September 1963 - The Ryder Coffee House in New Orleans
curtjester1
In the late summer of 1963 many people frequented the Ryder Coffee House
at 910 Rampart Street and knew Lee Harvey Oswald. Some of those people,
including Pat and Pattie Gleason, Daphne Stapleton and her husband, Howard
Cohen lived in the apartments over the shop.
Daphne Stapleton recalled an incident when an elderly woman with gray hair
in her 40's drove Lee Harvey Oswald to the RCH in a red sports car. On an
another occasion Daphne was standing in front of the Coffee House when
Oswald walked up to her and asked, "Is Jack here?" After Daphne said,
"No," Oswald wrote his name on a piece of paper and told her, "Give it to
Jack and tell him I was here." "Jack" was Jack Frazier, the owner of the
Coffee House.
Oswald then walked upstairs and knocked on the door of Howard Cohen, who
was not at home. Cohen was head of a Marxist group in New Orleans who met
regularly at the Coffee House. After the assassination, Cohen left New
Orlean and was last seen in Japan.
One evening Barbara Reid walked into the Coffee House and sat next to
Peter Deageano and noticed Kerry Thornley sitting alone at the next table.
When a young man joined Thornley at his table he turned to Barbara and
said, "This is Lee." Following the assassination Barbara saw photographs
of Lee HARVEY Oswald on television and realized he was the same person she
saw at the RCH with Kerry Thornley.
Jack Burnside was a regular customer at the Ryder Coffee House and
occasionally saw Oswald. He knew Kerry Thornley and was with him at
Fong's Restaurant on Decatur Street when Oswald came in and talked with
Thornley.
Thornley was at Barbara Reid's house during the evening of November 22,
1963. Barbara showed him a picture of Oswald and said, "This is the
fellow you introduced me to." Thornley replied, "Did I?" (HSCA interview
B. Reid)
Thornley arrived in New Orleans in late August 1963, only a few weeks
before HARVEY Oswald departed (on Sept. 25th). When Thornley testified
before a Grand Jury he denied ever seeing Oswald in New Orleans or meeting
Ferrie, Bannister, or Shaw or anyone else who had contacted Oswald.
Robert Karno was a regular customer who saw Oswald at the Ryder Coffee
House and also saw him at the Napolean Street Branch Library. Karno was
connecte with the Modern Language Institute through his friendship with
Ernesto Rodriguez and Roger Lovin.
Some of the people who knew Lee Harvey Oswald from the RCH included Pat
and Patty Gleason, Barbara Reid, Jack Burnside, Daphne Stapleton, Robert
Karno, Mathew Louviere, Arnold Eckland, Louis Gourges, Breck Henry, Louis
Jackson, Howard Cohen and Jack Frazier, yet none of these people were
interviewed by the Warren Commission.
There are 4 other subtitle's of Oswald in New Orleans in Sept. and one in
Dallas.
Pg. 591-2 Harvey and Lee
CJ
Alex Foyle
> One evening Barbara Reid walked into the Coffee House and sat next to
> Peter Deageano and noticed Kerry Thornley sitting alone at the next table.
> When a young man joined Thornley at his table he turned to Barbara and
> said, "This is Lee." Following the assassination Barbara saw photographs
> of Lee HARVEY Oswald on television and realized he was the same person she
> saw at the RCH with Kerry Thornley.
> Pg. 591-2 Harvey and Lee
>
> CJ
Sorry, this doesn't rub with anything that is on the record. Barbara
Reid said in her affidavit to Garrison that she supposedly saw
Thornley and Oswald in the Bourbon House and not in the Ryder Coffee
House, see:
http://www.wf.net/~biles/jfk/reid.txt
Barbara Reid also lies when she says that Thornley was at her house
during the evening of the assassination. Thornley was working as usual
at Arnaud's restaurant, waiting tables, see:
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/garr/grandjury/Thornley/html/Thornley_0027b.htm
Thornley did not return to NO in late August of 1963, but around the
4th or 5th of September:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/thornley.htm
Thanks for reminding me that I made no mistake in not purchasing John
Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee", what a load of factoids.
Alex
Martin Shackelford
Judyth
Baker said she and Lee sometimes did part-time work for extra money.
Martin
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d886d41-cb73-4aa6...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
> On 8 Sep., 03:56, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One evening Barbara Reid walked into the Coffee House and sat next to
> > Peter Deageano and noticed Kerry Thornley sitting alone at the next table.
> > When a young man joined Thornley at his table he turned to Barbara and
> > said, "This is Lee." Following the assassination Barbara saw photographs
> > of Lee HARVEY Oswald on television and realized he was the same person she
> > saw at the RCH with Kerry Thornley.
> > ....
> > Pg. 591-2 Harvey and Lee
>
> > CJ
>
> Sorry, this doesn't rub with anything that is on the record. Barbara
> Reid said in her affidavit to Garrison that she supposedly saw
> Thornley and Oswald in the Bourbon House and not in the Ryder Coffee
> House, see:
>
> http://www.wf.net/~biles/jfk/reid.txt
>
Yes, but she also interviewed in 1978.
> Barbara Reid also lies when she says that Thornley was at her house
> during the evening of the assassination. Thornley was working as usual
> at Arnaud's restaurant, waiting tables, see:
>
> http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/garr/grandjury/Thornley/htm...
>
Why would she lie? Maybe Thornley didn't offer everything he was doing on
the 22nd? He says they cut out early and yet they are staying at the
restaurant til midnite? Doesn't really make sense. And yes, Thornley has
already lied in that he never knew Oswald in New Orleans. That is one
HUGE lie, isn't it?
> Thornley did not return to NO in late August of 1963, but around the
> 4th or 5th of September:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/thornley.htm
>
> Thanks for reminding me that I made no mistake in not purchasing John
> Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee", what a load of factoids.
