It about having the ability to
determine what is reasonable to believe.
Bud
He was joking about killing Nixon?
> > But I forgot, you conspiracy types reserve the right to disregard any
> > information you don`t like on any grounds you want to. Who would be
> > interested in what the person closest to the strongest suspect had to say
> > anyway? It isn`t like you are even remotely interested in the actual truth
> > about what occurred.
>
> LOL!! I don't think there is any doubt about who is disregarding the
> information, especially since you are clueless about what Marina said.
>
> There was no lock on the door. She just pulled on the doorknob:-)
You`re the third CTer to bring up this episode in discussions with
me in a ham handed attempt to impeach the information Marina related.
It a common CT tact to bring up an issue they deem questionable in
order to disregard a witness in their entirety (or to cherry pick
useful items for Oswald`s defense while pooh-poohing the rest). They
do this with Brennan, Truly, Markham, ect. They do this because they
really aren`t interested in what occurred, and are only looking for
justification for their own beliefs.
> Everything Oswald told his wife and everyone else, related to being a
> communist, was a lie.
A lie he started telling at around 16?
>Marcello was right when he said Oswald was
> "crazy".
He would know, having spent little or no time with Oswald.
>Silvia Odio was told exactly the same thing by other exiles who
> knew him. Read her WC testimony, bud. They told her that Oswald said the
> Cuban exiles should have killed JFK because he failed to support them at
> the Bay of Pigs.
Yah, Harris, if 99% of the information about Oswald`s beliefs points
in one direction, and one percent points in another, go with the 1%.
> Funny isn't it, that Mr. Ferrie got pulled down from a podium for saying
> exactly the same thing.
Because he wanted everyone to know he was involved with framing
Oswald?
Anthony Marsh
I answer everything. You don't pay attention.
>> You WC defenders just swallow
>> WC fiction without questioning anything.
>
> It has nothing to do with the WC. It about having the ability to
> determine what is reasonable to believe.
>
You wouldn't have any concept of this crime at all without the WC.
Anthony Marsh
They didn't say TRAVELED an inch away or MISSED by an inch. They said
struck the wall only an inch away from Walker's head.
I am not complaining about their making up an exact figure like an inch.
I am complaining about where they said the bullet hit in relation to
Walker's head.
> /sandy
Bud
You respond. You don`t answer.
>You don't pay attention.
It would be hard to make the case for paying attention to anything
you say.
> >> You WC defenders just swallow
> >> WC fiction without questioning anything.
>
> > It has nothing to do with the WC. It about having the ability to
> > determine what is reasonable to believe.
>
> You wouldn't have any concept of this crime at all without the WC.
Conspiracy mongers use the WC to misdirect from their own inability to
put a contending explanation of the day`s events on the table. They think
demonizing the WC lends legitimacy to their beliefs.
Steve Thomas
So you will post a bunch of Judyth Baker BS on your page, but you won't
question or put up the Hartman-Waldron documents on it?
Anthony Marsh
When critiquing a theory there is no burden on the critic to prove an
alternative theory. And it's rather ironic that you WC defenders are the
one covering up the evidence and then when challenged you claim that the
challengers have no evidence. Well, precisely because you've been covering
it up all these years.
Bud
<snicker> Of course critics aren`t expected to produce anything. Thats
why they are critics, they can`t produce anything themselves.
The fact is that any endeavor of man is open to criticism. World Wat
Two, although doubtlessly a worthwhile effort that achieved desirable
results is still fraught with mistakes, human error, stupidity, ect. You
can uncover thousands of things that should not have occurred, you can
find things that were done that are just mind-numbingly stupid. Other than
making sure the mistakes aren`t repeated, what is the point of beating
that dead horse?
>And it's rather ironic that you WC defenders are the
> one covering up the evidence and then when challenged you claim that the
> challengers have no evidence. Well, precisely because you've been covering
> it up all these years.
Yah, yah, I`ve been hearing these "the dog ate my evidence" excuses from
the conspiracy crowd for as long as I`ve been coming to these newsgroups.
Steve Thomas
LOL, yes John McAdams has the Joannides CIA files hermetically sealed
inside a mayonnaise jar thats been stored inside Dave Reitzes wine cellar
since june 93! And he's keeping it from all you "challengers" LOL! Get
real.
