544 Camp Street
PapaKochenbrot
>the Cuban Revolutionary Council offices is weak, because the CRC had been out
of the building since before Oswald even arrived back in the US.
Bingo!....I think you've just said something significant....
Recall that the Fair play For Cuba pamphlets that Oswald handed out were also
stamped with the Camp street address. ( When Oswald was in Jail in N.O, he
requested to see an FBI agent. He wrote a note on the pamphlet he gave to FBI
agent Quiggly...Oswald's note said.." Notice address on back cover"
That address was ...544 camp street.
Those very pamphets, " The Crime Against Cuba" by Corliss Lamont, were printed
in 1961 and bought by the CIA. I always wondered where Oswald got those
pamphlets.
Apparently those pamphlets were already stamped when Oswald received them.
The stamp certainly was NOT made with Oswald's stamp kit. The Fair Play for
Cuba leaflets that Oswald was handing out, used all capital letters, and they
were stamped .......
L.H. OSWALD
544 CAMP ST.
NEW ORLEANS, LA
The stamp on the back of the CIA purchased " The Crime Against Cuba",pamplets
was made by a stamp different than Oswald's. That Stamp read.......
FPCC
544 CAMP ST.
NEW ORLEANS, La.
The pamphlets were stamped differently than the leaflets....
If Oswald had stamped all of the material at the same time ( which would be
logical ) would he have changed the setting on his stamp? Or would he have
simply stamped all of the material without changing the text.??
Apparently Bannister or Ferrie gave him the old leaflets and pamphlets that had
been left over from the first sucker that they had attempted to infiltrate into
Cuba.
The old 1961 pamphlets had already been stamped with the Camp Street
address,when Oswald received them.
Walt
The Great Unwashed
papakoc...@aol.com says...
> >The argument that Oswald used the address to lure prospective supporters to
> >the Cuban Revolutionary Council offices is weak, because the CRC had been out
> of the building since before Oswald even arrived back in the US.
>
> Bingo!....I think you've just said something significant....
>
> Recall that the Fair play For Cuba pamphlets that Oswald handed out were also
> stamped with the Camp street address. ( When Oswald was in Jail in N.O, he
> requested to see an FBI agent. He wrote a note on the pamphlet he gave to FBI
> agent Quiggly...Oswald's note said.." Notice address on back cover"
> That address was ...544 camp street.
Walt,
This is very interesting. Can you direct me to the source for this
information, especially about Oswald's note?
GU
Debra Conway
Newman.
Debra
--
JFK Lancer Productions & Publications http://jfklancer.com
"Serving the research community, educating a new generation."
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Keep up with JFK News. Subscribe at http://jfklancer.com/Groups2.html or
Send an email instead: Click here: jfklancerne...@listbot.com
Blackburst
I have a lot of respect for your analysis and passion for this case. I
repectfully disagree on some points in your post.
>the Fair play For Cuba pamphlets that Oswald handed out were also
>stamped with the Camp street address.
If you mean the yellow single sheet "Hands Off Cuba" leaflets Oswald had
printed, none of them have surfaced with the 544 Camp Street stamp. (Stone's
"JFK" was inaccurate on this.) The only literature that has surfaced with this
stamp are the Corliss Lamont "Crime Against Cuba" pamphlets.
>When Oswald was in Jail in N.O...>He wrote a note on the pamphlet he gave to
FBI
>agent Quiggly...Oswald's note said.." Notice address on back cover"
1) I recall that Quigley or another FBI agent said that HE made the notation
AFTER the assassination. Give me a few days to find the citation in my files.
2) The handwriting bears no resemblance to Oswald's handwriting.
>Those very pamphets, " The Crime Against Cuba" by Corliss Lamont, were
>printed
>in 1961 and bought by the CIA.
The CIA openly bought some of the pamphlets, but many more were acquired by the
FPCC and the CPUSA, both of whom sent literature to Oswald.
>Apparently those pamphlets were already stamped when Oswald received them.
>The stamp certainly was NOT made with Oswald's stamp kit.
There are a number of defects and other artifacts in known exemplars of
Oswald's stamp kit that appear identical with the Camp Street stamp.
>The Fair Play for
>Cuba leaflets that Oswald was handing out, used all capital letters, and they
>
>were stamped .......
>L.H. OSWALD
>544 CAMP ST.
>NEW ORLEANS, LA
NOT TRUE. This is a mistake in Stone's movie!!!
>Apparently Bannister or Ferrie gave him the old leaflets and pamphlets that
>had
>been left over from the first sucker that they had attempted to infiltrate
>into
>Cuba.
There is NO evidence that has surfaced that connects Banister or Ferrie to the
pamphlets, outside of the fact that it was the same building as Banister's, and
Banister apparently acquired "some" pamphlets or leaflets (unidentified) that
Oswald handed out. One can fit either a sinister or benign interpretation into
these facts.
>The old 1961 pamphlets had already been stamped with the Camp Street
>address,when Oswald received them.
>
The evidence does not support this.
I'll support you when you're right, Walt, but this is a clear example of
inaccurate overreaching.
Dave Blackburst
Martin Shackelford
Delphine Roberts, personal secretary and mistress to Guy Banister:
"He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and the office. As I
understood it, he had use of an office on the second floor, above the
main office where we worked [Banister's private office, where he and
Roberts worked]. I was not greatly surprised when I hear he was going up
and down [by the private stairs that came down from the ceiling in
Banister's office?], back and forth. Then, several times, Mr. Banister
brought me upstairs, and in the office above I saw various items stuck
up on the wall pertaining to Cuba...But on several occasions, when some
people who had been upstairs would bring some of that material
(leaflets) down into the main office, Banister was very incensed. He did
not want that material in his office."
Delphine's daughter, also Delphine Roberts, used a second floor room for
photographic work:
"The daughter told me that she and a photographer friend also saw Lee
Oswald there occasionally. 'I knew he had his pamphlets and books and
everything in a room along from where we were with our photographic
equipment. He was quiet and mostly kept to himself, didn't associate
with too many people. He would just tell us hello and goodbye when we
saw him. I never saw him talking with Guy Banister, but I knew he worked
in his office. I knew they were associated...I got the impression that
Oswald was doing something to make people believe he was something he
wasn't. I am sure that Guy Banister knew what Oswald was doing."
We can add this to other evidence of an Oswald-Banister link:
gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/h0/SIGS/JFK/Only/MS/.05-ps.html
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Blackburst
I can't rule out the possibility that Oswald really did rent an office at 544
Camp for a short period. There are his statements in his letter to VT Lee, his
use of the address stamp, and some vague recollections of an unidentified
occupant by Newman and Arthus.
Delphine Roberts didn't tell the authorities about the Oswald-Banister
connection immediately after the assassination. She didn't volunteer her story
to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964. She didn't tell it to Garrison
investigators in 1967. She didn't tell it to HSCA when first interviewed. He
NODA and HSCA statements contain a few things that seem mistaken. Then there's
this whole weird scene with Summers. I wish we had something more concrete to
go on than Roberts.
Gaudet? Newbrough? Martin? I don't know. Campbell? Kurtz? Maybe, maybe not.
We have a very solid image of a guy holding himself out as a Marxist FPCC
activist. But we have a sketchy and somewhat speculative image of an agent
provocateur working for Banister. Let's find a solid witness.
Dave Reitzes
Delphine Roberts, Sr., of course, denied in 1967 having ever so much as heard
Oswald's name prior to the assassination. She initially repeated this in 1978,
and later told House Select Committee investigators that Banister had kept a
file on Oswald, though that was the extent of her knowledge. She stated that
she had heard Banister speak of Oswald. "She did not give an opinion on whether
Oswald might have been working for Banister," and she "stated she never saw
Oswald in person."
Later she seems to have had a change of heart. She told House committee
investigators that she did see Oswald in Banister's office on a few occasions
after all. "She believed that Oswald was either working, or attempting to
work, for Banister."
.
She told Anthony Summers that she actually saw Oswald in Banister's office
numerous times, and she had come to believe that he was working "undercover"
for the ex-G-man:
(quote) - - - - - -
As I understood it he had the use of an office on the second floor, above the
main office where we worked. I was not greatly surprised when I learned he was
going up and down, back and forth. Then, several times, Mr. Banister brought me
upstairs, and in the office above I saw various writings stuck up on the wall
pertaining to Cuba. There were various leaflets up there pertaining to Fair
Play for Cuba. They were pro-Castro leaflets. Banister just didn't say anything
about them one way or the other.
(end quote) - - - - - -
One would expect the building's owner and landlord, Sam Newman, to be aware
that one of his first-floor tenants was making use of a vacant room on the
second floor, but he didn't know of any such thing, and he himself never saw
Lee Harvey Oswald in or around the building. The building's janitor, James
Arthus, lived on the premises at 544 Camp, and he never saw Oswald there
either. None of the building's other tenants remembered seeing Oswald that
summer, and certainly no one else in Banister's office recalls Oswald "going
up and down, back and forth" between the two offices.
Delphine Roberts also claims that Oswald once brought his wife by the office,
though Marina Oswald denies ever having been to any such office with her
husband.
The House Select Committee, despite an apparent eagerness to link Oswald to
David Ferrie, could not accept Delphine Roberts' testimony. HSCA Chief Counsel
G. Robert Blakey would later write that Roberts' "demeanor as a witness did not
lead us to place much credence in her testimony."
It is often claimed that Delphine Roberts, Jr., supports her mother's account,
but this is not precisely so. The younger Delphine claims that Oswald did not
have an office at 544 Camp, but rather that "he lived there, had an apartment
there, for two or three months." She says that "Oswald came to 544 Camp at
night and left every morning," despite the fact that Oswald spent every night
that summer with his wife and daughter (except on August 9, when he spent the
night in jail).
The younger Delphine didn't mention anything to Anthony Summers about having
met Oswald's wife or mother, but she told Gerald Posner that she had met one or
the other and that "she was lovely." (It's not clear whether Roberts meant
Oswald's mother, Marguerite - as Posner states - or whether she erroneously
named Oswald's wife as "Marguerite.")
Posner interviewed both mother and daughter, and came away with some most
fascinating material. He found, for example, that Delphine Roberts, Sr.,
"claims to be related to the 'king and queen of Wales [sic] and Mary Queen of
Scots,' as well as 'being one of the very few, since the beginning of the
world, who has ever read the sacred scrolls that God himself wrote and gave to
the ancient Hebrews for placing in the Ark of the Covenant. . . . I think I
have been the last person to see them.'" She told him she was writing a book
on the Kennedy assassination, "although it will also tell the story of the
Creation."
And, of course, Roberts was pleased to volunteer a great deal of information on
her white supremacist views, which don't seem to have mellowed much over the
years.
This information supplements earlier Roberts anecdotes, such as her
recollection that around the time she and Guy Banister met, she saw "Fidel
Castro and his top aide Che Guevara walking on Canal Street" while Roberts was
holding a demonstration in tribute to the American flag.
Complete source citations can be found at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ripples.htm
FWIW.
Dave
Perpetual Starlight
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
Original fiction, articles, music and more
PapaKochenbrot
>Message-id: <MPG.13a46460d...@news.earthlink.net>
>
>> Recall that the Fair play For Cuba pamphlets that Oswald handed out were
>also stamped with the Camp street address. ( When Oswald was in Jail in N.O,
he requested to see an FBI agent. He wrote a note on the pamphlet he gave to
FBI agent Quiggly...Oswald's note
>said.." Notice address on back cover"
>> That address was ...544 camp street.
>
>Walt,
>
>This is very interesting. Can you
>direct me to the source for this
>information, especially about Oswald's note?
>
>GU
Hello GU….
The information about Oswald telling FBI agent Quigley to notice the address on
the back of the "Crime Against Cuba" booklet comes from the book, "Destiny
Betrayed" by James Di Eugenio. I have also read the account in an FBI
memo…..but I can't direct you to that memo at the moment.
There are some who say that there is no link between Oswald and Bannister /
Ferrie. But page 271 of my copy of the Warren Report says…..Quote…
"Although a pamphlet taken from him ( Oswald ) at the time of his arrest in New
Orleans contains the rubber stamp imprint
" FPCC, 544 CAMP ST., NEW ORLEANS, LA." Investigation has indicated that
neither the Fair Play For Cuba Committee nor Lee Harvey Oswald ever maintained
an office at that address."….. unquote.
Notice the disingenuous wording used in the W.R. …The Crime Against Cuba was
not "TAKEN" from Oswald…He gave it to FBI agent Quigley….and the sneaky way
they avoid between Oswald and Bannister's 544 Camp street Address. They act is
if this isn't a link to Bannister by saying Oswald nor the FPCC ever had an
office at that address….
In the Photo section of my W.R. there is a pic of Oswald handing out leaflets.
There is also a picture of the FPCC leaflet that Oswald and others were
distributing…. one is stamped… LH Oswald, 4907 Magazine St., New Orleans,
La. and the other is stamped A.J. Hidell, P.O. Box 30016, NEW ORLEANS, LA…..
Since one of the men who was distributing leaflets with Oswald was never
identified or found it's possible that he is the man who was handing out the
leaflets stamped AJ HIDELL.
There is a pic of a FPCC leaflet on page 141 of TKOAP which is stamped LH
OSWALD, 544 CAMP ST., NEW ORLEANS, LA.