>
And you believe Thornley for having the correct dates? First ask yourself
if those dates are even important? I would remind you that isn't the only
citation for Mrs. Reid, and yet you didn't even supply the HSCA?? Ever
think of the Bourbon House and the Coffee House as being potentially the
same, or just a slight mistake in recollection? Or it could be two
different places that they both frequented. I can give you more places
that Oswald was at or hung out in. Do you know where Ed Voebbels and Oz
used to play pool at?
I think you better purchase the book just to get some of the basics down
of the case.
CJ
curtjester1
> This coffee house would have been very close to the curio shop at which
> Judyth
> Baker said she and Lee sometimes did part-time work for extra money.
>
Any personal recollection of her's or any customers/employees would be
very interesting if not valuable.
CJ
Martin Shackelford
made figures for Mardi Gras, among other things. I think it was in the 600
block, but it's not there any more--the whole block was replaced by a
corporate building of some kind.
Martin
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:958dbe9f-81aa-4091...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> This coffee house would have been very close to the curio shop at which
> Judyth
> Baker said she and Lee sometimes did part-time work for extra money.
>
> Martin
Um . . . really?
Tell us more. \:^)
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Dave
James K. Olmstead
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Swkxk.25256$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> She said the workshop they used was in the back, and the place apparently made figures for Mardi Gras, among other
> things. I think it was in the 600 block, but it's not there any more--the whole block was replaced by a corporate
> building of some kind.
>
> Martin
Well some fact......one that could be checked.....704-06 N. Ramparts was
the operation of Greenberg's Inc Costumers. Julius Greenberg lived at
704 N. Ramparts.
There was also a foral shop at 618 N. Ramparts.... Fallo-Van Foral OS Company
Funny how a curio/souvenier shop turns into another operation.
jko
Alex Foyle
> Yes, but she also interviewed in 1978.
So? She made up more stuff. Go ask anybody in NO and the French Quarter
about the credibility of Barbara Reid. Moreover, why didn't she tell
Garrison about the Ryder Coffee House then?
> Why would she lie?
Because she is a crackpot who likes to pretend she knew something about
Oswald.
> Maybe Thornley didn't offer everything he was doing on the 22nd? He says they cut out early and
> yet they are staying at the restaurant til midnite? Doesn't really make sense.
You don’t make sense. The WC, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Garrison
Gestapo and the HSCA investigated Thornley’s timeline and couldn't put
him where you try to put him.
> And yes, Thornley has already lied in that he never knew Oswald in New Orleans. That is one
> HUGE lie, isn't it?
HUGE LIE, HUH? Do you have any proof for your claim here? You appear to
libel a dead man. I knew him and if he were alive he would make a proper
fool of you for having put up this Armstrong hogwash in the first place,
believe me.
> And you believe Thornley for having the correct dates?
Yes, because endless officials were investigating him and confirmed
what he was saying. Even your hero Garrison.
> First ask yourself if those dates are even important?
Yes, again, so kooks like Judyth cannot suddenly turn up and claim
that he had an affair with Marina in August of 63 for example.
> I would remind you that isn't the only citation for Mrs. Reid, and yet you didn't even supply the HSCA??
I quoted the HSCA already in another thread on this, maybe you should
read up first before trying to be a patronizing dork.
> Ever think of the Bourbon House and the Coffee House as being potentially the
> same, or just a slight mistake in recollection? Or it could be two
> different places that they both frequented. I can give you more places
> that Oswald was at or hung out in. Do you know where Ed Voebbels and Oz
> used to play pool at?
I don't care about any of these multiple Armstrong mirages, they have
nothing to do with Thornley.
> I think you better purchase the book just to get some of the basics down of the case.
You really have nerves. Have you read any of Thornley’s books or his
biography? I knew him and have read everything available from and about
this man. You can accuse him of a lot, but not that he knew Oswald in NO
or any of Judyth's bollocks. So, no thanks, I don't need to get Armstrongs
delusional tome to learn something new about Thornley.
Alex
curtjester1
> On 8 Sep., 23:50, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but she also interviewed in 1978.
>
> So? She made up more stuff. Go ask anybody in NO and the French Quarter
> about the credibility of Barbara Reid. Moreover, why didn't she tell
> Garrison about the Ryder Coffee House then?
>
LOL. She made up more stuff? She already has corroborators if you read
the cast of characters at RCH. She already told Garrison enough, why
answer questions that would duplicate themselves?
> > Why would she lie?
>
> Because she is a crackpot who likes to pretend she knew something about
> Oswald.
>
Funny how witnesses become crackpots when they go against the LNT, huh?
Maybe Thornley is a crackpot too, huh?
> > Maybe Thornley didn't offer everything he was doing on the 22nd? He says they cut out early and
> > yet they are staying at the restaurant til midnite? Doesn't really make sense.
>
> You don’t make sense. The WC, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Garrison
> Gestapo and the HSCA investigated Thornley’s timeline and couldn't put
> him where you try to put him.
>
LOL. I don't make sense? If they can't figure out that Ferrie went to
Oswald's old place on the night of the assassination, or rather covered it
up by obfuscation of scenario, why should we trust that they even went
after Thornley? What would they do to check it out, just believe him?
Here in another instance in his book on him, he practically says they
closed up after the assassination because it was dead, and in one other
spot it was midnite. Come on.
> > And yes, Thornley has already lied in that he never knew Oswald in New Orleans. That is one
> > HUGE lie, isn't it?
>
> HUGE LIE, HUH? Do you have any proof for your claim here? You appear to
> libel a dead man. I knew him and if he were alive he would make a proper
> fool of you for having put up this Armstrong hogwash in the first place,
> believe me.
>
Libel a dead man? This is corroboration of witnesses. Just because
Armstrong spent his own money and traveled to get all these witnesses,
plus find all these discrepancies of the W-2 forms and employments and
military places both couldn't have been; you claim the proof isn't good
enough. You don't like that their are numerous witnesses that prove
Thornley is a liar. And let's look at it realistically. Thornley would
lie like most to save his skin. If he went on about hanging with Oswald,
he would have been dead just like he knew all the people that he was in
contact with biting the dust in dubious, dark circumstances like Ferrie,
Bannister, and Gatlin.