Anthony Marsh
I'd be happy to put the Hartman-Waldron documents on my Web site. They
won't release them. I have a wide variety of files on my Web site, even
from WC defenders. I don't post only the things I agree with.
Robert Harris
Yes Bud; he was joking.
If he really wanted to go shoot Nixon he would have pushed the door
open and went off to carry out his evil deed.
>
>> > But I forgot, you conspiracy types reserve the right to disregard any
>> > information you don`t like on any grounds you want to. Who would be
>> > interested in what the person closest to the strongest suspect had to say
>> > anyway? It isn`t like you are even remotely interested in the actual truth
>> > about what occurred.
>>
>> LOL!! I don't think there is any doubt about who is disregarding the
>> information, especially since you are clueless about what Marina said.
>>
>> There was no lock on the door. She just pulled on the doorknob:-)
>
> You`re the third CTer to bring up this episode in discussions with
>me in a ham handed attempt to impeach the information Marina related.
More nonsense.
I have no doubt whatsoever, that Marina's testimony was accurate.
Why do you make up things like this?
>It a common CT tact to bring up an issue they deem questionable in
>order to disregard a witness in their entirety (or to cherry pick
>useful items for Oswald`s defense while pooh-poohing the rest). They
>do this with Brennan, Truly, Markham, ect. They do this because they
>really aren`t interested in what occurred, and are only looking for
>justification for their own beliefs.
Well, let's go beat the crap out of them then!
What I hate is that everyone who questions the WC conclusion thinks
exactly the same way and they all share exactly the same terrible flaws!!
The only good thing about it is, that it gives the less knowledgeable and
laziest of the nutters a way to attack them without having to deal with
anything specific.
That's the same kind of laziness that allows folks to write off members of
racial minorities without having to waste time assessing them as
individuals.
Bigotry rocks!! Eh Bud?
>
>
>> Everything Oswald told his wife and everyone else, related to being a
>> communist, was a lie.
>
> A lie he started telling at around 16?
No, around 14, if memory serves.
Both his mother and brother confirmed that he was totally obsessed with a
television program that was based on Herbert Philbrick and his undercover
war against communism.
As I'm sure you know, Philbrick worked for the FBI and for 9 years,
pretended to be a communist in Boston. His wife, family, and his friends
all thought he was a genuine red. But in 1952, he testified against his
former comrades, sending a few of them to prison.
Each episode of "I Led Three Lives" had to be personally approved by J.
Edgar Hoover, Bud.
It was shortly after the series began, that Oswald went to school and
refused to salute the American flag - a ridiculously transparent attempt
to emulate his hero, Herbert Philbrick.
>
>>Marcello was right when he said Oswald was
>> "crazy".
>
> He would know, having spent little or no time with Oswald.
Yes, I doubt that he spent a lot of time with Oswald. That was
Ferrie's job.
>
>>Silvia Odio was told exactly the same thing by other exiles who
>> knew him. Read her WC testimony, bud. They told her that Oswald said the
>> Cuban exiles should have killed JFK because he failed to support them at
>> the Bay of Pigs.
>
> Yah, Harris, if 99% of the information about Oswald`s beliefs points
>in one direction, and one percent points in another, go with the 1%.
No Bud. EVERY relevant thing he did, pointed to his pretense that he
was a communist, and that he used his bogus legend to undermine the
enemies of the FBI.
>
>> Funny isn't it, that Mr. Ferrie got pulled down from a podium for saying
>> exactly the same thing.
>
> Because he wanted everyone to know he was involved with framing
>Oswald?
No-one on the planet hated JFK more than Marcello and Ferrie, Bud. And
almost every possible suspect in this case, was connected to Marcello and
organized crime.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
You need some history lessons. World War Two was started by the Nazis and
the Japanese. You think their effort was worthwhile and achieved desirable
results? You actually LIKE war, any war?
> can uncover thousands of things that should not have occurred, you can
> find things that were done that are just mind-numbingly stupid. Other than
> making sure the mistakes aren`t repeated, what is the point of beating
> that dead horse?
>
>
>> And it's rather ironic that you WC defenders are the
>> one covering up the evidence and then when challenged you claim that the
>> challengers have no evidence. Well, precisely because you've been covering
>> it up all these years.
>
> Yah, yah, I`ve been hearing these "the dog ate my evidence" excuses from
> the conspiracy crowd for as long as I`ve been coming to these newsgroups.
>
You're calling yourself a dog?