Walt
Clark
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:393B0680...@concentric.net...
> From Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
>
> Delphine Roberts, personal secretary and mistress to Guy Banister:
> "He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and the office. As I
> understood it, he had use of an office on the second floor, above the
> main office where we worked [Banister's private office, where he and
> Roberts worked]. I was not greatly surprised when I hear he was going up
> and down [by the private stairs that came down from the ceiling in
> Banister's office?],
About those stairs, Martin. Just so that you're aware, if that room above
Banister's (to which the alleged pull down stairs led) had any other door or
access to the second floor from it, that pull down stair would have been in
violation of most, if not all, building codes. It would have meant that
someone entering the room via the second floor could step, inadvertently on
the pull down steps in the floor and fall through. It would be very
dangerous.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
PapaKochenbrot
>From: great_u...@aol.com (The Great Unwashed)
>Date: 6/4/00 12:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MPG.13a46460d...@news.earthlink.net>
Hello GU….
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:393B0680...@concentric.net...
>> From Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
>>
>> Delphine Roberts, personal secretary and mistress to Guy Banister:
>> "He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and the office. As I
>> understood it, he had use of an office on the second floor, above the
>> main office where we worked [Banister's private office, where he and
>> Roberts worked]. I was not greatly surprised when I hear he was going up
>> and down [by the private stairs that came down from the ceiling in
>> Banister's office?],
>
>
>About those stairs, Martin. Just so that you're aware, if that room above
>Banister's (to which the alleged pull down stairs led) had any other door or
>access to the second floor from it, that pull down stair would have been in
>violation of most, if not all, building codes. It would have meant that
>someone entering the room via the second floor could step, inadvertently on
>the pull down steps in the floor and fall through. It would be very
>dangerous.
>
>
>Just a thought.
>
>
>::Clark::
And a timely one, Clark. I'd be watching out for trap doors myself --
figuratively speaking -- if I were Mr. Shackelford.
Dave
"Camp Street Blues"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/camp.htm
More on Delphine Roberts
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
Martin Shackelford
Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
time of his death in August 1964).
Sometimes you have to take what witnesses you can get, especially
when the principals are all long deceased. Roberts would be in the best
position of anyone (aside from Banister himself) to know what was going
on in Banister's operation.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Clark wrote:
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:393B0680...@concentric.net...
> > From Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
> >
> > Delphine Roberts, personal secretary and mistress to Guy Banister:
> > "He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and the office. As I
> > understood it, he had use of an office on the second floor, above the
> > main office where we worked [Banister's private office, where he and
> > Roberts worked]. I was not greatly surprised when I hear he was going up
> > and down [by the private stairs that came down from the ceiling in
> > Banister's office?],
>
> About those stairs, Martin. Just so that you're aware, if that room above
> Banister's (to which the alleged pull down stairs led) had any other door or
> access to the second floor from it, that pull down stair would have been in
> violation of most, if not all, building codes. It would have meant that
> someone entering the room via the second floor could step, inadvertently on
> the pull down steps in the floor and fall through. It would be very
> dangerous.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> ::Clark::
>
> back and forth. Then, several times, Mr. Banister
> > brought me upstairs, and in the office above I saw various items stuck
> > up on the wall pertaining to Cuba...But on several occasions, when some
> > people who had been upstairs would bring some of that material
> > (leaflets) down into the main office, Banister was very incensed. He did
> > not want that material in his office."
> >
> > Delphine's daughter, also Delphine Roberts, used a second floor room for
> > photographic work:
> > "The daughter told me that she and a photographer friend also saw Lee
> > Oswald there occasionally. 'I knew he had his pamphlets and books and
> > everything in a room along from where we were with our photographic
> > equipment. He was quiet and mostly kept to himself, didn't associate
> > with too many people. He would just tell us hello and goodbye when we
> > saw him. I never saw him talking with Guy Banister, but I knew he worked
> > in his office. I knew they were associated...I got the impression that
> > Oswald was doing something to make people believe he was something he
> > wasn't. I am sure that Guy Banister knew what Oswald was doing."
> >
> > We can add this to other evidence of an Oswald-Banister link:
> > gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/h0/SIGS/JFK/Only/MS/.05-ps.html
> >
Martin Shackelford
Robert Groden was a technical advisor on "JFK." As the "544 Camp
Street" address appeared on leaflets used in the film, that may have
been his source.
Martin Shackelford
wasn't altered, as I would soon be proven wrong. I'm still waiting.
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >From: "Clark" clwi...@prodigy.net
> >
> >
> >
> >"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >news:393B0680...@concentric.net...
> >> From Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
> >>
> >> Delphine Roberts, personal secretary and mistress to Guy Banister:
> >> "He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and the office. As I
> >> understood it, he had use of an office on the second floor, above the
> >> main office where we worked [Banister's private office, where he and
> >> Roberts worked]. I was not greatly surprised when I hear he was going up
> >> and down [by the private stairs that came down from the ceiling in
> >> Banister's office?],
> >
> >
> >About those stairs, Martin. Just so that you're aware, if that room above
> >Banister's (to which the alleged pull down stairs led) had any other door or
> >access to the second floor from it, that pull down stair would have been in
> >violation of most, if not all, building codes. It would have meant that
> >someone entering the room via the second floor could step, inadvertently on
> >the pull down steps in the floor and fall through. It would be very
> >dangerous.
> >
> >
> >Just a thought.
> >
> >
> >::Clark::
>
> And a timely one, Clark. I'd be watching out for trap doors myself --
> figuratively speaking -- if I were Mr. Shackelford.
>
> Dave
>
> "Camp Street Blues"
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/camp.htm
>
> More on Delphine Roberts
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
>
> Perpetual Starlight
> http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
> Original fiction, articles, music and more
--
Haizen Paige
http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/LHO.html
Blackburst wrote:
>
> Martin wrote:
> >Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
>
> I dunno, Martin. I'd be more comfortable with some better witnesses.
>
> >Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
> >because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
> >after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
> >time of his death in August 1964).
>
> To a juror, that would impact on her credibility. She would be in a position to
> know, but I'm not ready to mortgage the farm based on her story. Some things
> she said were probably wrong.
>
> It's striking to me that NOBODY alleged such a connection for three years, then
> Martin and others started incrementally upping the ante with the spotlight on.
>
> I just hate to see this stuff cited as absolute fact, when it's a lot less
> certain than that. I'm inclined to take Oswald at his word that he rented an
> office (and that Newman was less than candid), until I see something more
> solid. Yes, I know: Martin, Lewis, Russo, Gaudet, Newbrough, Campbell, Kurtz,
> etc. There's an argument for and against it.
>
> Having once completly rejected the image of Oswald as the lone Marxist, I
> decided to REALLY read his writings and consider the testimony of witnesses
> supporting that image, to see if there is an internal wholeness to it, and the
> case is stronger than I thought. Oswald had a very strange mind, and it's going
> to take some solid witnesses to negate that wholeness for me. I am not at all
> closed-minded about Oswald as a double agent, but I am not closed minded about
> what he held himself out to be, either.
>
> But many people disagree with me, and I respect that. Maybe they're right.
PapaKochenbrot
>Date: 6/5/00 4:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <393C38BE...@concentric.net>
>
>Walt:
>
> Robert Groden was a technical advisor on "JFK." As the "544 Camp
>Street" address appeared on leaflets used in the film, that may have
>been his source.
>
>Martin
>--
I know that Martin.... What I don't know is where the FPFCC leaflet which is
shown on page 141 of Groden's TKOAP came from...
Perhaps someone who knows Groden could get the answer and post it...
Walt
Dave Reitzes
>
>Dave:
>
> Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
>because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
>after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
>time of his death in August 1964).
>when the principals are all long deceased. Roberts would be in the best
>position of anyone (aside from Banister himself) to know what was going
>on in Banister's operation.
Yeah, her and Jack Martin.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ripples.htm
Dave
Blackburst
>Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
I dunno, Martin. I'd be more comfortable with some better witnesses.
>Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
>because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
>after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
>time of his death in August 1964).
To a juror, that would impact on her credibility. She would be in a position to
Dave Reitzes
>
>Martin wrote:
>>Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
>
>I dunno, Martin. I'd be more comfortable with some better witnesses.
>
>>Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
>>because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
>>after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
>>time of his death in August 1964).
>
>To a juror, that would impact on her credibility. She would be in a position
>to
>know, but I'm not ready to mortgage the farm based on her story. Some things
>she said were probably wrong.
>
>It's striking to me that NOBODY alleged such a connection for three years,
>then
>Martin and others started incrementally upping the ante with the spotlight
>on.
>
>I just hate to see this stuff cited as absolute fact, when it's a lot less
>certain than that. I'm inclined to take Oswald at his word that he rented an
>office (and that Newman was less than candid), until I see something more
>solid. Yes, I know: Martin, Lewis, Russo,
Russo? In connection with the Newman Building, or just his more famous tale?
>Gaudet, Newbrough,
Newbrough? Did he say anything about Oswald?
Campbell, Kurtz,
>etc. There's an argument for and against it.
>
>Having once completly rejected the image of Oswald as the lone Marxist, I
>decided to REALLY read his writings and consider the testimony of witnesses
>supporting that image, to see if there is an internal wholeness to it, and
>the
>case is stronger than I thought. Oswald had a very strange mind, and it's
>going
>to take some solid witnesses to negate that wholeness for me. I am not at all
>closed-minded about Oswald as a double agent, but I am not closed minded
>about
>what he held himself out to be, either.
>
>But many people disagree with me, and I respect that. Maybe they're right.
Well said.
Dave Reitzes
>Read the last words of Lee Harvey Oswald if you haven't already.
>
>http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/LHO.html
These aren't Oswalds own words, Haizen. This article consists almost
exclusively of Mae Brussell's reconstructions of Oswald's statements from his
various interrogation sessions, as published in the Warren Report. The article
incorrectly labels Mrs. Brussell's reconstructions as actual quotes. The only
direct quotes come from a handful of Oswald's responses to reporters'
questions.
I think it would be more responsible to refer students to Mrs. Brussell's main
source, the documents published in the Warren Report, pp. 599-636, which does
not contain Mrs. Brussell's reconstructions, and in which the context of each
remark is made clear.
Dave
"Maybe the astrologers killed Kennedy"
-- David Ferrie to George Lardner, Jr.
Washington Post, February 26, 1967
Posted by Jerry Shinley
>Blackburst wrote:
>>
>> Martin wrote:
>> >Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
>>
>> I dunno, Martin. I'd be more comfortable with some better witnesses.
>>
>> >Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
>> >because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
>> >after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
>> >time of his death in August 1964).
>>
>> To a juror, that would impact on her credibility. She would be in a
>position to
>> know, but I'm not ready to mortgage the farm based on her story. Some
>things
>> she said were probably wrong.
>>
>> It's striking to me that NOBODY alleged such a connection for three years,
>then
>> Martin and others started incrementally upping the ante with the spotlight
>on.
>>
>> I just hate to see this stuff cited as absolute fact, when it's a lot less
>> certain than that. I'm inclined to take Oswald at his word that he rented
>an
>> office (and that Newman was less than candid), until I see something more
>> solid. Yes, I know: Martin, Lewis, Russo, Gaudet, Newbrough, Campbell,
>Kurtz,
>> etc. There's an argument for and against it.
>>
>> Having once completly rejected the image of Oswald as the lone Marxist, I
>> decided to REALLY read his writings and consider the testimony of witnesses
>> supporting that image, to see if there is an internal wholeness to it, and
>the
>> case is stronger than I thought. Oswald had a very strange mind, and it's
>going
>> to take some solid witnesses to negate that wholeness for me. I am not at
>all
>> closed-minded about Oswald as a double agent, but I am not closed minded
>about
>> what he held himself out to be, either.
>>
>> But many people disagree with me, and I respect that. Maybe they're right.
John McAdams
>
>>From: "Clark" clwi...@prodigy.net
>>
>>
>>
>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>news:393B0680...@concentric.net...
>>> From Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
>>>
>>> Delphine Roberts, personal secretary and mistress to Guy Banister:
>>> "He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and the office. As I
>>> understood it, he had use of an office on the second floor, above the
>>> main office where we worked [Banister's private office, where he and
>>> Roberts worked]. I was not greatly surprised when I hear he was going up
>>> and down [by the private stairs that came down from the ceiling in
>>> Banister's office?],
>>
>>
>>About those stairs, Martin. Just so that you're aware, if that room above
>>Banister's (to which the alleged pull down stairs led) had any other door or
>>access to the second floor from it, that pull down stair would have been in
>>violation of most, if not all, building codes. It would have meant that
>>someone entering the room via the second floor could step, inadvertently on
>>the pull down steps in the floor and fall through. It would be very
>>dangerous.
>>
>>
>>Just a thought.
>>
>>
Add to that that buildings of that vintage didn't have "pull-down
stairs." They had stairwells.
The pull-down stairs that this "witness" is describing are typical in
residential construction post-WWII.
>
>
>And a timely one, Clark. I'd be watching out for trap doors myself --
>figuratively speaking -- if I were Mr. Shackelford.
>
What worries me about this is that one way or the other the witness is
doubtless being coached. I'm certain Martin wouldn't *consciously*
coach a witness to tell tales. But it's possible for a lot of
unconscious coaching to go on, as a witness observes what answers are
sought, and favorably received.