> > And you believe Thornley for having the correct dates?
>
> Yes, because endless officials were investigating him and confirmed
> what he was saying. Even your hero Garrison.
>
But these dates are meaningless if you don't have a theory of
contention behind them. Do you?
> > First ask yourself if those dates are even important?
>
> Yes, again, so kooks like Judyth cannot suddenly turn up and claim
> that he had an affair with Marina in August of 63 for example.
>
Why not, I mean Marina is known to be a slut if not a nymphomaniac. She
has corroborated many laisons and other's have given more. She was almost
sent to a Labor camp in Russia for prostitution. Of course it would be
typical for Thornley to deny it, for self-preservation.
> > I would remind you that isn't the only citation for Mrs. Reid, and yet you didn't even supply the HSCA??
>
> I quoted the HSCA already in another thread on this, maybe you should
> read up first before trying to be a patronizing dork.
>
On Reid's testimony? Why such a defensive posture? The coffee shop and
the Bourbon House were a stone's throw from each other. Even Bannister
according to the guy you are trying to protect went to the Bourbon House
while Thornley was there.
> > Ever think of the Bourbon House and the Coffee House as being potentially the
> > same, or just a slight mistake in recollection? Or it could be two
> > different places that they both frequented. I can give you more places
> > that Oswald was at or hung out in. Do you know where Ed Voebbels and Oz
> > used to play pool at?
>
> I don't care about any of these multiple Armstrong mirages, they have
> nothing to do with Thornley.
>
You don't care when a guy wants to write a novel about someone who he was
at the same base for three months? I would like to know which Oswald was
at that base. I do, but why cast a good pearl?
> > I think you better purchase the book just to get some of the basics down of the case.
>
> You really have nerves. Have you read any of Thornley’s books or his
> biography? I knew him and have read everything available from and about
> this man. You can accuse him of a lot, but not that he knew Oswald in NO
> or any of Judyth's bollocks. So, no thanks, I don't need to get Armstrongs
> delusional tome to learn something new about Thornley.
>
Here read Thornley's by Sondra London. This is a guy who hated JFK as
much as Ferrie. Read the last chapter on his tying himself to the
conspiracy. And are you going to begin to Apologize even for the title of
the book?
http://www.sondralondon.com/attract/thornley/confess/
CJ
Alex Foyle
> LOL. She made up more stuff? She already has corroborators if you read
> the cast of characters at RCH. She already told Garrison enough, why
> answer questions that would duplicate themselves?
She told Garrison crap, he had to make her say that she saw Thornley
and Oswald in the beginning of September so to fit the timeline. If
you want more innuendo, go to Adam Gorightly’s Thornley page and read
how Reid even went to bed with Garrison …
If she told Garrison enough and had all these truthful corroborators,
then why didn't Garrison take Thornley to court and try to convict
him?
> Funny how witnesses become crackpots when they go against the LNT, huh?
> Maybe Thornley is a crackpot too, huh?
Witness, not plural, we are only talking about Barbara Reid and she
was a crackpot regarding Thornley and Oswald. And this has nothing to
do with the LNT.
> LOL. I don't make sense? If they can't figure out that Ferrie went to
> Oswald's old place on the night of the assassination, or rather covered it
> up by obfuscation of scenario, why should we trust that they even went
> after Thornley? What would they do to check it out, just believe him?
> Here in another instance in his book on him, he practically says they
> closed up after the assassination because it was dead, and in one other
> spot it was midnite. Come on.
´
I am glad to make you laugh so much. Are you still quoting Armstrong
when you say "Here in another instance in his book "? If yes, spare me
the quote, please, his stuff makes me dizzy.
> Libel a dead man? This is corroboration of witnesses.
Armstrong pretends to corroborate what not even Garrison could
corroborate? Get real.
The “case” against Thornley was dead in 1968 before it ever came to a
trial and no regurgitating of discarded statements of Garrison
“witnesses” will change that.
Did you know that Thornley offered to take a lie detector test?
Garrison rejected this, go figure.
> But these dates are meaningless if you don't have a theory of
> contention behind them. Do you?
??? The dates are not meaningless at all when it comes to evaluating
Judyth’s claims in her book, for example that she saw Thornley walk
into Oswald's house at the end of May when Thornley was already in
California.
> Why not, I mean Marina is known to be a slut if not a nymphomaniac. She
> has corroborated many laisons and other's have given more. She was almost
> sent to a Labor camp in Russia for prostitution. Of course it would be
> typical for Thornley to deny it, for self-preservation.
So Marina was a nymphomaniac slut and you just go along with Judyth's
innuendo that she had an affair with Thornley although it could NOT
have happened? ROTFL
> On Reid's testimony? Why such a defensive posture? The coffee shop and
> the Bourbon House were a stone's throw from each other. Even Bannister
> according to the guy you are trying to protect went to the Bourbon House
> while Thornley was there.
I quoted the HSCA's evaluation of the claims against Thornley and the
HSCA confirmed everything Thornley said, that means they did NOT
believe Barbara Reid’s additional sighting of Thornley.
> You don't care when a guy wants to write a novel about someone who he was
> at the same base for three months? I would like to know which Oswald was
> at that base. I do, but why cast a good pearl?
Look, if you had read anything from or about Thornley you would know
how and why he decided to base the protagonist of his first novel on
Oswald. And like you, I will not cast my pearls either …
Which Oswald? I couldn't care less. Ask Armstrong.
> Here read Thornley's by Sondra London. This is a guy who hated JFK as
> much as Ferrie. Read the last chapter on his tying himself to the
> conspiracy. And are you going to begin to Apologize even for the title of
> the book?
No I won't, because it’s you who should apologize for speculating so
carelessly about Thornley. Btw the book is not by Sondra London as you
claim. The conspiracy Kerry tried to tie himself into had nothing to
do with Oswald or Judyth. Have you even read the book?