Bud
> > Two, although doubtlessly a worthwhile effort that achieved desirable
> > results is still fraught with mistakes, human error, stupidity, ect. You
>
> You need some history lessons. World War Two was started by the Nazis and
> the Japanese.
Why the "started" strawman? You aren`t going to pretend we didn`t
participate in WW2 because we didn`t start it, are you?
> You think their effort was worthwhile and achieved desirable
> results?
I think they had their moments. But I was referring to the effort of
the Allies.
> You actually LIKE war, any war?
I like wars that are worth the effort and achieve desirable
results. WW2, for instance.
> > can uncover thousands of things that should not have occurred, you can
> > find things that were done that are just mind-numbingly stupid. Other than
> > making sure the mistakes aren`t repeated, what is the point of beating
> > that dead horse?
>
> >> And it's rather ironic that you WC defenders are the
> >> one covering up the evidence and then when challenged you claim that the
> >> challengers have no evidence. Well, precisely because you've been covering
> >> it up all these years.
>
> > Yah, yah, I`ve been hearing these "the dog ate my evidence" excuses from
> > the conspiracy crowd for as long as I`ve been coming to these newsgroups.
>
> You're calling yourself a dog?
No, I was calling your excuses child-like.
Bud
>
> If he really wanted to go shoot Nixon he would have pushed the door
> open and went off to carry out his evil deed.
Yah, wives never have any influence on their husbands decisions.
> >> > But I forgot, you conspiracy types reserve the right to disregard any
> >> > information you don`t like on any grounds you want to. Who would be
> >> > interested in what the person closest to the strongest suspect had to say
> >> > anyway? It isn`t like you are even remotely interested in the actual truth
> >> > about what occurred.
>
> >> LOL!! I don't think there is any doubt about who is disregarding the
> >> information, especially since you are clueless about what Marina said.
>
> >> There was no lock on the door. She just pulled on the doorknob:-)
>
> > You`re the third CTer to bring up this episode in discussions with
> >me in a ham handed attempt to impeach the information Marina related.
>
> More nonsense.
>
> I have no doubt whatsoever, that Marina's testimony was accurate.
>
> Why do you make up things like this?
In a discussion I had with Ben Holmes, he brought up this incident in an
attempt to show Marina as a liar. He claimed that since a bathroom door
wouldn`t have a lock on the outside, this must mean she was lying about
the incident. I mistakenly assumed you were traveling down the same path.
> >It a common CT tact to bring up an issue they deem questionable in
> >order to disregard a witness in their entirety (or to cherry pick
> >useful items for Oswald`s defense while pooh-poohing the rest). They
> >do this with Brennan, Truly, Markham, ect. They do this because they
> >really aren`t interested in what occurred, and are only looking for
> >justification for their own beliefs.
>
> Well, let's go beat the crap out of them then!
You are finally making some sense.
> What I hate is that everyone who questions the WC conclusion thinks
> exactly the same way and they all share exactly the same terrible flaws!!
Yah. Cookie-cutter kooks, the lot of them. Luckily none of them post
in this newsgroup.
> The only good thing about it is, that it gives the less knowledgeable and
> laziest of the nutters a way to attack them without having to deal with
> anything specific.
Another good thing is that they rarely have anything that really
needs rebuttal. Just their interpretations of things, their beliefs,
what something looks like to them, what they feel must have happened,
that sort of thing.
> That's the same kind of laziness that allows folks to write off members of
> racial minorities without having to waste time assessing them as
> individuals.
Yah. It also allows lazy conspiracy folk to claim that any
government person is "in on it" without actually showing they were, or
any witness was coerced, without actualy showing they were, ect.
> Bigotry rocks!! EhBud?
Grouping like things together has it`s purposes.
> >> Everything Oswald told his wife and everyone else, related to being a
> >> communist, was a lie.
>
> > A lie he started telling at around 16?
>
> No, around 14, if memory serves.
>
> Both his mother and brother confirmed that he was totally obsessed with a
> television program that was based on Herbert Philbrick and his undercover
> war against communism.
>
> As I'm sure you know, Philbrick worked for the FBI and for 9 years,
> pretended to be a communist in Boston. His wife, family, and his friends
> all thought he was a genuine red. But in 1952, he testified against his
> former comrades, sending a few of them to prison.
>
> Each episode of "I Led Three Lives" had to be personally approved by J.