And then there are unscrupulous promoters who will *consciously*
encourage the right kind of "interesting" stories.
Having a couple of conspiracy books handy also helps the witness
produce tales that sound plausible to conspiracists :-).
Untimately, this process is doomed to failure. The reason is simple:
the conspiracist coaches usually believe things that are contradicted
by the hard evidence, and the witness ends up repeating some obvious
factoid, and even claiming *personal knowledge* of something that
didn't happen.
Jean Hill, James Files and Madeline Brown and the "changed parade
route" is a good example of this. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>
>>Dave:
>>
>> Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
How come Sam Newman didn't know about this "upstairs" office?
>> Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
>>because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
>>after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
>>time of his death in August 1964).
Why didn't she tell her story to the Garrison people when they
interviewed her?
>> Sometimes you have to take what witnesses you can get, especially
>>when the principals are all long deceased. Roberts would be in the best
>>position of anyone (aside from Banister himself) to know what was going
>>on in Banister's operation.
>
Why better than Ivan E. "Bill" Nitschke, Joseph Newbrough, Vernon
Gerdes, and Mary Helen Brengel?
Debra Hartman
McAdams) wrote:
>Add to that that buildings of that vintage didn't have "pull-down
>stairs." They had stairwells.
At this very moment I am sitting in a building built in 1922. It has
a "pull-down" staircase, which leads to a whole other floor.
[Aside to Clark. No one ever falls through because, when the stairs
are pulled down, the floor is open to the next floor *as with any
staircase*--the claim that someone would "fall through" is no more
true than of any other open stairwell. ]
I have no idea whether there was a stair between Bannister's office
and the rest of the Newman Building. *It doesn't matter." It *was
all the same building*. These posts fly in the face of the simplest
logic. Moreover, the absurd generalizations in these posts would
never get past an assignment in English Composition, 101.
Where was it this idiot McAdams was supposed to have gotten a degree?
He is nothing but a hack, peddling his weary wares for the lowest form
of communication: Propaganda.
Debra Hartman
McAdams) wrote:
>On 06 Jun 2000 03:20:38 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>
>>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>>
>>>Dave:
>>>
>>> Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
>
>
>How come Sam Newman didn't know about this "upstairs" office?
I and other members of my family own real estate about which we do not
have detailed knowledge. He probably just collected the rent. What
did he care?
>
>
>>> Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
>>>because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
>>>after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
>>>time of his death in August 1964).
>
>
>Why didn't she tell her story to the Garrison people when they
>interviewed her?
She probably didn't like them.
>
>
>>> Sometimes you have to take what witnesses you can get, especially
>>>when the principals are all long deceased. Roberts would be in the best
>>>position of anyone (aside from Banister himself) to know what was going
>>>on in Banister's operation.
>>
>
>Why better than Ivan E. "Bill" Nitschke, Joseph Newbrough, Vernon
>Gerdes, and Mary Helen Brengel?
Maybe because she knew him longer and better than any of them? After
all, she was his long-time lover as well as his employee, wasn't she?
Ever heard of pillow talk? (Sorry, of course you haven't. I forgot
you are a troll.)
Debra Hartman
Debra Hartman
Barb Junkkarinen
PapaKochenbrot
>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>Date: 6/5/00 4:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <393C38BE...@concentric.net>
>
> Robert Groden was a technical advisor on "JFK." As the "544 Camp
>Street" address appeared on leaflets used in the film, that may have
>been his source.
>
>Martin
I'd like to know where the FPCC leaflet which appears in TKOAP came from....
But aside from the FPCC leaflets...the FPCC pamphlet that Oswald gave FBI agent
Quigley, entitled " The Crime Against Cuba" WAS WAS stamped with the 544 Camp
street address......
DOES THIS PAMPHLET LINK OSWALD TO BANNISTER???
I believe the answer is a resounding.. YES!
Why did Oswald ask for an FBI agent when he was in jail for a minor disturbing
the peace violation?? Obviously Oswald had discovered something that he
thought his employer ( The FBI ) should know.
Had he learned that there was another invasion of Cuba being planned?.. Or did
he learn that there was a plot afoot to murder President Kennedy? Or perhaps
both plots were an integral part of the whole plan.....
He had in his possession a pamphlet that had been bought in 1961 by the CIA
from the FPCC, entitled "The Crime Against Cuba". The rubber stamp imprint on
the back of the pamphlet read FPCC, 544 CAMP ST., NEW ORLEANS, LA.
Oswald had this pamphlet and he called the FBI's attention to the address on
the back. If Oswald was not affiliated with Bannister / Ferrie at the 544 Camp
street address for the purpose of spying on Bannister and Associates... would
he have asked for an FBI agent?, and would he have gave the agent the
pamphlet?
Walt
Debra Hartman
Junkkarinen) wrote:
Oh, you must be referring to his alleged "PhD"? Actually, most anyone
can get into a *graduate* program at Harvard. Lots of back doors.
I was referring to his *undergraduate* degree--you know, the one where
he would have taken English Comp 101? He never would have been
admitted to Harvard as an undergrad. He writes like an Alabama
cracker. Perhaps someone will jump in to correct me?
Barb Junkkarinen
Hartman) wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:13:12 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb
>Junkkarinen) wrote:
>
>Oh, you must be referring to his alleged "PhD"? Actually, most anyone
>can get into a *graduate* program at Harvard. Lots of back doors.
>I was referring to his *undergraduate* degree--you know, the one where
>he would have taken English Comp 101? He never would have been
>admitted to Harvard as an undergrad. He writes like an Alabama
>cracker. Perhaps someone will jump in to correct me?
Are you saying that universities like Auburn give out crackerjack
degrees?
Debra Hartman
University of Alabama, wasn't it? Known by its alums as simply
"Alabama", or (for the crackers) "'Bama"? You know, the place where
they have a shrine to Paul "Bear" Bryant that's bigger than the
superdome?
Football anyone.......?
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 18:47:46 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb
Barb Junkkarinen
Hartman) wrote:
>Heavens no, Barf. I was referring only to McLiar's alma mater....
>
>University of Alabama, wasn't it? Known by its alums as simply
>"Alabama", or (for the crackers) "'Bama"? You know, the place where
>they have a shrine to Paul "Bear" Bryant that's bigger than the
>superdome?
>
>Football anyone.......?
I know nada about 'Bama...with or without a banjo on my knee....'cept
that's where Huntsville is and where Auburn is.....
Martin Shackelford
I forwarded the info to Robert for a reply.
Martin
PapaKochenbrot wrote:
> >Subject: Re: 544 Camp Street
> >From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
> >Date: 6/5/00 4:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <393C38BE...@concentric.net>
> >
>
> >Walt:
> >
> > Robert Groden was a technical advisor on "JFK." As the "544 Camp
> >Street" address appeared on leaflets used in the film, that may have
> >been his source.
> >
> >Martin
> >--
> I know that Martin.... What I don't know is where the FPFCC leaflet which is
> shown on page 141 of Groden's TKOAP came from...
>
> Perhaps someone who knows Groden could get the answer and post it...
>
> Walt
--
Martin Shackelford
who knew both.
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
> >
> >Dave:
> >
> > Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
> > Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
> >because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
> >after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
> >time of his death in August 1964).
> > Sometimes you have to take what witnesses you can get, especially
> >when the principals are all long deceased. Roberts would be in the best
> >position of anyone (aside from Banister himself) to know what was going
> >on in Banister's operation.
>
> Yeah, her and Jack Martin.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ripples.htm
>
> Dave
>
> Perpetual Starlight
> http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
> Original fiction, articles, music and more
--
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Debra Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 05:30:55 GMT, 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John
> McAdams) wrote:
>
> >Add to that that buildings of that vintage didn't have "pull-down
> >stairs." They had stairwells.
>
> At this very moment I am sitting in a building built in 1922. It has
> a "pull-down" staircase, which leads to a whole other floor.
>
> [Aside to Clark. No one ever falls through because, when the stairs
> are pulled down, the floor is open to the next floor *as with any
> staircase*--the claim that someone would "fall through" is no more
> true than of any other open stairwell. ]
>
> I have no idea whether there was a stair between Bannister's office
> and the rest of the Newman Building. *It doesn't matter." It *was
> all the same building*. These posts fly in the face of the simplest
> logic. Moreover, the absurd generalizations in these posts would
> never get past an assignment in English Composition, 101.
>
> Where was it this idiot McAdams was supposed to have gotten a degree?
> He is nothing but a hack, peddling his weary wares for the lowest form
> of communication: Propaganda.
--
Martin Shackelford
There was also a stairwell at the front of the building.
This was a private stairs, for the use of Banister and his office.
The witness mentioned the stairs quite some time ago, and I simply passed
on the information when the topic arose. No coaching involved by anyone,
however "doubtless" you may assume it.
You're jumping to conclusions the way you accuse "conspiracists" of
doing.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> On 05 Jun 2000 22:05:01 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>
> >
> >>From: "Clark" clwi...@prodigy.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >>news:393B0680...@concentric.net...
> >>> From Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
> >>>
> >>> Delphine Roberts, personal secretary and mistress to Guy Banister:
> >>> "He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and the office. As I
> >>> understood it, he had use of an office on the second floor, above the
> >>> main office where we worked [Banister's private office, where he and
> >>> Roberts worked]. I was not greatly surprised when I hear he was going up
> >>> and down [by the private stairs that came down from the ceiling in
> >>> Banister's office?],
> >>
> >>
> >>About those stairs, Martin. Just so that you're aware, if that room above
> >>Banister's (to which the alleged pull down stairs led) had any other door or
> >>access to the second floor from it, that pull down stair would have been in
> >>violation of most, if not all, building codes. It would have meant that
> >>someone entering the room via the second floor could step, inadvertently on
> >>the pull down steps in the floor and fall through. It would be very
> >>dangerous.
> >>
> >>
> >>Just a thought.
> >>
> >>
>
> Add to that that buildings of that vintage didn't have "pull-down
> stairs." They had stairwells.
>
> The pull-down stairs that this "witness" is describing are typical in
> residential construction post-WWII.
>
> >
> >
> >And a timely one, Clark. I'd be watching out for trap doors myself --
> >figuratively speaking -- if I were Mr. Shackelford.
> >
>
> What worries me about this is that one way or the other the witness is
> doubtless being coached. I'm certain Martin wouldn't *consciously*
> coach a witness to tell tales. But it's possible for a lot of
> unconscious coaching to go on, as a witness observes what answers are
> sought, and favorably received.
>
> And then there are unscrupulous promoters who will *consciously*
> encourage the right kind of "interesting" stories.
>
> Having a couple of conspiracy books handy also helps the witness
> produce tales that sound plausible to conspiracists :-).
>
> Untimately, this process is doomed to failure. The reason is simple:
> the conspiracist coaches usually believe things that are contradicted
> by the hard evidence, and the witness ends up repeating some obvious
> factoid, and even claiming *personal knowledge* of something that
> didn't happen.
>
> Jean Hill, James Files and Madeline Brown and the "changed parade
> route" is a good example of this. See:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
Martin Shackelford
office?
Why would you assume that those in the outer office would be more familiar
with Banister's affairs that his personal secretary/mistress?
I get the impression you aren't thinking these posts through very well,
John.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2000 03:20:38 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>
> >>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
> >>
> >>Dave:
> >>
> >> Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
>
> How come Sam Newman didn't know about this "upstairs" office?
>
> >> Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
> >>because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
> >>after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
> >>time of his death in August 1964).
>
> Why didn't she tell her story to the Garrison people when they
> interviewed her?
>
> >> Sometimes you have to take what witnesses you can get, especially
> >>when the principals are all long deceased. Roberts would be in the best
> >>position of anyone (aside from Banister himself) to know what was going
> >>on in Banister's operation.
> >
>
> Why better than Ivan E. "Bill" Nitschke, Joseph Newbrough, Vernon
> Gerdes, and Mary Helen Brengel?
>
Clark
"Debra Hartman" <debhar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:393caa0a....@news.earthlink.net...
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 05:30:55 GMT, 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John
> McAdams) wrote:
>
>
> >Add to that that buildings of that vintage didn't have "pull-down
> >stairs." They had stairwells.
>
> At this very moment I am sitting in a building built in 1922. It has
> a "pull-down" staircase, which leads to a whole other floor.
>
> [Aside to Clark. No one ever falls through because, when the stairs
> are pulled down, the floor is open to the next floor *as with any
> staircase*--the claim that someone would "fall through" is no more
> true than of any other open stairwell. ]
Actually, I was referring to the stairs being in the "up" position. The
ones I am familiar with are held in place by a spring and, by pulling on a
rope from below, you can lower the ladder. If such a ladder were in the
raised position and someone stepped on it by entering the upstairs room by a
door (Say, in the dark), the weight of the person would overcome the spring
and it would open. I wouldn't want to be standing on it when it did.
>
> I have no idea whether there was a stair between Bannister's office
> and the rest of the Newman Building. *It doesn't matter."
To me it matters. If there was no stairway from Banister's office and Guy
showed Delphine Roberts Oswald's upstairs office, then it would require that
Guy take her out to the street and around the block to reach the stairs to
544 Camp Street or, alternatively, take her up through the stairs of
Mancuso's restaurant. Either way, it would have precluded both hers, and
her daughter's, witnessing Oswald using this office.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
Clark
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000606231118...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
<SNIP>
>
>
> What would you have said, Martin, if Gerald Posner had included in his
book the
> statement of a confidential eyewitness who claimed that Oswald had said to
him
> the previous day, "Someone has to teach that capitalist slime Jack Kennedy
a
> lesson, and I'm going to be the one to do it"?