Alex
Martin Shackelford
According to a colleague, it is listed in the directories for 1963-64.
It was not far from Reily Co.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0e174cf3-4cca-43d1...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 11:55?am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> This coffee house would have been very close to the curio shop at which
> Judyth
> Baker said she and Lee sometimes did part-time work for extra money.
>
> Martin
Um . . . really?
Tell us more. \:^)
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3d886d41-cb73-4aa6...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the late summer of 1963 many people frequented the Ryder Coffee House
> > at 910 Rampart Street and knew Lee Harvey Oswald. ?Some of those people,
> > including Pat and Pattie Gleason, Daphne Stapleton and her husband,
> > Howard
> > Cohen lived in the apartments over the shop.
>
> > Daphne Stapleton recalled an incident when an elderly woman with gray
> > hair
> > in her 40's drove Lee Harvey Oswald to the RCH in a red sports car. ?On
> > an
> > another occasion Daphne was standing in front of the Coffee House when
> > Oswald walked up to her and asked, "Is Jack here?" After Daphne said,
> > "No," ?Oswald wrote his name on a piece of paper and told her, "Give it
> > to
> > Jack and tell him I was here." ?"Jack" was Jack Frazier, the owner of
> > the
> > Coffee House.
>
> > Oswald then walked upstairs and knocked on the door of Howard Cohen, who
> > was not at home. ?Cohen was head of a Marxist group in New Orleans who
> > met
> > regularly at the Coffee House. ?After the assassination, Cohen left New
> > Orlean and was last seen in Japan.
>
> > One evening Barbara Reid walked into the Coffee House and sat next to
> > Peter Deageano and noticed Kerry Thornley sitting alone at the next
> > table.
> > When a young man joined Thornley at his table he turned to Barbara and
> > said, "This is Lee." ?Following the assassination Barbara saw
> > photographs
> > of Lee HARVEY Oswald on television and realized he was the same person
> > she
> > saw at the RCH with Kerry Thornley.
>
> > Jack Burnside was a regular customer at the Ryder Coffee House and
> > occasionally saw Oswald. ?He knew Kerry Thornley and was with him at
> > Fong's Restaurant on Decatur Street when Oswald came in and talked with
> > Thornley.
>
> > Thornley was at Barbara Reid's house during the evening of November 22,
> > 1963. ?Barbara showed him a picture of Oswald and said, "This is the
> > fellow you introduced me to." ?Thornley replied, "Did I?" (HSCA
> > interview
> > B. Reid)
>
> > Thornley arrived in New Orleans in late August 1963, only a few weeks
> > before HARVEY Oswald departed (on Sept. 25th). ?When Thornley testified
> > before a Grand Jury he denied ever seeing Oswald in New Orleans or
> > meeting
> > Ferrie, Bannister, or Shaw or anyone else who had contacted Oswald.
>
> > Robert Karno was a regular customer who saw Oswald at the Ryder Coffee
> > House and also saw him at the Napolean Street Branch Library. ?Karno was
curtjester1
> On 10 Sep., 05:37, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > LOL. She made up more stuff? She already has corroborators if you read
> > the cast of characters at RCH. She already told Garrison enough, why
> > answer questions that would duplicate themselves?
>
> She told Garrison crap, he had to make her say that she saw Thornley
> and Oswald in the beginning of September so to fit the timeline. If
> you want more innuendo, go to Adam Gorightly’s Thornley page and read
> how Reid even went to bed with Garrison …
>
Ha, Ha, like Thornley hit the sack with Marina? Try Gaeton Fonzi for
getting THAT timeline.
> If she told Garrison enough and had all these truthful corroborators,
> then why didn't Garrison take Thornley to court and try to convict
> him?
>
He had several 'Thornley's', but obviously went after medium fish.
> > Funny how witnesses become crackpots when they go against the LNT, huh?
> > Maybe Thornley is a crackpot too, huh?
>
> Witness, not plural, we are only talking about Barbara Reid and she
> was a crackpot regarding Thornley and Oswald. And this has nothing to
> do with the LNT.
>
Why are you just trying to make her look bad when there are so many
telling their stories that corroborate the Coffee House with ALL of the
discussed people there that were numerous?
It seems she is an embarassment to the general investigation when she came
up with Oswald staying in N.O in June of 1959 at a hotel which she had
located the receipt for. This while the other Oswald is still in the
service in Santa Ana. Of course Barbara is corroborated by Oswald's
roomate who was a Captain pilot who both were affiliated with a Cuban
exile group.
> > LOL. I don't make sense? If they can't figure out that Ferrie went to
> > Oswald's old place on the night of the assassination, or rather covered it
> > up by obfuscation of scenario, why should we trust that they even went
> > after Thornley? What would they do to check it out, just believe him?
> > Here in another instance in his book on him, he practically says they
> > closed up after the assassination because it was dead, and in one other
> > spot it was midnite. Come on.
>
> ´
> I am glad to make you laugh so much. Are you still quoting Armstrong
> when you say "Here in another instance in his book "? If yes, spare me
> the quote, please, his stuff makes me dizzy.
>
Yeah, like Ferrie looking for that library card that was said to be on his
person at the time of arrest. I think that instance is in a lot of books.
Of course not checking out N.O. would have been way too much for any LNT
theory...and was sorely avoided. I'm kind of glad John made such an
effort. I don't think the arm-chair quarterbacks in these groups have
done much, do you?
> > Libel a dead man? This is corroboration of witnesses.
>
> Armstrong pretends to corroborate what not even Garrison could
> corroborate? Get real.
>
Thornley libeled himself with all of his unloadings in the London Journal.
Armstrong just finished up what Garrison and Davis left behind.
> The “case” against Thornley was dead in 1968 before it ever came to a
> trial and no regurgitating of discarded statements of Garrison
> “witnesses” will change that.
>
Thornley lied on his own by stating emphatically that he didn't see or
know Banister, Ferrie, or Oswald. Yet, later in the London piece he
does...plus many more..tsk, tsk. Too bad there were too many 'Barbara
Reids' to keep the lid down, eh?