> Edgar Hoover,Bud.
>
> It was shortly after the series began, that Oswald went to school and
> refused to salute the American flag - a ridiculously transparent attempt
> to emulate his hero, Herbert Philbrick.
Yah, very very shortly. The series first aired on 10-4-53. Carro,
who was working Oswald`s case, received the information he requested
from Oswald`s teachers on 10-16-63 on 10-21-63. That request yielded
the information that Oswald was "consistently" refusing to salute the
flag. So, after viewing one, possibly two episodes of that show, he
was embarking on a lifelong subterfuge?
> >>Marcello was right when he said Oswald was
> >> "crazy".
>
> > He would know, having spent little or no time with Oswald.
>
> Yes, I doubt that he spent a lot of time with Oswald. That was
> Ferrie's job.
>
>
>
> >>Silvia Odio was told exactly the same thing by other exiles who
> >> knew him. Read her WC testimony,bud. They told her that Oswald said the
> >> Cuban exiles should have killed JFK because he failed to support them at
> >> the Bay of Pigs.
>
> > Yah, Harris, if 99% of the information about Oswald`s beliefs points
> >in one direction, and one percent points in another, go with the 1%.
>
> NoBud. EVERY relevant thing he did, pointed to his pretense that he
> was a communist, and that he used his bogus legend to undermine the
> enemies of the FBI.
The FBI had enemies inside the TSBD?
> >> Funny isn't it, that Mr. Ferrie got pulled down from a podium for saying
> >> exactly the same thing.
>
> > Because he wanted everyone to know he was involved with framing
> >Oswald?
>
> No-one on the planet hated JFK more than Marcello and Ferrie,Bud. And
> almost every possible suspect in this case, was connected to Marcello and
> organized crime.
If Ferrie put Oswald up to killing Kennedy, why would he stand up on
a podium and say anything at all about Oswald?
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
The report was written on the 21st, Bud. That means Oswald probably
watched episodes on the 4th, 11th, and 18th.
And did you notice in that report, that the problems which included the
failure to salute, began, “During the past 2 weeks"?
By 10/21, Oswald had been in school for about 7 weeks. Apparently, he was
OK for the first 5. But he wasn't an evil communist then, was he:-)
Keep in mind too, that once he was turned on to the show, there was also a
book and a radio progam available to him.
He was 14 years old, Bud - at a time when we were not jaded and actually
believed what we saw on TV. And this was a very powerful piece of
propaganda, designed for the solitary purpose of making people hate
communism.
Do you REALLY think that Oswald developed a love of communism while he was
watching that for three years???
>
>> >>Marcello was right when he said Oswald was
>> >> "crazy".
>>
>> > He would know, having spent little or no time with Oswald.
>>
>> Yes, I doubt that he spent a lot of time with Oswald. That was
>> Ferrie's job.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>Silvia Odio was told exactly the same thing by other exiles who
>> >> knew him. Read her WC testimony,bud. They told her that Oswald said the
>> >> Cuban exiles should have killed JFK because he failed to support them at
>> >> the Bay of Pigs.
>>
>> > Yah, Harris, if 99% of the information about Oswald`s beliefs points
>> >in one direction, and one percent points in another, go with the 1%.
>>
>> NoBud. EVERY relevant thing he did, pointed to his pretense that he
>> was a communist, and that he used his bogus legend to undermine the
>> enemies of the FBI.
>
> The FBI had enemies inside the TSBD?
I don't recall claiming that the enemies of the FBI were in the
depository, Bud.
But Oswald sure was, and his presence there on 11/22/63 was supposed
to result in end of the FBI's number one enemy - Mr. Castro.
>
>> >> Funny isn't it, that Mr. Ferrie got pulled down from a podium for saying
>> >> exactly the same thing.
>>
>> > Because he wanted everyone to know he was involved with framing
>> >Oswald?
>>
>> No-one on the planet hated JFK more than Marcello and Ferrie,Bud. And
>> almost every possible suspect in this case, was connected to Marcello and
>> organized crime.
>
> If Ferrie put Oswald up to killing Kennedy, why would he stand up on
>a podium and say anything at all about Oswald?
Bud, I know you are striving to be clever, but you need to pay
attention to the dates of the replies that you are being clever about.