>
> Do you think this would this have made your list of Posner improprieties?
>
> Dave
>
>
But Martin didn't write a book and do that.
I think he simply shared with us information that he'd heard in confidence
but without having confirmed it, and admitting same.
It's not like he would be the first person to ever do that on this NG.
Personally, I think the info on the "pull down" stairs is wrong but I
certainly have no criticism of Martin for his offering it. I, for one,
appreciate his willingness to share. Also, I'm a little less inclined to
pick on him when I don't know for a fact that the stairs don't exist.
I don't see why you keep pestering him on this.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
Dave Reitzes
>Why would Sam Newman be aware of the internal matters of Banister's
>office?
Would building owner Newman also be unaware of these stairs ostensibly leading
from Banister's office at 531 Lafayette to the second floor at 544 Camp?
>Why would you assume that those in the outer office would be more familiar
>with Banister's affairs that his personal secretary/mistress?
You're saying that other secretaries and investigators like Newbrough,
Nitzsche, Gerdes, Brengel, et al., would somehow be less likely to remember a
person than Banister's secretary/mistress?
>I get the impression you aren't thinking these posts through very well,
>John.
Funny how perceptions can differ.
Dave
"Garrison Ripples"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ripples.htm
>John McAdams wrote:
>
>> On 06 Jun 2000 03:20:38 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>>
>> >>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>> >>
>> >>Dave:
>> >>
>> >> Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
>>
>> How come Sam Newman didn't know about this "upstairs" office?
>>
>> >> Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
>> >>because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
>> >>after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
>> >>time of his death in August 1964).
>>
>> Why didn't she tell her story to the Garrison people when they
>> interviewed her?
>>
>> >> Sometimes you have to take what witnesses you can get, especially
>> >>when the principals are all long deceased. Roberts would be in the best
>> >>position of anyone (aside from Banister himself) to know what was going
>> >>on in Banister's operation.
>> >
>>
>> Why better than Ivan E. "Bill" Nitschke, Joseph Newbrough, Vernon
>> Gerdes, and Mary Helen Brengel?
>>
>> .John
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>--
>Martin Shackelford
Dave Reitzes
>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>John:
>
> There was also a stairwell at the front of the building.
> This was a private stairs, for the use of Banister and his office.
And the building's owner didn't know about it?
>The witness mentioned the stairs quite some time ago, and I simply passed
>on the information when the topic arose. No coaching involved by anyone,
>however "doubtless" you may assume it.
You don't think it makes any difference that Jim Garrison and Bill Turner
always claimed that both the 544 Camp and 531 Lafayette entrances led to the
same place?
Just out of curiosity, Martin, what sort of claim would have to creep into this
witness' story to instill in you a little more caution? The "three tramps"
showing up in Guy Banister's office? A secret meeting between your witness,
Jack Ruby and J. D. Tippit? An Oswald look-alike? An allegation that Dave
Ferrie was murdered?
Where do you think you would draw the line?
> You're jumping to conclusions the way you accuse "conspiracists" of
>doing.
>
>Martin
What would you have said, Martin, if Gerald Posner had included in his book the
statement of a confidential eyewitness who claimed that Oswald had said to him
the previous day, "Someone has to teach that capitalist slime Jack Kennedy a
lesson, and I'm going to be the one to do it"?
Do you think this would this have made your list of Posner improprieties?
Dave
>> Add to that that buildings of that vintage didn't have "pull-down
>> stairs." They had stairwells.
>>
>> The pull-down stairs that this "witness" is describing are typical in
>> residential construction post-WWII.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >And a timely one, Clark. I'd be watching out for trap doors myself --
>> >figuratively speaking -- if I were Mr. Shackelford.
>> >
>>
>> What worries me about this is that one way or the other the witness is
>> doubtless being coached. I'm certain Martin wouldn't *consciously*
>> coach a witness to tell tales. But it's possible for a lot of
>> unconscious coaching to go on, as a witness observes what answers are
>> sought, and favorably received.
>>
>> And then there are unscrupulous promoters who will *consciously*
>> encourage the right kind of "interesting" stories.
>>
>> Having a couple of conspiracy books handy also helps the witness
>> produce tales that sound plausible to conspiracists :-).
>>
>> Untimately, this process is doomed to failure. The reason is simple:
>> the conspiracist coaches usually believe things that are contradicted
>> by the hard evidence, and the witness ends up repeating some obvious
>> factoid, and even claiming *personal knowledge* of something that
>> didn't happen.
>>
>> Jean Hill, James Files and Madeline Brown and the "changed parade
>> route" is a good example of this. See:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
>>
>> .John
>>
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Reitzes
>Delphine is a far more reliable source than Jack Martin, according to people
>who knew both.
>
>Martin
Oh, that's saying a LOT. \:^)
Citations, please, Martin. Who endorses Delphine Roberts' credibility? (Besides
-- let me guess -- your secret witness.)
Dave
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
>> >From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>> >
>> >Dave:
>> >
>> > Oswald didn't rent an office. He used one provided by Banister.
>> > Roberts said nothing to the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964
>> >because Banister was still alive, and she didn't volunteer anything
>> >after he died (of course, the investigation was largely concluded by the
>> >time of his death in August 1964).
>> > Sometimes you have to take what witnesses you can get, especially
>> >when the principals are all long deceased. Roberts would be in the best
>> >position of anyone (aside from Banister himself) to know what was going
>> >on in Banister's operation.
>>
>> Yeah, her and Jack Martin.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ripples.htm
>>
>> Dave
Debra Hartman
thought Auburn was in Maine.
Oops--Or are you talking about what was it..."the loveliest village"?
where F. Stop and Zelda spent a lot of time back in those ole timey
days?
But hey, since you seem so interested in 'Bama, I suggest you ask your
cracker friend. You do know what a cracker is, don't you, Barf? Get
McLiar to tell you all about it. And Huntsville....yeah, that's where
they sent all those nazis, isn't it? I bet he knows all about that,
too. He's not from Huntsville, is he?
>>>>>>Where was it this idiot McAdams was supposed to have gotten a degree?
>>>>>>He is nothing but a hack, peddling his weary wares for the lowest form
>>>>>>of communication: Propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>>>Harvard.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Martin Shackelford
When it goes public, the name will be available, as well as the details, so your
Posner parallel is utter nonsense.
Pressing me for more prior to that is a total waste of time.
Happy fishing.
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
> >
> Perpetual Starlight
> http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
> Original fiction, articles, music and more
--
Martin Shackelford
in his book:
The yellow leaflet I reproduced on page 67 in The Search for Lee Harvey
Oswald
was from the National Archives. It was an original. The green one in
TKOAP may
have been an original, but I'm not sure. I think it was an original
because the
props for JFK were, as I recall, all on white paper.
PapaKochenbrot
>Message-id: <393D8AA1...@concentric.net>
>
>Walt:
>
> I forwarded the info to Robert for a reply.
>
>Martin
Thanks Martin.....But, regardless of where he says he got the FPCC flyer.... we
have only his word...unless he can verify it's origin.
Walt
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>Well, shoot, Barf, that's a lotta nada for a gal from Peoria. I
>thought Auburn was in Maine.
>
>Oops--Or are you talking about what was it..."the loveliest village"?
>where F. Stop and Zelda spent a lot of time back in those ole timey
>days?
>
>But hey, since you seem so interested in 'Bama, I suggest you ask your
>cracker friend. You do know what a cracker is, don't you, Barf? Get
>McLiar to tell you all about it. And Huntsville....yeah, that's where
>they sent all those nazis, isn't it? I bet he knows all about that,
>too. He's not from Huntsville, is he?
Way to shore up Mommy's image, Deb. You folks were better off with Robert
Harris. \:^)
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000606231118...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
><SNIP>
>
>>
>>
>book the
>> statement of a confidential eyewitness who claimed that Oswald had said to
>him
>> the previous day, "Someone has to teach that capitalist slime Jack Kennedy
>a
>> lesson, and I'm going to be the one to do it"?
>>
>> Do you think this would this have made your list of Posner improprieties?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>
>
Not on this newsgroup, but surely you've seen his essays on Posner.
>I think he simply shared with us information that he'd heard in confidence
>but without having confirmed it, and admitting same.
>It's not like he would be the first person to ever do that on this NG.
I'm disturbed by Martin's behavior because when he deals with issues *other*
than Jim Garrison's case and its cast of characters, he's quite a responsible
researcher. This is why people lend credence to his views on the New Orleans
angle, which tend to be informed by less-than-responsible sources:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/fairplay.htm
This is what I said about Martin in an endnote to the above article:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - -
Martin Shackelford is a Kennedy assassination researcher whose broad knowledge
and temperate approach to both the evidence and his fellow researchers I
greatly admire. Author Harrison E. Livingstone has called Shackelford "one of
the most valuable of all researchers into the assassination of John Kennedy"
(Livingstone, Killing the Truth, xi). It is not my intention to belittle
Shackelford in any way with this critique. Rather, it is precisely because of
the position he holds in the research community that I feel the need to respond
in detail to this particular article of his.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - -
Martin's current behavior is endangering his reputation, because it is
irresponsible. He may not be too concerned about the former, but I would think
he'd be more aware of the latter.
>Personally, I think the info on the "pull down" stairs is wrong but I
>certainly have no criticism of Martin for his offering it. I, for one,
>appreciate his willingness to share. Also, I'm a little less inclined to
>pick on him when I don't know for a fact that the stairs don't exist.
>
>I don't see why you keep pestering him on this.
>
>
>Just a thought.
>
>
>::Clark::
A willingness to share is admirable; endorsing one witness' allegations as fact
is irresponsible at best.
I seem to recall Martin taking exception to my citing a confidential witness in
Lambert for the allegation that Jim Garrison sexually molested him in June
1969, when he was 13 years old -- because I state it as fact that Jim Garrison
is guilty of the charge, based on corroboration from the witness' family and
others. (And the minute some of Garrison's advocates start debating the issues
of Garrison's case, I'll give serious consideration to debating the marginal
issues regarding JG's personal life, thank you very much.)
Too much damage has been done to this case already by people "sharing"
unconfirmed information worthy of skepticism. Even if his witness is 100%
honest and accurate in everything he/she says, Martin's handling of this issue
has tarnished his own reputation.
Don't blame the messenger.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>This is ridiculous, Dave.
>When it goes public, the name will be available, as well as the details, so
>your
>Posner parallel is utter nonsense.
>Pressing me for more prior to that is a total waste of time.
>Happy fishing.
>
>Martin
I haven't pressed you for more, Martin.
Quite the contrary.
I do hope you're listening to this witness more closely than you're listening
to me.
Barb Junkkarinen
>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>>
>>
>>Well, shoot, Barf, that's a lotta nada for a gal from Peoria. I
>>thought Auburn was in Maine.
>>
>>Oops--Or are you talking about what was it..."the loveliest village"?
>>where F. Stop and Zelda spent a lot of time back in those ole timey
>>days?
>>
>>But hey, since you seem so interested in 'Bama, I suggest you ask your
>>cracker friend. You do know what a cracker is, don't you, Barf? Get
>>McLiar to tell you all about it. And Huntsville....yeah, that's where
>>they sent all those nazis, isn't it? I bet he knows all about that,
>>too. He's not from Huntsville, is he?
>
>
>Way to shore up Mommy's image, Deb. You folks were better off with Robert
>Harris. \:^)
>
>Dave
:-)
Barb Junkkarinen
Hartman) wrote:
>Well, shoot, Barf, that's a lotta nada for a gal from Peoria. I
>thought Auburn was in Maine.
Have never been to Peoria. Don't know about Maine, but do know that
Auburn University is in Auburn. They have a PhD program I think. Is it
better or more prestigious than that at Harvard, do you suppose?
>
>Oops--Or are you talking about what was it..."the loveliest village"?
>where F. Stop and Zelda spent a lot of time back in those ole timey
>days?
You must be talking about something long before my time...I'm just a
sweet young thing, you know. :-) Well, apparently by comparison
anyway.
>
>But hey, since you seem so interested in 'Bama, I suggest you ask your
>cracker friend. You do know what a cracker is, don't you, Barf?
Nope.
> Get
>McLiar to tell you all about it. And Huntsville....yeah, that's where
>they sent all those nazis, isn't it? I bet he knows all about that,
>too. He's not from Huntsville, is he?
Nazis? I think it's one place they send astronauts, actually. The
Space Center is there. I don't know where McAdams is from, if you're
interested, why don't you ask him.
And I have no idea what "cracker" means in your context. I am familiar
with saltine, Water, Ritz and Keebler Clubhouse. A little warm brie,
some Water crackers, some cold criisp grapes, a little
champagne......sounds perfect for sitting around the waterfall this
weekend. Now if it would just stop raining....sigh.
You might try some high fiber crackers...might tune up your
disposition....and your spelling. You seem to have a consistent
problem with getting names right. I know you'd not want to be looked
down on in polite society. Perhaps a literature course at Auburn would
have helped...if they had any good professors.