> Did you know that Thornley offered to take a lie detector test?
> Garrison rejected this, go figure.
>
Probably after the trial. If not, he probaby didn't want to waste the
time if Ferrie and Shaw weren't going down.
> > But these dates are meaningless if you don't have a theory of
> > contention behind them. Do you?
>
> ??? The dates are not meaningless at all when it comes to evaluating
> Judyth’s claims in her book, for example that she saw Thornley walk
> into Oswald's house at the end of May when Thornley was already in
> California.
>
Who cares about dates when 'the horde' already make Thornley out to be one
lying ogre?
> > Why not, I mean Marina is known to be a slut if not a nymphomaniac. She
> > has corroborated many laisons and other's have given more. She was almost
> > sent to a Labor camp in Russia for prostitution. Of course it would be
> > typical for Thornley to deny it, for self-preservation.
>
> So Marina was a nymphomaniac slut and you just go along with Judyth's
> innuendo that she had an affair with Thornley although it could NOT
> have happened? ROTFL
>
No, I just don't rule it out. Oswald and Marina seemed more of a
calculated arrangement to me, so if Thornley would have been introduced it
would be very easy to happen. I know too that the book was finished a
year before the assassination. I think Oswald would have somehow caught
wind of that. And I don't think of Thornley thinking of Oswald as just an
oddball in that they both liked reading and discussing '1984' which leaves
Oswald's 'Communism' a bit bewildering. They seem to have a lot in common
which would make friendship even more of an appealing scenario than one of
avoidance, that seems so 'dear' to many.
> > On Reid's testimony? Why such a defensive posture? The coffee shop and
> > the Bourbon House were a stone's throw from each other. Even Bannister
> > according to the guy you are trying to protect went to the Bourbon House
> > while Thornley was there.
>
> I quoted the HSCA's evaluation of the claims against Thornley and the
> HSCA confirmed everything Thornley said, that means they did NOT
> believe Barbara Reid’s additional sighting of Thornley.
>
I'll give this a David Ferrie mock, "Hoo-ray"!
> > You don't care when a guy wants to write a novel about someone who he was
> > at the same base for three months? I would like to know which Oswald was
> > at that base. I do, but why cast a good pearl?
>
> Look, if you had read anything from or about Thornley you would know
> how and why he decided to base the protagonist of his first novel on
> Oswald. And like you, I will not cast my pearls either …
>
> Which Oswald? I couldn't care less. Ask Armstrong.
>
You should, The whole understanding of the case is riding on it.
> > Here read Thornley's by Sondra London. This is a guy who hated JFK as
> > much as Ferrie. Read the last chapter on his tying himself to the
> > conspiracy. And are you going to begin to Apologize even for the title of
> > the book?
>
> No I won't, because it’s you who should apologize for speculating so
> carelessly about Thornley. Btw the book is not by Sondra London as you
> claim. The conspiracy Kerry tried to tie himself into had nothing to
> do with Oswald or Judyth. Have you even read the book?
>
I read some of what I posted. You better read the last chapter again, if
you haven't. Judyth just corroborates what other's are saying, that
Oswald and Thornley weren't exactly stangers in Aug-Sept. of '63. Are you
trying to say Judyth researched all of this out before she went about her
'business'?
CJ
Alex Foyle
> Ha, Ha, like Thornley hit the sack with Marina? Try Gaeton Fonzi for
> getting THAT timeline.
Gaeton Fonzis timeline? Ha , ha, ha, indeed.
> He had several 'Thornley's', but obviously went after medium fish.
Don't you see how ridiculous and illogical that sounds?
> Why are you just trying to make her look bad when there are so many
> telling their stories that corroborate the Coffee House with ALL of the
> discussed people there that were numerous?
I don't have to make Reid look bad, again, go ask anybody in NO about
her credibility. She has thoroughly discredited herself.
> Yeah, like Ferrie looking for that library card that was said to be on his
> person at the time of arrest. I think that instance is in a lot of books.
> Of course not checking out N.O. would have been way too much for any LNT
> theory...and was sorely avoided. I'm kind of glad John made such an
> effort. I don't think the arm-chair quarterbacks in these groups have
> done much, do you?
So Garrison and his illustrious team didn't "check out" NO either?
Keep fantasizing.
> Probably after the trial. If not, he probaby didn't want to waste the
> time if Ferrie and Shaw weren't going down.
There was no trial against Thornley. Garrison never took Thornley to
court, because he had no case against him. Sounds familiar?
> Who cares about dates when 'the horde' already make Thornley out to be one
> lying ogre?
Thanks that you name them "the horde", couldn't have thought of a
better name for them myself.
> No, I just don't rule it out. Oswald and Marina seemed more of a
> calculated arrangement to me, so if Thornley would have been introduced it
> would be very easy to happen. I know too that the book was finished a
> year before the assassination. I think Oswald would have somehow caught
> wind of that. And I don't think of Thornley thinking of Oswald as just an
> oddball in that they both liked reading and discussing '1984' which leaves
> Oswald's 'Communism' a bit bewildering. They seem to have a lot in common
> which would make friendship even more of an appealing scenario than one of
> avoidance, that seems so 'dear' to many.
Funny to see you back-pedalling and still wildly speculating at the
same time. Dream on.
> You should, The whole understanding of the case is riding on it.
What "case"?
> I read some of what I posted. You better read the last chapter again, if
> you haven't. Judyth just corroborates what other's are saying, that
> Oswald and Thornley weren't exactly stangers in Aug-Sept. of '63. Are you
> trying to say Judyth researched all of this out before she went about her
> 'business'?
I wouldn't call it research , but yes, she must have read everything
available on the assassination and on the summer of 63 in NO, probably in
the 1990's.
Since 1999 she has been assisted by several researchers and to this day
they still can't get her facts right.