"exactly the same thing", was what Oswald said to the exiles about
assassinating JFK because he didn't support the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Robert Harris
Bud
That is when Carro received the information he requested on the
16th. That means all the "progress" was prior to the 16th.
> That means Oswald probably
> watched episodes on the 4th, 11th, and 18th.
No, the 4th and 11th only. Two 30 minute shows you can`t show Oswald
even saw (Just because he was a fan of the show doesn`t mean he caught the
pilot episodes).
I had the misfortune to watch an 8 minute clip of the pilot episode on
youtube. F**king awful, I felt like killing someone after seeing it. The
hero is always thinking to himself what dire risk he is taking, and the
communist cell he has infiltrated is comprised of the least dangerous
looking group to ever conspire together. The are talking about world
domination, and they all look like Mr Hooper from Sesame Street.
> And did you notice in that report, that the problems which included the
> failure to salute, began, “During the past 2 weeks"?
No, you are merging two different pieces of information. The only thing
it said about the saluting was "He has consistently refused to salute the
flag during early morning exercises."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/carro.htm
Robert Harris
<2155360b-2739-4dce...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
OIC, so if Oswald set off a bomb in the cafeteria on the 17th that
wouldn't have been mentioned in the report. Is that what you want us to
believe, Bud?
The report was written on the 21st. It therefore reported on Oswald up to
and probably including, that date.
>
> > That means Oswald probably
> > watched episodes on the 4th, 11th, and 18th.
>
> No, the 4th and 11th only. Two 30 minute shows you can`t show Oswald
> even saw (Just because he was a fan of the show doesn`t mean he caught the
> pilot episodes).
And why wasn't he watching on the 18th?
There was no cable or hundreds of channels to choose from. In 1953, even
in NY, you could probably only get a couple channels clearly, no matter
where you lived.
Don't you think a new adventure/spy program would be a pretty likely
choice for a 14 year old boy, Bud?
>
> I had the misfortune to watch an 8 minute clip of the pilot episode on
> youtube. F**king awful,
Well, it's always good to hear from such an unbiased source:-)
But unfortunately, Oswald didn't have your exquisite tastes in
entertainment. Both his brother and his mother confirmed that he was
totally obsessed with the program.
> I felt like killing someone after seeing it.
Bud, I think you might be taking your entertainment a bit too seriously.
Either that or you were PO'd for much different reasons than you are
implying.
BTW, you did know, didn't you that the program was nominated for two
Emmys in it's first year of production?
> The
> hero is always thinking to himself what dire risk he is taking, and the
> communist cell he has infiltrated is comprised of the least dangerous
> looking group to ever conspire together. The are talking about world
> domination, and they all look like Mr Hooper from Sesame Street.
Back then my favorite show was Tom Corbett. I thought the special
effects were amazing!!
>
> > And did you notice in that report, that the problems which included the
> > failure to salute, began, ?During the past 2 weeks"?
>
> No, you are merging two different pieces of information. The only thing
> it said about the saluting was "He has consistently refused to salute the
> flag during early morning exercises."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/carro.htm
Read your own cite:
?During the past 2 weeks practically every subject teacher has
complained to me about the boy?s behavior. He has consistently refused
to salute the flag during early morning exercises."
It is obvious that his failure to salute is part of that bad behavior
that began within the previous two weeks.
Or are you suggesting that Oswald wouldn't salute all along but then
began to behave poorly, later on???
Don't be silly Bud. The problems began within two weeks prior to the
date that report was written. It is a perfect match with him watching
the TV show.
That program impacted Oswald and totally changed him Bud. At 14 he was
at a very impressionable age and he had no father figure in his life -
until he discovered Philbrick, who was a popular hero to millions of
Americans, Bud, and particularly young people.
Robert Harris
Bud
If Carro found out about it, he`d probably include it. But it is
unlikely the information would have been included in the information the
school sent him.
> The report was written on the 21st. It therefore reported on Oswald up to
> and probably including, that date.
The information was probably mailed, Harris. Carro calls and requests
the information. The school gathers the information and sends it to him,
likely by mail. When Carro got the information on Wednesday the 21st
(possible he got it earlier, just because he said he received it doesn`t
mean it was the day he wrote the report), he wrote the report.
> > > That means Oswald probably
> > > watched episodes on the 4th, 11th, and 18th.
>
> > No, the 4th and 11th only. Two 30 minute shows you can`t show Oswald
> > even saw (Just because he was a fan of the show doesn`t mean he caught the
> > pilot episodes).