Barb :-)
Debra Hartman
assignments. 'Bout time his cohorts discovered the "Harvard-educated
perfessor" is a cracker from Alabama, and exhibits all the bigotries
that go with the territory. Anybody still wonder why he takes the
side of folks like Milteer and attacks folks like Jose Molina?
Yep, Robert Harris is a gentleman, all right. Strange how you're
longing for the good ole days now, when only goons had the gloves
off.
And for all those folks who didn't live through the sixties, (course,
if you remember it, you weren't there...), a cracker is an ignorant
white from the South. The kind who stood in the school house door at
the university of Alabama and blocked the admission of black students.
The kind who hated the sending in of federal marshals to enforce the
law. The kind who think that demanding that Mexican American boy
scouts be given access to City of Dallas swimming pools makes you a
"Communist." Get the picture?
On 07 Jun 2000 15:53:21 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>>
>>
>>Well, shoot, Barf, that's a lotta nada for a gal from Peoria. I
>>thought Auburn was in Maine.
>>
>>Oops--Or are you talking about what was it..."the loveliest village"?
>>where F. Stop and Zelda spent a lot of time back in those ole timey
>>days?
>>
>>But hey, since you seem so interested in 'Bama, I suggest you ask your
>>cracker friend. You do know what a cracker is, don't you, Barf? Get
>>McLiar to tell you all about it. And Huntsville....yeah, that's where
>>they sent all those nazis, isn't it? I bet he knows all about that,
>>too. He's not from Huntsville, is he?
>
>
>Way to shore up Mommy's image, Deb. You folks were better off with Robert
>Harris. \:^)
>
>Dave
>
>
>
Debra Hartman
You seem to have a fixation with:
1. Auburn (?) Is that where you're from? Or did you go there? Don't
be shy.
2. Trying to impress that you have 'refined" tastes (perhaps you can
find some nice "sensitive" guys who will be impressed--you know the
kind I mean, don't you?). However, I'd say your ideas of elite food
and drink are--well, a little middle class. Sounds like you've
watched a few too many episodes of that horrible tv show... what was
it, --lifestyles of the nouveau and stupid?
Anything else you wanted to convey?
Oh, and I'm sorry you've never heard of F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald.
Now there's a pair who could teach you a little about being cool,
classy, and crazy. But, you know what they say....you can take the
gal out of Peoria, but you can't take Peoria out of the gal.
P.S. I've included a little history lesson for you, below.
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 17:47:46 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb
Junkkarinen) wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 06:06:02 GMT, debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra
>Hartman) wrote:
>
>>Well, shoot, Barf, that's a lotta nada for a gal from Peoria. I
>>thought Auburn was in Maine.
>
>Have never been to Peoria. Don't know about Maine, but do know that
>Auburn University is in Auburn. They have a PhD program I think. Is it
>better or more prestigious than that at Harvard, do you suppose?
>>
>>Oops--Or are you talking about what was it..."the loveliest village"?
>>where F. Stop and Zelda spent a lot of time back in those ole timey
>>days?
>
>You must be talking about something long before my time...I'm just a
>sweet young thing, you know. :-) Well, apparently by comparison
>anyway.
>>
>>But hey, since you seem so interested in 'Bama, I suggest you ask your
>>cracker friend. You do know what a cracker is, don't you, Barf?
>
>Nope.
>
>> Get
>>McLiar to tell you all about it. And Huntsville....yeah, that's where
>>they sent all those nazis, isn't it? I bet he knows all about that,
>>too. He's not from Huntsville, is he?
>
>Nazis? I think it's one place they send astronauts, actually. The
>Space Center is there. I don't know where McAdams is from, if you're
>interested, why don't you ask him.
For your edification, Barf, the Nazi space scientists were sent to
Huntsville to develop the U.S. space program. And I don't need to ask
McDumb anything. I'm the police. I know everything.
>
>And I have no idea what "cracker" means in your context. I am familiar
>with saltine, Water, Ritz and Keebler Clubhouse. A little warm brie,
>some Water crackers, some cold criisp grapes, a little
>champagne......sounds perfect for sitting around the waterfall this
>weekend. Now if it would just stop raining....sigh.
>
>You might try some high fiber crackers...might tune up your
>disposition....and your spelling. You seem to have a consistent
>problem with getting names right. I know you'd not want to be looked
>down on in polite society. Perhaps a literature course at Auburn would
>have helped...if they had any good professors.
>
>Barb :-)
>>
Barb Junkkarinen
Hartman) wrote:
>Gee, Barf--
>
>You seem to have a fixation with:
>
>1. Auburn (?) Is that where you're from? Or did you go there? Don't
>be shy.
Hey, you're the one bringing 'Bama into the newsgroup. Perhaps you
want to brag about your prestigious affiliations. All I know about
Alabama is that it is the home of Auburn University, that Huntsville
is the home of the Marshall Space Center (I have a kid who is space
science prone) and they have some sort of whammy zammy electronic
testing lab in Huntsville too ..... personally, I've never been to
Alabama. Also know it's too dang hot and humid...which is one good
reason for me to never make plans to go to Alabama.
>
>2. Trying to impress that you have 'refined" tastes (perhaps you can
>find some nice "sensitive" guys who will be impressed--you know the
>kind I mean, don't you?). However, I'd say your ideas of elite food
>and drink are--well, a little middle class. Sounds like you've
>watched a few too many episodes of that horrible tv show... what was
>it, --lifestyles of the nouveau and stupid?
If you think that is "elite food"...then that says more about you than
about me.<g> It's just cheese and crackers, hon. (There is more to
life than fabricated "cheese food" products that squirt out of a can
and Billy Bob beer...don't be afraid to branch out. Of course
champagne eliminates the sport of crushing beer cans on one's head.)
But, whatever floats your boat.
>
>Anything else you wanted to convey?
Not to you. You seem to have a one track mind. It's just hard to
identify the track....but it obviously goes nowhere.
>
>Oh, and I'm sorry you've never heard of F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald.
>Now there's a pair who could teach you a little about being cool,
>classy, and crazy. But, you know what they say....you can take the
>gal out of Peoria, but you can't take Peoria out of the gal.
Got a fixation with Peoria? I've never been there either. Guess I need
to get out more. I'll have to add Alabama and Peoria to my list. This
year's vacations are already planned though, I'm afraid...so is next
year's. Darn...my bad luck.
>
>P.S. I've included a little history lesson for you, below.
Oh boy! I have learned a lot from yous ... more than you realize. Keep
it up!
Barb :-)
Emmatyler
certainly hasn't "tarnished his reputation," at least not in my view. My
impression is that he is attempting to protect a person who has great
ambivalence about being more in the spotlight, perhaps with good reason.
It's frustrating not being able to know more about someone's tantalizing
claims. But if Martin is erring on the side of caution, I see nothing wrong
with that. My inference is that the witness is waiting for further independent
verification of the story, but doesn't wish for that verification to come
through this particular forum, which can get a little bloody. I don't see
anything Martin's done as being coy; perhaps circumspect, even to a fault, but
I'm willing to cut him some slack on that.
Steve
Barb Junkkarinen
Hartman) wrote:
>Looks like Cracker John has made some new writin'
>assignments. 'Bout time his cohorts discovered the "Harvard-educated
>perfessor" is a cracker from Alabama, and exhibits all the bigotries
>that go with the territory. Anybody still wonder why he takes the
>side of folks like Milteer and attacks folks like Jose Molina?
>
>Yep, Robert Harris is a gentleman, all right. Strange how you're
>longing for the good ole days now, when only goons had the gloves
>off.
>
>And for all those folks who didn't live through the sixties, (course,
>if you remember it, you weren't there...), a cracker is an ignorant
>white from the South. The kind who stood in the school house door at
>the university of Alabama and blocked the admission of black students.
>The kind who hated the sending in of federal marshals to enforce the
>law. The kind who think that demanding that Mexican American boy
>scouts be given access to City of Dallas swimming pools makes you a
>"Communist." Get the picture?
Doesn't sound like anybody I would care to ever know...and they
wouldn't want to know me either becaue I would give them what for. It
also doesn't sound like a description of anyone I know...thank God.
But thanks for the definition.
Barb :-)
>
>On 07 Jun 2000 15:53:21 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>
>>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, shoot, Barf, that's a lotta nada for a gal from Peoria. I
>>>thought Auburn was in Maine.
>>>
>>>Oops--Or are you talking about what was it..."the loveliest village"?
>>>where F. Stop and Zelda spent a lot of time back in those ole timey
>>>days?
>>>
>>>But hey, since you seem so interested in 'Bama, I suggest you ask your
>>>cracker friend. You do know what a cracker is, don't you, Barf? Get
>>>McLiar to tell you all about it. And Huntsville....yeah, that's where
>>>they sent all those nazis, isn't it? I bet he knows all about that,
>>>too. He's not from Huntsville, is he?
>>
>>
>>Way to shore up Mommy's image, Deb. You folks were better off with Robert
>>Harris. \:^)
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>>
Dave Reitzes
>From: bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
>
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 06:06:02 GMT, debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra
>Hartman) wrote:
>
>>Well, shoot, Barf, that's a lotta nada for a gal from Peoria. I
>>thought Auburn was in Maine.
>
>Auburn University is in Auburn. They have a PhD program I think. Is it
>better or more prestigious than that at Harvard, do you suppose?
And do they teach people to attack someone's credentials and call his arguments
"propaganda" when one can't score any points arguing facts?
Or did we learn that from Mommy? \:^)
>>Oops--Or are you talking about what was it..."the loveliest village"?
>>where F. Stop and Zelda spent a lot of time back in those ole timey
>>days?
>
>You must be talking about something long before my time...I'm just a
>sweet young thing, you know. :-) Well, apparently by comparison
>anyway.
I trust you're referring to the "sweet" part.
\:^) \^) \:^)
>>But hey, since you seem so interested in 'Bama, I suggest you ask your
>>cracker friend. You do know what a cracker is, don't you, Barf?
>
>Nope.
Arffthey what oojeetha thtuffs her mouff wiff before pothting?
Thoundfth thike thee thould uthe thum thoap inttthhead. Blub, blub. \:^)
>> Get
>>McLiar to tell you all about it. And Huntsville....yeah, that's where
>>they sent all those nazis, isn't it? I bet he knows all about that,
>>too. He's not from Huntsville, is he?
>
>Nazis? I think it's one place they send astronauts, actually.
Yeth! Haffoo heard Big Jimth theory about it?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cadet.htm
The
>Space Center is there. I don't know where McAdams is from, if you're
>interested, why don't you ask him.
>
>And I have no idea what "cracker" means in your context. I am familiar
>with saltine, Water, Ritz and Keebler Clubhouse. A little warm brie,
>some Water crackers, some cold criisp grapes, a little
>champagne......sounds perfect for sitting around the waterfall this
>weekend. Now if it would just stop raining....sigh.
>
>You might try some high fiber crackers...might tune up your
>disposition....and your spelling. You seem to have a consistent
>problem with getting names right. I know you'd not want to be looked
>down on in polite society. Perhaps a literature course at Auburn would
>have helped...if they had any good professors.
>
>Barb :-)
You might have better luck at Texas Tech these days.
Texath Tech. Thethe dayth. \:^)
Dave
this may be a lit invention
professors muddled in their intent
to try to rope in followers
to float their malcontent
-- J. M. Stipe, "Sad Professor"
\:^)
Debra Hartman
Thanks for letting it all hang out. By the way, in the future, just
keep in mind that big minds talk about ideas, small ones about people,
and tiny ones about themselves.
Bye now. That champagne is getting warm and that velveeta ("scuse"
me, Brie) is getting cold.
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 18:29:35 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb
Debra Hartman
smarting from his unmasking.
The goons have been busy, busy little bees. Too bad their research
has taken such an interesting turn. Tell us more, as you dig your
own graves, and prove *exactly* who and *what* you are!
Why, they've actually written a poem about their leader,
McBigot/Cracker John, Propagandist De Luxe:
Dave Reitzes
>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>
>
>Gee, Barf--
>
>You seem to have a fixation with:
Gee, "Barf," someone seems to post more about YOU than she ever has about the
Kennedy assassination.
Is there perhaps an alt.fan.barf.ack.ack.ack where she could express this
apparent fixation with you more appropriately -- relatively speaking?
Oh, but that one newsgroup alone would hardly do the job, would it? \:^)
Dave
The "propaganda" Deb cannot refute with facts:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf.htm
>1. Auburn (?) Is that where you're from? Or did you go there? Don't
>be shy.
>
>2. Trying to impress that you have 'refined" tastes (perhaps you can
>find some nice "sensitive" guys who will be impressed--you know the
>kind I mean, don't you?). However, I'd say your ideas of elite food
>and drink are--well, a little middle class. Sounds like you've
>watched a few too many episodes of that horrible tv show... what was
>it, --lifestyles of the nouveau and stupid?
>
>Anything else you wanted to convey?
>
>Oh, and I'm sorry you've never heard of F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald.
>Now there's a pair who could teach you a little about being cool,
>classy, and crazy. But, you know what they say....you can take the
>gal out of Peoria, but you can't take Peoria out of the gal.
>
>P.S. I've included a little history lesson for you, below.
>
Dave Reitzes
>
>I don't see Martin's handling of this issue as being "irresponsible" and it
>certainly hasn't "tarnished his reputation," at least not in my view. My
>impression is that he is attempting to protect a person who has great
>ambivalence about being more in the spotlight, perhaps with good reason.