Judyth corroborates nada, she just has ensnarled herself in every
imaginable hoax and factoid that concerns the summer of 63 in NO.
I am just waiting that Judyth claims she knew Slim Brooks and Gary
Kirstein ... let's not haste it, though, I mean, like you said, let's not
cast pearls before ...
And you read "some" of what you posted? That's kind of you, but way too
little, to really understand Thornley's story.
Keep trying.
Alex
curtjester1
> On 11 Sep., 06:50, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ha, Ha, like Thornley hit the sack with Marina? Try Gaeton Fonzi for
> > getting THAT timeline.
>
> Gaeton Fonzis timeline? Ha , ha, ha, indeed.
>
1976 ring a bell?
> > He had several 'Thornley's', but obviously went after medium fish.
>
> Don't you see how ridiculous and illogical that sounds?
>
Hey, he could have brought in Jim Hicks from the radio team in Dealey,
couldn't he?
> > Why are you just trying to make her look bad when there are so many
> > telling their stories that corroborate the Coffee House with ALL of the
> > discussed people there that were numerous?
>
> I don't have to make Reid look bad, again, go ask anybody in NO about
> her credibility. She has thoroughly discredited herself.
>
Yeah, I'll go ask Slim and Brother-In-Law.
> > Yeah, like Ferrie looking for that library card that was said to be on his
> > person at the time of arrest. I think that instance is in a lot of books.
> > Of course not checking out N.O. would have been way too much for any LNT
> > theory...and was sorely avoided. I'm kind of glad John made such an
> > effort. I don't think the arm-chair quarterbacks in these groups have
> > done much, do you?
>
> So Garrison and his illustrious team didn't "check out" NO either?
> Keep fantasizing.
>
I think they went a little further than team WC, and FBI, don't you
think? Of course they all didn't ruffle Team Marcello too much.
> > Probably after the trial. If not, he probaby didn't want to waste the
> > time if Ferrie and Shaw weren't going down.
>
> There was no trial against Thornley. Garrison never took Thornley to
> court, because he had no case against him. Sounds familiar?
>
Gee, I thought I saw him in JFK. I better go re-rent the video, huh?
> > Who cares about dates when 'the horde' already make Thornley out to be one
> > lying ogre?
>
> Thanks that you name them "the horde", couldn't have thought of a
> better name for them myself.
>
Yeah, it's a good way to excuse yourself, just broadswipe/disinfo it under
the rug. Do you even know who these people are? Or even care? Maybe
Barbara made these people up in her 'Thornley Novel', as you seem to
express?
> > No, I just don't rule it out. Oswald and Marina seemed more of a
> > calculated arrangement to me, so if Thornley would have been introduced it
> > would be very easy to happen. I know too that the book was finished a
> > year before the assassination. I think Oswald would have somehow caught
> > wind of that. And I don't think of Thornley thinking of Oswald as just an
> > oddball in that they both liked reading and discussing '1984' which leaves
> > Oswald's 'Communism' a bit bewildering. They seem to have a lot in common
> > which would make friendship even more of an appealing scenario than one of
> > avoidance, that seems so 'dear' to many.
>
> Funny to see you back-pedalling and still wildly speculating at the
> same time. Dream on.
>
If I don't fully corroborate it's back-pedalling. What a hoot. Who
needs Judyth when the cat is out of the bag? And you don't think much
of my scenario. Is your Thornley 'quarantine' of N.O. any better?
> > You should, The whole understanding of the case is riding on it.
>
> What "case"?
>
The Coup D' 'Etat with all the power, intrigue, and players (that you
apologize for).
> > I read some of what I posted. You better read the last chapter again, if
> > you haven't. Judyth just corroborates what other's are saying, that
> > Oswald and Thornley weren't exactly stangers in Aug-Sept. of '63. Are you
> > trying to say Judyth researched all of this out before she went about her
> > 'business'?
>
> I wouldn't call it research , but yes, she must have read everything
> available on the assassination and on the summer of 63 in NO, probably in
> the 1990's.
>
There are hundreds of people that came forward with meeting's and
relationship with Oz. Is Judyth such a big fish that you can't
resist, just her?
> Since 1999 she has been assisted by several researchers and to this day
> they still can't get her facts right.
>
It's so unimaginable. Guy meets girl at work and they pal around.
Ooops, the gov't says he was a Loner. Can't have that, can we?
> Judyth corroborates nada, she just has ensnarled herself in every
> imaginable hoax and factoid that concerns the summer of 63 in NO.
>
And Thornley has just the 'right stuff' for just the 'right scoop.'
Talk about playing God, and separating the wheat from the chaff.
> I am just waiting that Judyth claims she knew Slim Brooks and Gary
> Kirstein ... let's not haste it, though, I mean, like you said, let's not
> cast pearls before ...
>
> And you read "some" of what you posted? That's kind of you, but way too
> little, to really understand Thornley's story.
>
> Keep trying.
>
> Alex
Well, since you pose as Thornley's Groupie, then you must understand his
way of teasing us with conspiracy and all these N.O. characters in the
last chapter of his story in 'Who Were They' with his IDing of Slim and
Brother-in-Law and others that seem so Garrisonesque, indeed. Here is
that chapter, so well if you can't enlighen us you may try to entertain
us.
http://www.sondralondon.com/attract/thornley/confess/
Start
That my friend Slim Brooks may have been a navigational consultant for the
Bay of Pigs Invasion was something I'd never have suspected at the time.
Yet he was perfectly adept at precisely such work. Something about the
coffee stains on his charts seemed to rule out that possibility then.
In a Ramparts Magazine article by William Turner titled "The Garrison
Commission" that is reprinted in The Assassinations, an anthology edited
by Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch and Russell Stetler (Random House,
1976), there appears a reference to a man who happened to know the address
of Guy Banister's office next to the drugstore where Slim and I waited
that day when Brother-in-law ran his quick and mysterious "errands."