>
> And why wasn't he watching on the 18th?
Maybe he did. But it couldn`t influence Oswald`s actions as noted
by his teachers, since that was all activity prior to the 16th.
> There was no cable or hundreds of channels to choose from. In 1953, even
> in NY, you could probably only get a couple channels clearly, no matter
> where you lived.
>
> Don't you think a new adventure/spy program would be a pretty likely
> choice for a 14 year old boy, Bud?
I dare you to get a 14 year old to watch that crappy show, Harris. There
was no adventure in what I saw, only stupid, droning speeches. At least
the Man From U.N.C.L.E had pens that shot darts and whatnot. The Avengers
had umbrellas that shot darts and whatnot. If Oswald liked boring
monologues, why not stay in school and listen to his teachers?
> > I had the misfortune to watch an 8 minute clip of the pilot episode on
> > youtube. F**king awful,
>
> Well, it's always good to hear from such an unbiased source:-)
>
> But unfortunately, Oswald didn't have your exquisite tastes in
> entertainment. Both his brother and his mother confirmed that he was
> totally obsessed with the program.
>
> > I felt like killing someone after seeing it.
>
> Bud, I think you might be taking your entertainment a bit too seriously.
> Either that or you were PO'd for much different reasons than you are
> implying.
Well, it`s a very powerful show, Harris.
> BTW, you did know, didn't you that the program was nominated for two
> Emmys in it's first year of production?
What do you have against the Emmy people that you would drag that
skeleton out of their closet?
> > The
> > hero is always thinking to himself what dire risk he is taking, and the
> > communist cell he has infiltrated is comprised of the least dangerous
> > looking group to ever conspire together. The are talking about world
> > domination, and they all look like Mr Hooper from Sesame Street.
>
> Back then my favorite show was Tom Corbett. I thought the special
> effects were amazing!!
Damn, you`re old. I never even heard of that, was that a talkie?
> > > And did you notice in that report, that the problems which included the
> > > failure to salute, began, ?During the past 2 weeks"?
>
> > No, you are merging two different pieces of information. The only thing
> > it said about the saluting was "He has consistently refused to salute the
> > flag during early morning exercises."
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/carro.htm
>
> Read your own cite:
>
> ?During the past 2 weeks practically every subject teacher has
> complained to me about the boy?s behavior. He has consistently refused
> to salute the flag during early morning exercises."
>
> It is obvious that his failure to salute is part of that bad behavior
> that began within the previous two weeks.
No, it isn`t obvious, it is ambiguous. The only way you could tell
is if the teacher had written "During this time, he has consistently
refused to salute the flag...."
It reads to me like the teacher is just hitting the highlights of his
bad behavior. Each subject teacher is complaining about Oswald`s behavior
in their particular class, and these complaints have been going on for two
weeks. Doesn`t speak to the amount of time the flag saluting issue has
been going on, as I read it.
> Or are you suggesting that Oswald wouldn't salute all along but then
> began to behave poorly, later on???
"consistently" is the only descriptive term used, and that indicates
all of the time. Doing something for some period of time and then
doing something different is the opposite of "consistent".
> Don't be silly Bud. The problems began within two weeks prior to the
> date that report was written.
No. Prior to the 16th.
> It is a perfect match with him watching
> the TV show.
Your theory is that watching one half hour of lousy television
prompted young Oswald to be uncooperative and disruptive?
> That program impacted Oswald and totally changed him Bud. At 14 he was
> at a very impressionable age and he had no father figure in his life -
> until he discovered Philbrick, who was a popular hero to millions of
> Americans, Bud, and particularly young people.
If Phibrick is his hero and a great influence, why isn`t he
emulating him?
> Robert Harris
Bud
> On Oct 14, 6:32 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <2155360b-2739-4dce-9318-1027d76d6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 13, 4:41 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > date that report was written.
>
> No. Prior to the 16th.
>
> > It is a perfect match with him watching
> > the TV show.
>
> Your theory is that watching one half hour of lousy television
> prompted young Oswald to be uncooperative and disruptive?
I guess there are some questions an honest man will avoid.
> > That program impacted Oswald and totally changed himBud. At 14 he was
> > at a very impressionable age and he had no father figure in his life -
> > until he discovered Philbrick, who was a popular hero to millions of
> > Americans,Bud, and particularly young people.