You misunderstand my position. It's appropriate for Martin to keep confidential
his witness' identity until such a time as that witness chooses to come
forward.
It's irresponsible, however, to disseminate that witness' allegations until
that witness goes public. As people like Jim Garrison and Bill Davy have shown
us, it's a very simple matter to advance controversial claims once the claimant
(or alleged claimant) is no longer available to confirm or deny certain claims.
Examples upon request -- as many as you could possibly want, I would imagine.
>It's frustrating not being able to know more about someone's tantalizing
>claims.
It's not *more* I'm asking for at this time.
But if Martin is erring on the side of caution, I see nothing wrong
>with that.
I wish he were. Alas, he is not. He is making unsupported allegations and
claiming them to be fact -- strike one -- and doing so on the basis of a single
witness -- strike two -- one whose credibility has not yet been established.
Strike three.
My inference is that the witness is waiting for further
>independent
>verification of the story, but doesn't wish for that verification to come
>through this particular forum, which can get a little bloody. I don't see
>anything Martin's done as being coy; perhaps circumspect, even to a fault,
I wish.
>but
>I'm willing to cut him some slack on that.
>
>Steve
I respectfully suggest that caution is something Martin could use more of these
days, not less.
Martin got a little hot 'n' bothered when I cited the confidential of a certain
witness known to you in support of the claim that Jim Garrison molested a
13-year-old boy in June of 1969. As I think you know, possibly from first-hand
experience, that witness' story is corroborated by others who have also chosen
to allow the witness his anonymity.
You might suggest that a charge of child molestation is more severe than a
question of whether or not there were stairs at a certain place in a certain
building, but in light of accusations made by Jim Garrison and his advocates
against certain people -- *none* of whom lived to defend themselves, unlike a
certain DA who allegedly used his influence to keep a certain charge of
molestation from being filed against him in 1970 -- I think that Martin should
keep in mind the purposes to which his new information may be applied, whether
it's accurate information or not. Perhaps he would have been wiser to wait
before revealing such information.
I'm not so much bothered by the information itself as the irresponsibility of
Mr. Shackelford in revealing it without substantiation, and in citing the
allegations as though they were fact.
I'm sorry no one but myself seems to feel this way. I suspect that if the issue
were one that pointed towards the incrimination of one Lee Harvey Oswald,
instead of certain onetime residents of New Orleans, people around here might
feel differently.
Question for anyone: If someone calls me up and tells me that he was told by
Lee Oswald on November 21, 1963, that John F. Kennedy was a rat and that he --
Oswald -- was going to do something about it, would you advise me to (1) keep
this information to myself until that witness at least allows me to use his
name, (2) publicize that statement and label it unconfirmed information from a
suspect of unknown credibility, or (3) go public with the information that Lee
Harvey Oswald told someone the day before the assassination that he was "going
to do something" about that "rat" JFK -- stated precisely in that manner, thank
you very much?
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>assignments. 'Bout time his cohorts discovered the "Harvard-educated
>perfessor" is a cracker from Alabama, and exhibits all the bigotries
>that go with the territory. Anybody still wonder why he takes the
>side of folks like Milteer and attacks folks like Jose Molina?
>
>Yep, Robert Harris is a gentleman, all right. Strange how you're
>longing for the good ole days now, when only goons had the gloves
>off.
>
>And for all those folks who didn't live through the sixties, (course,
>if you remember it, you weren't there...), a cracker is an ignorant
>white from the South. The kind who stood in the school house door at
>the university of Alabama and blocked the admission of black students.
>The kind who hated the sending in of federal marshals to enforce the
>law. The kind who think that demanding that Mexican American boy
>scouts be given access to City of Dallas swimming pools makes you a
>"Communist." Get the picture?
Stop lying, Eugenia. No one around here has taken "the side" of Milteer, and no
one around here has "attacked" Jose Molina.
Meanwhile, I've written in praise of John and Robert Kennedy's civil rights
policies, Eugenia. What have you ever written besides your personal attacks on
Mommy and Daddy's critics?
Were these "writing assignments," Genie? Would you care to discuss the issue
frankly with the folks here at the newsgroup?
Or do you have something to hide?
David Adam Reitzes
21-24 30 Drive, Apt. 5-B
Astoria, NY 11102
(718) 267-0083
The Revolutionary Senator: Remembering Robert F. Kennedy
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/rfk.html
>On 07 Jun 2000 15:53:21 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>
>>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, shoot, Barf, that's a lotta nada for a gal from Peoria. I
>>>thought Auburn was in Maine.
>>>
>>>Oops--Or are you talking about what was it..."the loveliest village"?
>>>where F. Stop and Zelda spent a lot of time back in those ole timey
>>>days?
>>>
>>>But hey, since you seem so interested in 'Bama, I suggest you ask your
>>>cracker friend. You do know what a cracker is, don't you, Barf? Get
>>>McLiar to tell you all about it. And Huntsville....yeah, that's where
>>>they sent all those nazis, isn't it? I bet he knows all about that,
>>>too. He's not from Huntsville, is he?
>>
>>
>>Way to shore up Mommy's image, Deb. You folks were better off with Robert
>>Harris. \:^)
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>>
Barb Junkkarinen
Hartman) wrote:
>I really need to thank you, Barf. You made me laugh out loud.
>
>Thanks for letting it all hang out. By the way, in the future, just
>keep in mind that big minds talk about ideas, small ones about people,
>and tiny ones about themselves.
>
>Bye now. That champagne is getting warm and that velveeta ("scuse"
> me, Brie) is getting cold.
Guess you qualify for two categories...and one of them isn't the "big
mind" one...well, except in your own mind of course. I'm decidedly not
your type.....why not find someone else (and at least male) to have
such a fasscination with. I'm pretty boring actually...you know, shop
til I drop, household drudge, bon-bon city.....and *decidedly* NOT
your type. No offense.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>>Subject: Re: McAdams' Propaganda
>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>>
>>
>>Gee, Barf--
>>
>>You seem to have a fixation with:
>
>
>Gee, "Barf," someone seems to post more about YOU than she ever has about the
>Kennedy assassination.
>
>Is there perhaps an alt.fan.barf.ack.ack.ack where she could express this
>apparent fixation with you more appropriately -- relatively speaking?
>
>Oh, but that one newsgroup alone would hardly do the job, would it? \:^)
>
>Dave
Sounds like she needs a date reallllllly baaad to me.<g> How 'bout it
guys, any volunteers?<g>
[....]
Bill Parker
>>Subject: Re: McAdams' Propaganda
>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>>
>>
>>Looks like Cracker John has made some new writin'
>>assignments. 'Bout time his cohorts discovered the "Harvard-educated
>>perfessor" is a cracker from Alabama, and exhibits all the bigotries
>>that go with the territory. Anybody still wonder why he takes the
>>side of folks like Milteer and attacks folks like Jose Molina?
>>
>>Yep, Robert Harris is a gentleman, all right. Strange how you're
>>longing for the good ole days now, when only goons had the gloves
>>off.
>>
>>And for all those folks who didn't live through the sixties, (course,
>>if you remember it, you weren't there...), a cracker is an ignorant
>>white from the South. The kind who stood in the school house door at
>>the university of Alabama and blocked the admission of black students.
>>The kind who hated the sending in of federal marshals to enforce the
>>law. The kind who think that demanding that Mexican American boy
>>scouts be given access to City of Dallas swimming pools makes you a
>>"Communist." Get the picture?
>
>
>Stop lying, Eugenia. No one around here has taken "the side" of Milteer, and no
>one around here has "attacked" Jose Molina.
>
>Meanwhile, I've written in praise of John and Robert Kennedy's civil rights
>policies, Eugenia. What have you ever written besides your personal attacks on
>Mommy and Daddy's critics?
>
>Were these "writing assignments," Genie? Would you care to discuss the issue
>frankly with the folks here at the newsgroup?
Huh?
Who is Eugenia?
Is she into Eugenics?
WTF, Over...
Bill
Barb Junkkarinen
>Or do you have something to hide?
>
>David Adam Reitzes
>21-24 30 Drive, Apt. 5-B
>Astoria, NY 11102
>(718) 267-0083
Good luck, Dave, but I think the only "frank" she knows comes in a can
with beans. LOTS of beans. What else could explain all this gas?<g>
Barb :-)
[....]
Bill Parker
As is the case with every photo in all of his books. He nevers gives you any info on the origin and
provenance of any of the photos.
But that never stopped you in the past from citing photos in his books as support for your wackoid
theories, did it?
Bill
The Great Unwashed
drei...@aol.com says...
> >From: "Clark" clwi...@prodigy.net
> >
> >
> >
> >"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000606231118...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> What would you have said, Martin, if Gerald Posner had included in his
> >book the
> >> statement of a confidential eyewitness who claimed that Oswald had said to
> >him
> >> the previous day, "Someone has to teach that capitalist slime Jack Kennedy
> >a
> >> lesson, and I'm going to be the one to do it"?
> >>
> >> Do you think this would this have made your list of Posner improprieties?
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >But Martin didn't write a book and do that.
>
>
> Not on this newsgroup, but surely you've seen his essays on Posner.
>
> www.assassinationweb.com
>
>
> >I think he simply shared with us information that he'd heard in confidence
> >but without having confirmed it, and admitting same.
> >It's not like he would be the first person to ever do that on this NG.
>
>
> I'm disturbed by Martin's behavior because when he deals with issues *other*
> than Jim Garrison's case and its cast of characters, he's quite a responsible
> researcher. This is why people lend credence to his views on the New Orleans
> angle, which tend to be informed by less-than-responsible sources:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/fairplay.htm
>
> This is what I said about Martin in an endnote to the above article:
>
>
> (quote) - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Martin Shackelford is a Kennedy assassination researcher whose broad knowledge
> and temperate approach to both the evidence and his fellow researchers I
> greatly admire. Author Harrison E. Livingstone has called Shackelford "one of
> the most valuable of all researchers into the assassination of John Kennedy"
> (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, xi). It is not my intention to belittle
> Shackelford in any way with this critique. Rather, it is precisely because of
> the position he holds in the research community that I feel the need to respond
> in detail to this particular article of his.
>
> (end quote) - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> Martin's current behavior is endangering his reputation, because it is
> irresponsible. He may not be too concerned about the former, but I would think
> he'd be more aware of the latter.
>
>
Total horseshit. Look to your own "current behavior," Mr. Rietzes
> >Personally, I think the info on the "pull down" stairs is wrong but I
> >certainly have no criticism of Martin for his offering it. I, for one,
> >appreciate his willingness to share. Also, I'm a little less inclined to
> >pick on him when I don't know for a fact that the stairs don't exist.
> >
> >I don't see why you keep pestering him on this.
> >
> >
> >Just a thought.
> >
> >
> >::Clark::
>
>
>
> A willingness to share is admirable; endorsing one witness' allegations as fact
> is irresponsible at best.
>
As if this NG were about to declare nuclear war or something. A
tempest in your cranium. Grow up, Dave.
> I seem to recall Martin taking exception to my citing a confidential witness in
> Lambert for the allegation that Jim Garrison sexually molested him in June
> 1969, when he was 13 years old -- because I state it as fact that Jim Garrison
> is guilty of the charge, based on corroboration from the witness' family and
> others. (And the minute some of Garrison's advocates start debating the issues
> of Garrison's case, I'll give serious consideration to debating the marginal
> issues regarding JG's personal life, thank you very much.)
>
Apples and oranges. Unsubstantiated allegations about a dead man's sex
life versus a suggestion that there was a "pull down" stairway. Get your
priorities straight.
> Too much damage has been done to this case already by people "sharing"
> unconfirmed information worthy of skepticism. Even if his witness is 100%
> honest and accurate in everything he/she says, Martin's handling of this issue
> has tarnished his own reputation.
WOW!!!! Even if it turns out that he is 100% correct, Dave believes his
reputation is "tarnished." Where is your sense of perspective? Have
you, after all, no shame.
>
> Don't blame the messenger.
>
I know, you'd prefer to shoot him.
GU
> Dave
Bill Parker
Corroboration of one anonymous "Victim" by another anonymous "witness" is meaningless crap, the kind
of reporting one would expect of the Weekly World News...
And yet you support the work of Lambert...
Bill
Dave Reitzes
>
>On 07 Jun 2000 19:30:24 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: McAdams' Propaganda
>>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You seem to have a fixation with:
>>
>>
>>Gee, "Barf," someone seems to post more about YOU than she ever has about
>the
>>Kennedy assassination.
>>
>>Is there perhaps an alt.fan.barf.ack.ack.ack where she could express this
>>apparent fixation with you more appropriately -- relatively speaking?
>>
>>Oh, but that one newsgroup alone would hardly do the job, would it? \:^)
>>
>>Dave
>
>Sounds like she needs a date reallllllly baaad to me.<g> How 'bout it
>guys, any volunteers?<g>
Barb!
I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at such a suggestion!
And, uh, I'm busy that night. \:^)
Dave Reitzes
>
>Thanks for letting it all hang out. By the way, in the future, just
>keep in mind that big minds talk about ideas, small ones about people,
>and tiny ones about themselves.
\:^)
Dave Reitzes
>
>>
>>Thanks for letting it all hang out. By the way, in the future, just
>>keep in mind that big minds talk about ideas, small ones about people,
>>and tiny ones about themselves.