Ordinarily, the fairly common last name, "Brooks," would not seem more
than coincidental. In this instance, however, I received additional
information from a personal contact indicating that perhaps this
individual mentioned in Turner's article resembled the man I knew as
Roderick R. Brooks both in appearance and mannerisms.
My lack of certainty is due to my inability to determine the reliability
and intent of my informant. That Slim Brooks might actually have been one
Jerry Milton Brooks is a nagging possibility I cannot ignore, since Slim
never used what he told me in private was his first name in the company of
others, always preferring to be called "Slim."
Here is what Fred Turner says in "The Garrison Commission," first
published in January of 1968, about Jerry Milton Brooks:
"The dilapidated building at 544 Camp Street is on the corner of Lafayette
Place. Shortly after news of Garrison's investigation broke, I went to 531
Lafayette Place, an address given me by Minutemen defector Jerry Milton
Brooks as the office of W. Guy Banister, a former FBI official who ran a
private detective agency.
"According to Brooks, who had been a trusted Minutemen aide, Banister was
a member of the Minutemen and head of the Anti-Communist League of the
Caribbean, assertedly an intermediary between the CIA and Caribbean
insurgency movements. Brooks said he had worked for Banister on
'anti-Communist' research in 1961-1962, and had known David Ferrie as a
frequent visitor to Banister's office.
"Banister had died of an apparent heart attack in the summer of 1964. But
Brooks had told me of two associates whom I hoped to find. One was Hugh F.
Ward, a young investigator for Banister who also belonged to the Minutemen
and the Anti-Communist League. Then I learned that Ward, too, was dead.
Reportedly taught to fly by David Ferrie, he was at the controls of a
Piper Aztec when it plunged to earth near Ciudad Victoria, Mexico, May 23,
1965.
"The other associate was Maurice Brooks Gatlin Sr., legal counsel to the
Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean. Jerry Brooks said he had once been
a sort of protégé of Gatlin and was in his confidence. Brooks believed
Gatlin's frequent world travels were as a 'transporter' for the CIA....
The search for Gatlin, however, was likewise futile: in 1964 he fell or
was pushed from the sixth floor of the El Panama Hotel in Panama during
the early morning, and was killed instantly."
Guy Banister is claimed by another researcher, as I previously mentioned,
to have been undercover for Division Five of the FBI at the time he ran
the detective agency in New Orleans. As Turner goes on to note, 531
Lafayette and 544 Camp are two entrances to the same building. Located
next to Waterbury's Drugs, at the corner of Camp and Canal, it stands at
the other end of a very short block at Camp and Lafayette.
As for David Ferrie who, according to Jerry Brooks, frequented Banister's
office, I met him very briefly and casually once at a party and, as I've
mentioned already, I met Guy Banister one evening in the Bourbon House.
What of Maurice Brooks Gatlin, though? Notice that Jerry Brooks claimed
this man trusted him and also seemed unaware of his death four years
earlier in Panama. Going with my assumption that Jerry Milton Brooks could
have been Slim Brooks, and with my further assumption would be that Gary
Kirstein, Slim's alleged brother-in-law, was actually E. Howard Hunt using
another man's name, a fascinating hypothesis suggests itself.
According to Torrbit's thesis, the CIA's Double-Check Corporation of Miami
was on loan to Division Five for anti-Castro activities, and both were
involved in the Cuban Revolutionary Council headquartered in Banister's
office. In that case, Banister almost certainly would have known and could
have been working with E. Howard Hunt.
Suppose that with Brooks, Hunt was using a false identity -- that of
Maurice Brooks Gatlin. Then it is easy to imagine how Slim could have
become involved in the assassination plot. Moreover, Slim continued to
meet with Brother-in-law in the years that followed, which would explain
why Jerry Milton Brooks seemed unaware of the death of Gatlin.
Either the real Gatlin, whose name Hunt was using, or another individual
on assignment with the Gatlin I.D., could have been murdered in Panama
shortly after the John Kennedy murder in order to dispose of an identity
Hunt no longer needed.
Banister is dead. Ward, whoever he was, is dead. And Maurice Gatlin is
dead or never existed and is presumed dead. E. Howard Hunt's tracks are
covered perfectly. There is almost no way to connect him with the crime of
Kennedy's assassination.
As for the real Gary Kirstein, Tom Lutz of The National Tattler discovered
his name connected with the Minutemen. Phillip Emmons Isaac Bonewits, a
Berkeley occultist, wrote me that he found it repeatedly in his
investigations of "snuff films" and other illegal Satanist activities.
Could Gary Kirstein have been someone Hunt was attempting to set up in
advance for the crime of murdering John Kennedy? Obviously, this theory
makes a number of assumptions that are possibly unwarranted.
But then again, multiple levels of cover are standard for intelligence
agents, and Brother-in-law warned me that the simplest solution was not
always the correct one.
- END -
And you want us to believe he spent all this time on Oswald because he was
such a Lone Nut that he was just an irresistable character to write a
novel on?
CJ
Alex Foyle
> I think they went a little further than team WC, and FBI, don't you
> think? Of course they all didn't ruffle Team Marcello too much.
Exactly my point, but don't belittle your hero DA, he tried as hard as
he could. He didn't even have a case against Shaw, remember? I assume
you hate that book, but a good summary of Garrison's "case",
especially about the court proceedings, can be found in James
Kirkwood's "American Grotesque".
> Yeah, it's a good way to excuse yourself, just broadswipe/disinfo it under
> the rug. Do you even know who these people are? Or even care? Maybe
> Barbara made these people up in her 'Thornley Novel', as you seem to
> express?
I don't need to wipe that “horde” under the rug, where Garrison
himself put them already for a good reason. If you want to believe in
information that Garrison discarded, fine, but don't expect others to
go along.
> The Coup D' 'Etat with all the power, intrigue, and players (that you
> apologize for).
Ah, now we are talking about the Coup D'Etat? I didn't apologize for
anything, because I thought we were talking about Thornley and the two
Oswalds. And since you pose as an Armstrong groupie and seem to
believe in his two Oswald theory, maybe there were two Thornleys, too.