>>
>> me, Brie) is getting cold.
>
>Guess you qualify for two categories...and one of them isn't the "big
>mind" one...well, except in your own mind of course. I'm decidedly not
>your type.....why not find someone else (and at least male)
Well, thank you, Jerry Falwell!
Dave \:^)
Debra Hartman
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 20:38:52 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb
Junkkarinen) wrote:
>I'm pretty boring actually...you know, shop
>til I drop, household drudge, bon-bon city.....and *decidedly* NOT
>your type. No offense.
>
>Barb :-)
>
You can lead a Barf to water but you can't make her drink.
No offense taken, Barf. Just can't help noticing that, like the
Ancient Mariner, you just can't stop buttonholing anyone you think
might listen to you talk about yourself.....
You have my sympathy. Honest.
Dave Reitzes
I have a feeling -- correct me if I'm wrong, Eugenia \:^) -- that Ms. La
Fontaine is referring to this thread here.
Hope you all enjoy it as much as she did.
But I doubt it. \:^)
Dave
From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
Subject: Re: My "Two Oswalds" site
Date: 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19991102051925...@ng-bj1.aol.com>
Approved: jmca...@execpc.com
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 941556686 168.143.0.8 (Tue, 02 Nov 1999
15:31:26 GMT)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 15:31:26 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
>From: 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
>
>OK, I decided I finally had to do it. A web page on the "Two Oswalds"
>theory. I first considered it too "marginal" to be worth attention,
>but it's become "mainstream." It's:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm
>
>Given the fine work that Tracy Parnell has done, a lot of the page
>simply consists of links to his page, and to an especially good essay
>by Dave Reitzes on Tracy's page.
>
>But I have some other stuff too, and (I hope) a coherent narrative
>about the theory.
>
>I would welcome feedback. Major points I've missed and need to
>address. Any inaccuracies you see. Suggestions for additional links,
>documents, pictures, etc. that should be there.
>
>TIA.
>
>.John
John, when I get some time, I might post a few items I think worthy of
discussion.
I would suggest that we consider Gus Russo's new evidence relating to the
Sports Drome Rifle Range sightings, discussed below. I also would suggest
that we give serious consideration to the idea that, in November 1963, Lee
might have been able to drive better than Ruth Paine knows. I would not
rule out the possibility that Oswald went for that famous test drive at
Downtown Lincoln Mercury. I also believe there is reason -- despite
Marina's denials -- to consider the possibility that she and Oswald indeed
appeared at Edith Whitworth's store that day, and that Oswald indeed had
work done on a rifle -- though not *necessarily* the M-C -- at the shop
where Dial Ryder worked. I have posted at length about the
Whitworth-Hunter episode, and would be glad to repost it. I also have some
material on the Downtown Lincoln Mercury incident, though it's probably
not much more extensive than what one can read in the early conspiracy
books.
I think it should be acknowledged that the Warren Commission might have
seriously goofed in these areas; I also would suggest that the DPD and/or
FBI, possibly with the witting participation of the Warren Commission, let
these incidents go without full investigations for several non-sinister
reasons. As Gus Russo has shown, some witnesses who could have tightened
the case against Oswald seem to have been protected from exposure to an
extent. Other incidents, if confirmed, might have impeached the
credibility of Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine, two witnesses whose testimony
was crucial to the WC.
Again, there does not have to be anything sinister about this; the
Commission staff was composed of lawyers, and lawyers have been known to
gloss over things that could hurt their case, particularly if the details
do not strike them as pertinent. For example, placing Oswald at the car
dealership would have called Ruth Paine's testimony about Oswald's driving
skills into question, and since she and Marina were certain Oswald was
with them that day, it could have also raised doubts about the women's
reliability -- possibly unwarranted ones.
If someone was inclined to think that Oswald sneaked away and took that
test drive without anyone knowing, it might have seemed a good idea to
simply not open that door. Because behind that door would have been other
sightings involving Oswald driving, and other sightings that were ruled
out solely on the basis of Marina and Mrs. Paine's testimonies. Were those
other sightings valid? Probably not. But the WC did not have several years
in which to run them all down. They dealt with the most pressing ones --
Oswald reported at the Carousel Club, for instance, and might have felt
the need to sweep the others under the carpet.
Here's some info I've previously posted about the Sports Drome Rifle Range
sightings, with a few updates.
[reposted material snipped]
Gus Russo writes:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Homer Wood told Frontline's W. Scott Malone in 1993, "This guy, if he
was Oswald, and I think he was, was an incredible shot with that old junky
rifle -- incredible!" Wood also told Malone that the FBI interview of his
son Sterling made the young boy cry. Sterling told his father, "I don't
want to go back with them [the FBI agents] anymore."
Accompanying Sterling Wood to the range that Saturday was his friend Ken
Longley, also 13 years-old. Longley recently recalled that he also saw the
man with the old "bolt-action" rifle, and also remembered him as about
5'9", although he didn't recall the man's face. "I was watching the
result, not the shooter," said Longley. "The man I saw shooting could have
done it [the assassination]" (Russo, Live by the Sword, 262).
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Homer and Sterling Wood each testified separately before the Warren
Commission. First, both men were shown photographs of another man, a
Carousel Club employee, Jack Crafard. Dr. Wood and Sterling each said it
wasn't the man. Each unhesitatingly identified photos of Lee Harvey Oswald
as the man at the rifle range. Sterling also identified a photograph of
the Mannlicher-Carcano found in the Book Depository as the rifle Oswald
had that day -- except Sterling, the young gun aficionado, noticed the
telescopic sight was different. (10 H 396) He reaffirmed that the man had
been an excellent shot, "the most accurate of all" the sportsmen at the
range that day. He mentioned that later he saw Oswald leave the range
"with a man in a newer model car," possibly a Ford (10 H 393). The other
man drove.
As Gus Russo reports in Live by the Sword, there may have been more to the
Woods' story than they wished to tell at the time.
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In 1993 . . . Sterling Wood was reluctant to meet, let alone repeat the
story he had told [researcher Dave] Perry. . . . After many weeks of
haggling, Wood tentatively agreed to talk to the author. He had avoided
interviews, he said, because, within a year of the assassination, he had
been attacked and hospitalized -- and almost died -- with the permanent
physical result being the implantation of a metal plate in his skull. It
should be realized that in the wake of the assassination, paranoia gripped
Dallas even more than the rest of the country. Every act of violence in
Dallas was viewed initially as connected to the violence of that tragic
weekend.
Finally agreeing to the interview, Wood stated, "I'll be bringing some
things that will blow your mind. Do you know that Marina later contacted
us so that we might help forward letters to her family in Minsk? Do you
know about 'the ride'?"
As it turned out, Wood backtracked on his decision to be interviewed. His
family, especially his father, was dead set against it. . . . However, the
salient points of his conversation with Perry and others are known:
Sterling and his father had another reason to be certain that the talented
shooter they saw was Lee Oswald -- a reason they failed to tell the Warren
Commission.
On one occasion, they drove Oswald home from the range. And not only did
they drive him to Oak Cliff, where Oswald's Beckley Street apartment was
located, but they spoke to him of Minsk, where the Wood family had
relatives. After the assassination, the Woods received letters from
Oswald's widow, hoping the Wood family would forward them to Minsk. . . .
(Russo, 263)
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Several reports indicate that Oswald was not always alone at the rifle
range, and it's possible, as Russo discusses, that his companion's
identity was kept a secret for his own protection once the authorities
decided he was not involved. If true, it might help explain one of the
most enduring mysteries of all in the case. But if this person is who at
least one witness says he is, he declines to admit it to this day. See
Russo for more information.
Dave
From: John McAdams <6489mc...@vmsb.csd.mu.edu>
Subject: Re: My "Two Oswalds" site
Date: 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <381F55...@vms.csd.mu.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: jmca...@execpc.com
References: <19991102051925...@ng-bj1.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Marquette University
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
>
> >From: 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
[snipping]
I'm sticking with the "orthodox" WC view of these issues, because it
really looks to me to be far and away the most likely.
But how about this: I'll happily put an essay of yours on my site with
a link at the bottom of the "Two Oswald's" page? The link would say
something like "Reitzes believes that there may be more to some of the
'second Oswald' sightings than the Warren Commission admitted --
although not necessarily anything conspiratorial."
In fact, if you don't want to tackle yet *another* writing assignment,
I'll just put your post on my site and link to it.
How does that sound?
.John
From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
Subject: Re: My "Two Oswalds" site
Date: 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19991102184040...@ng-fr1.aol.com>
Approved: jmca...@execpc.com
References: <381F55...@vms.csd.mu.edu>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 941588131 168.143.0.8 (Wed, 03 Nov 1999
00:15:31 GMT)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 00:15:31 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
>From: John McAdams 6489mc...@vmsb.csd.mu.edu
>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>
>> >From: 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
[snip]
>In fact, if you don't want to tackle yet *another* writing assignment,
Careful -- the walls have ears.
>I'll just put your post on my site and link to it.
>
>How does that sound?
>
>.John
Nah. These are just some preliminary thoughts, and they're not especially
crucial to a discussion of Armstrong's theory, since the November '63
sightings go all the way back to Weisberg, Popkin, Meagher, Lane and
others.
I just wanted to throw some ideas into the ring, on the off-chance that
anyone cares to discuss them. The one that I find by far the most
interesting of the bunch -- the Whitworth-Hunter-Ryder story -- is
something that others are working on, and I look forward to hearing about
their conclusions.
In the meantime, let's wait and see if anyone cares to discuss these
things at all. When I posted my Armstrong-oriented material, the response
was not what I would call overwhelming.
Dave
From: jgran...@aol.com (JGrant3919)
Subject: Re: My "Two Oswalds" site
Date: 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19991102162727...@ng-fb1.aol.com>
Approved: jmca...@execpc.com
References: <381F55...@vms.csd.mu.edu>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
X-Status:
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Dave Reitzes wrote:
<snipping everything else>
I am responding to Dave's comment as re-posted in John McAdams' reply to
Dave.
>> Several reports indicate that Oswald was not always alone at the rifle
>> range, and it's possible, as Russo discusses, that his companion's
>> identity was kept a secret for his own protection once the authorities
>> decided he was not involved. If true, it might help explain one of the
>> most enduring mysteries of all in the case. But if this person is who at
>> least one witness says he is, he declines to admit it to this day. See
>> Russo for more information.
Would that be Wes Frazier?
Joel Grant
From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
Subject: Re: My "Two Oswalds" site
Date: 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19991102184108...@ng-fr1.aol.com>
Approved: jmca...@execpc.com
References: <19991102162727...@ng-fb1.aol.com>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 941588097 168.143.0.8 (Wed, 03 Nov 1999
00:14:57 GMT)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 00:14:57 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
>From: jgran...@aol.com (JGrant3919)
>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
><snipping everything else>
>
>I am responding to Dave's comment as re-posted in John McAdams' reply to
>Dave.
>
>>> Several reports indicate that Oswald was not always alone at the rifle
>>> range, and it's possible, as Russo discusses, that his companion's
>>> identity was kept a secret for his own protection once the authorities
>>> decided he was not involved. If true, it might help explain one of the
>>> most enduring mysteries of all in the case. But if this person is who at
>>> least one witness says he is, he declines to admit it to this day. See
>>> Russo for more information.
>
>Would that be Wes Frazier?
>
>Joel Grant
Yup.
Dave
From: judya...@aol.com (JudyandJFK)
Subject: Re: My "Two Oswalds" site
Date: 03 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19991102220427...@ng-cj1.aol.com>
Approved: jmca...@execpc.com
References: <19991102184040...@ng-fr1.aol.com>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 941602441 168.143.0.8 (Wed, 03 Nov 1999
04:14:01 GMT)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 04:14:01 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
>Subject: Re: My "Two Oswalds" site
>From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
>Date: Tue, 02 November 1999 06:40 PM EST
[snip]
Dave, you are way ahead of me on a lot of this stuff, but a long time ago,
I did get a copy from someone about an application of Oswald's for
driver's license. Probably still have it here somewhere. I think the
discussion then was an application does not mean he ever got his license.
You probably know more about this then I do, but if you want me to I will
try to find it.
Judy
From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
Subject: Re: My "Two Oswalds" site
Date: 03 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19991103075910...@ng-bj1.aol.com>
Approved: jmca...@execpc.com
References: <19991102220427...@ng-cj1.aol.com>
X-Status:
X-Complaints-To: ab...@globalcenter.net
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
X-Posted-By: @134.48.30.18 (jmcadams)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
[snip]
That would be news to me. I don't recall ever hearing about any kind of
driver's license application. Officially, LHO never filled one out, for
whatever that's worth -- he never even got a learner's permit, nor
(officially) did he ever apply for one.
According to Ruth Paine, on Saturday, November 16, Oswald said he went by
himself to the Texas Automobile Drivers License Bureau to apply for his
learner's permit, but he arrived very late in the day, and there was too
long a line ahead of him, so he left (2 H 516).
I can think of a number of people of who claimed to have seen an actual
Oswald driver's license at one time or another -- and I posted about all
of them at one time or another, as Jim Hargrove also probably has -- but
nothing about an application.
Did the claim involve someone reportedly seeing an actual document, or was
the story hearsay?
Dave
[etc., etc., etc.]
Dave Reitzes
>Date: 6/7/00 5:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id:
><BDD3B1F55CD2D256.CAE633E3...@lp.airnews.net>
I didn't say the witness was anonymous. I said the witness was confidential.
Most of us are aware of who the individual is; we respect his wishes not to
have his name published.
>And yet you support the work of Lambert...
>
>Bill
How many inaccuracies in the book have you pointed out, Bill?
Still believe the La Fontaines' Elrod story, Bill?
See ya, Bill.
Dave
Barb Junkkarinen
>>From: bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
>>
>>On 07 Jun 2000 19:30:24 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: McAdams' Propaganda
>>>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gee, Barf--
>>>>
>>>>You seem to have a fixation with:
>>>
>>>
>>>Gee, "Barf," someone seems to post more about YOU than she ever has about
>>the
>>>Kennedy assassination.
>>>
>>>Is there perhaps an alt.fan.barf.ack.ack.ack where she could express this
>>>apparent fixation with you more appropriately -- relatively speaking?
>>>
>>>Oh, but that one newsgroup alone would hardly do the job, would it? \:^)
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>Sounds like she needs a date reallllllly baaad to me.<g> How 'bout it
>>guys, any volunteers?<g>
>
>
>Barb!
>
>I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at such a suggestion!
>
>And, uh, I'm busy that night. \:^)
>
>Dave
:-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>>From: bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
>>
>>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 18:56:02 GMT, debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra
>>Hartman) wrote:
>>
>>>I really need to thank you, Barf. You made me laugh out loud.
>>>
>>>Thanks for letting it all hang out. By the way, in the future, just
>>>keep in mind that big minds talk about ideas, small ones about people,
>>>and tiny ones about themselves.
>>>
>>>Bye now. That champagne is getting warm and that velveeta ("scuse"
>>> me, Brie) is getting cold.
>>
>>Guess you qualify for two categories...and one of them isn't the "big
>>mind" one...well, except in your own mind of course. I'm decidedly not
>>your type.....why not find someone else (and at least male)
>
>
>Well, thank you, Jerry Falwell!
>
>Dave \:^)
Boo-hiss....no, no, never...not Falwell, please!
barb :-)
>
>
>to have
>>such a fasscination with. I'm pretty boring actually...you know, shop
Barb Junkkarinen
Hartman) wrote:
>Gee, I *told* Barf small minds talk about themselves.....
>
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 20:38:52 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb
>Junkkarinen) wrote:
>
>>I'm pretty boring actually...you know, shop
>>til I drop, household drudge, bon-bon city.....and *decidedly* NOT
>>your type. No offense.
>>
>>Barb :-)
>>
>
>You can lead a Barf to water but you can't make her drink.
>
>No offense taken, Barf. Just can't help noticing that, like the
>Ancient Mariner, you just can't stop buttonholing anyone you think
>might listen to you talk about yourself.....
You are the one is doesn't seem to be able to stop talking about me.
>
>
>
>You have my sympathy.
Don't need it, don't want it.
> Honest.
Now THAT is fuuny coming from you! Thanks for the chuckle!
Barb :-)
>
Martin Shackelford
I put together an index of all of the illustrations in The
Killing of a President, by subject and by photographer. It's in
Microsoft Word format, if anyone needs it, and can read that format.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Martin Shackelford
or varnish) and rickety.
Martin Shackelford
points, but keep jumping to conclusions, if you're having a good time.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
> >
> >The pull-down stairs, by the way, are described as unfinished (no paint
> >or varnish) and rickety.
> >
> >Martin
>
> Unfinished and rickety, eh?
>
> Sure hope those terms don't apply to the stories of any witnesses we know.
> \:^)
>
> Dave
>
> Perpetual Starlight
> http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
> Original fiction, articles, music and more
--
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
> >
> >Actually, Dave, it's two witnesses, plus other corroboration on various
> >points, but keep jumping to conclusions, if you're having a good time.
> >
> >Martin
> >--
> >Martin Shackelford
>
> I'm sorry if I'm getting the facts wrong, Martin. My sources are pretty
> sketchy.
jo...@my-deja.com
<E11608709E8E6C13.3E6BF23B...@lp.airnews.net>,
No_...@unlessyoursmart.org wrote:
> Who is Eugenia?
> Bill
Eugenia LaFontaine, daughter of Ray and Mary LaFontaine, authors of
Oswald Talked.
joisa
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Great Unwashed
drei...@aol.com says...
> I didn't say the witness was anonymous. I said the witness was confidential.
> Most of us are aware of who the individual is; we respect his wishes not to
> have his name published.
>
>
The Great Unwashed
drei...@aol.com says...
> >From: bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
> >
> >On 07 Jun 2000 19:30:24 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: McAdams' Propaganda
> >>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Gee, Barf--
> >>>
> >>>You seem to have a fixation with:
> >>
> >>
> >>Gee, "Barf," someone seems to post more about YOU than she ever has about
> >the
> >>Kennedy assassination.
> >>
> >>Is there perhaps an alt.fan.barf.ack.ack.ack where she could express this
> >>apparent fixation with you more appropriately -- relatively speaking?
> >>
> >>Oh, but that one newsgroup alone would hardly do the job, would it? \:^)
> >>
> >>Dave
> >
> >Sounds like she needs a date reallllllly baaad to me.<g> How 'bout it
> >guys, any volunteers?<g>
>
>
> Barb!
>
> I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at such a suggestion!
>
> And, uh, I'm busy that night. \:^)
>
>
>
>
> Perpetual Starlight
> http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
> Original fiction, articles, music and more
>
I guess you both know how silly this makes you two look.
Dave Reitzes
>
>The pull-down stairs, by the way, are described as unfinished (no paint
>or varnish) and rickety.
>
>Martin
Unfinished and rickety, eh?
Sure hope those terms don't apply to the stories of any witnesses we know.
Dave Reitzes
>
>Actually, Dave, it's two witnesses, plus other corroboration on various
>points, but keep jumping to conclusions, if you're having a good time.
>
>Martin
>--
>Martin Shackelford
I'm sorry if I'm getting the facts wrong, Martin. My sources are pretty
sketchy.
Dave
PapaKochenbrot
>Message-id:
><4AB3A1136AB9E6D9.1BD8ED28...@lp.airnews.net>
>But that never stopped you in the past from citing photos in his books as
>support for your wackoid
>theories, did it?
>Bill
Cite just one example...asshole.
Walt
Martin Shackelford
The "pull-down" phrase seems to have been my error, based on a
misinterpretation of the witness descriptions of a rickety, temporary
stairs. The witness isn't sure if it was a pull-down, or just a somewhat
makeshift set of wooden steps.
They were shaky. They went from the second floor down into Banister's
private office. From the second floor, looking down, Banister's desk
could be seen.
There was construction on the second floor, and the stairs may have been
temporary.
They looked like some pull-down stairs that the witness later saw, thus
the confusion.
The entrance at the top was covered by a large piece of plywood.
They were not well-built, and didn't have a finished look to them.
They were steeper than the front stairs of the building.
The witness was unsure of other details, as it has been 37 years, and
the stairs weren't exactly a major focus of attention.
Martin
Dave Reitzes
>Regarding the stairs.
>The "pull-down" phrase seems to have been my error, based on a
>misinterpretation of the witness descriptions of a rickety, temporary
>stairs. The witness isn't sure if it was a pull-down, or just a somewhat
>makeshift set of wooden steps.
>They were shaky. They went from the second floor down into Banister's
>private office. From the second floor, looking down, Banister's desk
>could be seen.
>There was construction on the second floor, and the stairs may have been
>temporary.
>They looked like some pull-down stairs that the witness later saw, thus
>the confusion.
>The entrance at the top was covered by a large piece of plywood.
>They were not well-built, and didn't have a finished look to them.
>They were steeper than the front stairs of the building.
>The witness was unsure of other details, as it has been 37 years, and
>the stairs weren't exactly a major focus of attention.
>
>Martin
>--
>Martin Shackelford
Could Delphine Roberts' desk also be seen from the second floor?
Barb Junkkarinen
Unwashed) wrote:
>In article <20000607173553...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
>drei...@aol.com says...
>> >From: bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
>> >
>> >On 07 Jun 2000 19:30:24 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Subject: Re: McAdams' Propaganda
>> >>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Gee, Barf--
>> >>>
>> >>>You seem to have a fixation with:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Gee, "Barf," someone seems to post more about YOU than she ever has about
>> >the
>> >>Kennedy assassination.
>> >>
>> >>Is there perhaps an alt.fan.barf.ack.ack.ack where she could express this
>> >>apparent fixation with you more appropriately -- relatively speaking?
>> >>
>> >>Oh, but that one newsgroup alone would hardly do the job, would it? \:^)
>> >>
>> >>Dave
>> >
>> >Sounds like she needs a date reallllllly baaad to me.<g> How 'bout it
>> >guys, any volunteers?<g>
>>
>>
>> Barb!
>>
>> I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at such a suggestion!
>>
>> And, uh, I'm busy that night. \:^)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> Perpetual Starlight
>> http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
>> Original fiction, articles, music and more
>>
>
>
>
>I guess you both know how silly this makes you two look.
Well, I'll take silly over stupid and desperate anyday. Maybe you'd
like to be the date ... she desperately needs something to focus on
besides me and Dave. OTOH, she kills more than two birds with one
stone....she makes her whole famdamily look silly.
Nice chatting with you though...I don't think we've really met before.
:-)
Barb :-)
debhar...@yahoo.com
child on this group, isn't it?
Dave Reitzes
>child on this group, isn't it?
Awwwwwwwww. It would be, I suppose. But you're not exactly a child anymore, are
you, Genie?
You wouldn't lie, would you, sweetie? \:^)
Dave
Atlasrecrd
<< I didn't say the witness was anonymous. I said the witness was confidential.
Most of us are aware of who the individual is; >>
wrong.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On 07 Jun 2000 15:23:13 GMT, papakoc...@aol.com (PapaKochenbrot) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: 544 Camp Street
> >>Date: 6/6/00 4:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: <393D8AA1...@concentric.net>
> >>
> >
> >>Walt:
> >>
> >> I forwarded the info to Robert for a reply.
> >>
> >>Martin
> >
> >Thanks Martin.....But, regardless of where he says he got the FPCC flyer.... we
> >have only his word...unless he can verify it's origin.
> >
> >Walt
>
> As is the case with every photo in all of his books. He nevers gives you any info on the origin and
> provenance of any of the photos.
>
> But that never stopped you in the past from citing photos in his books as support for your wackoid
> theories, did it?
>
> Bill
Groden complained about that problem with his coffee table photographic
book TKOAP. That is one thing where he wished he had some editorial
control, but he did not. Anyway, I think Trask fills in the gaps quite
well. You need both books to get a handle on the photos.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
PapaKochenbrot
>Date: 6/8/00 7:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <393FB0A1...@quik.com>
> I think Trask fills in the gaps quite
>well. You need both books ( Pictures of the Pain, and The Killing of a
President ) to get a handle on the photos.
>
>--
>Anthony Marsh
Exactly right Tony...... There are many photos in Grodens books that appear in
other books....another good source for verification of Grodens pics is 1st Day
evidence.
Walt
=keith=
Dave that is twice by my count that you have brought the foregoing up.
You continue to cast aspersions to malign Garrison in the minds of
those who admire him.
>
>You might suggest that a charge of child molestation is more severe than a
>question of whether or not there were stairs at a certain place in a certain
>building, but in light of accusations made by Jim Garrison and his advocates
>against certain people -- *none* of whom lived to defend themselves, unlike a
>certain DA who allegedly used his influence to keep a certain charge of
>molestation from being filed against him in 1970 -- I think that Martin should
>keep in mind the purposes to which his new information may be applied, whether
>it's accurate information or not. Perhaps he would have been wiser to wait
>before revealing such information.
>
>I'm not so much bothered by the information itself as the irresponsibility of
>Mr. Shackelford in revealing it without substantiation, and in citing the
>allegations as though they were fact.
>
>I'm sorry no one but myself seems to feel this way. I suspect that if the issue
>were one that pointed towards the incrimination of one Lee Harvey Oswald,
>instead of certain onetime residents of New Orleans, people around here might
>feel differently.
>
>Question for anyone: If someone calls me up and tells me that he was told by
>Lee Oswald on November 21, 1963, that John F. Kennedy was a rat and that he --
>Oswald -- was going to do something about it, would you advise me to (1) keep
>this information to myself until that witness at least allows me to use his
>name, (2) publicize that statement and label it unconfirmed information from a
>suspect of unknown credibility, or (3) go public with the information that Lee
>Harvey Oswald told someone the day before the assassination that he was "going
>to do something" about that "rat" JFK -- stated precisely in that manner, thank
>you very much?
>
>Dave
>
>
>Perpetual Starlight
>http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
>Original fiction, articles, music and more
=keith=
We don't need laws, we need justice.
Barb Junkkarinen
<duqu...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In article <20000608030432...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
>drei...@aol.com says...
>Is there any female on this group you DON'T think is a La Fontaine???
ME! And Judy! Good grief, we are a tad short of females, aren't
we.....
Barb :-)
>Such paranoia! Why don't you tell us what YOU do for a living?
>
>Stand back, *MAJOR* SASHAY(tm) coming!!!
>
>gene
>