Think about it.
> Well, since you pose as Thornley's Groupie, then you must understand his
> way of teasing us with conspiracy and all these N.O. characters in the
> last chapter of his story in 'Who Were They' with his IDing of Slim and
> Brother-in-Law and others that seem so Garrisonesque, indeed. Here is
> that chapter, so well if you can't enlighen us you may try to entertain
> us.
If you would have read what you post, you would know that Thornley
speculates as to the ID's of Brooks and Kirstein. And if you would
also read everything on and from Thornley you would be enlightened and
entertained on these issues and others, for sure, much more than
reading Armstrong.
> And you want us to believe he spent all this time on Oswald because he was
> such a Lone Nut that he was just an irresistable character to write a
> novel on?
I don't want you or others to believe anything I say, but rather read
about and research on Thornley yourself before you come up here and
parrot untenable theories about him.
You still don't do your homework, do you? Well, I won’t serve it to
you on a silver platter either. Excuse my repeating myself, but if you
want to know when, how and why Thornley decided to base the main
character in his first book "The Idle Warriors" (have you even read
that?) on Oswald then go and read Thornleys books and biography. There
appears to be no way I can challenge your Armstrong infested house of
theories on Thornley anyway, so why should I try anymore when you
refuse to read up on the man?
Alex
jfk...@gmail.com
Rather than trying to pick and choose based on limited information
whom you think is credible, why not establish parallel timelines for
Judyth, LHO, Barbara Reid and Thornley?
Steve Thomas
>
> - Show quoted text -
hahahahahahahahahahahaha because Judyth is a proven liar. Whats the
point?
Alex Foyle
> Rather than trying to pick and choose based on limited information
> whom you think is credible, why not establish parallel timelines for
> Judyth, LHO, Barbara Reid and Thornley?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
I am not picking limited information. I am referring to everything that is
available on him. Armstrong says he found statements by persons
frequenting the Ryder Coffee House who allegedly saw Thornley and Oswald
together. Parts, maybe all, of these came from Garrison’s investigation
and were discarded when Garrison indicted Thornley for perjury SOLELY on
the statement of Barbara Reid and her claim about her sighting of the two
in the Bourbon House in early September. If Garrison had this "horde" of
credible witnesses then WHY didn't he take Thornley to court and convict
him? And I will not repeat that again ... talk about flogging dead horses.
And if the "horde" wasn't part of Garrisons circus and their statements
came out, say, in the 1970's or later then you will most likely agree
where we can file them.
A Judyth timeline? rotfl ... pardon me, but that would be like trying to
nail jello to the wall.
We have relatively good timelines for Oswald and Thornley. A Barbara Reid
timeline would probably be equally hard to establish as Judyth's ever
morphing saga.
We did the Thornley, Oswald and Marina timelines already last month, see:
curtjester1
> On 12 Sep., 02:07, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think they went a little further than team WC, and FBI, don't you
> > think? Of course they all didn't ruffle Team Marcello too much.
>
> Exactly my point, but don't belittle your hero DA, he tried as hard as
> he could. He didn't even have a case against Shaw, remember? I assume
> you hate that book, but a good summary of Garrison's "case",
> especially about the court proceedings, can be found in James
> Kirkwood's "American Grotesque".
>
The thing is you might not have great courtroom evidence, since if it were
a conspiracy say all the way to the CIA and above and down to local
regions, it is going to be a very tedious unravelling of circumstantial
evidence in a basic white collar crime type setting. These people were
guilty as all get out, and can be 'profile proven' but only with evidence
that has gone the extra mile. It took even beyond Garrison for all of it
to have great shape and crystalization.
> > Yeah, it's a good way to excuse yourself, just broadswipe/disinfo it under
> > the rug. Do you even know who these people are? Or even care? Maybe
> > Barbara made these people up in her 'Thornley Novel', as you seem to
> > express?
>
> I don't need to wipe that “horde” under the rug, where Garrison
> himself put them already for a good reason. If you want to believe in
> information that Garrison discarded, fine, but don't expect others to
> go along.
>
It's not Garrison information, it's people information, and I am sure
Garrison would look at it now, and be happy how it evolved into even
better evidence.
> > The Coup D' 'Etat with all the power, intrigue, and players (that you
> > apologize for).
>
> Ah, now we are talking about the Coup D'Etat? I didn't apologize for
> anything, because I thought we were talking about Thornley and the two
> Oswalds. And since you pose as an Armstrong groupie and seem to
> believe in his two Oswald theory, maybe there were two Thornleys, too.
> Think about it.
>
If there are two Oswalds, and it has been labelled TOP SECRET, you can bet
it's not merely just a gov't project, if used at all in the JFK case would
have extreme broad implications. You don't see it yet, because you have a
built-in buffer system, or who knows what else. It's indicative of your
spirit and motivation when you want to 'amuse' with a 'two Thornley'.
The two isn't important, if it isn't used in the crime. This is wheat and
chaff material that you won't "think about it."
> > Well, since you pose as Thornley's Groupie, then you must understand his
> > way of teasing us with conspiracy and all these N.O. characters in the
> > last chapter of his story in 'Who Were They' with his IDing of Slim and
> > Brother-in-Law and others that seem so Garrisonesque, indeed. Here is
> > that chapter, so well if you can't enlighen us you may try to entertain
> > us.
>
> If you would have read what you post, you would know that Thornley
> speculates as to the ID's of Brooks and Kirstein. And if you would
> also read everything on and from Thornley you would be enlightened and
> entertained on these issues and others, for sure, much more than
> reading Armstrong.
>
I posted that. It makes Thornley right into the middle of the cast of
characters even if he were just giving the impression of speculating on
them. It looks like he is in the middle to me, rather than just having
fun with a controversy of the moment. Disrespecting Armstrong has not
much meaning when you don't have any ammo or base on the assumption, does
it? He spent his own money going to the neighborhoods, and schools, and
military files, and military acquainences, visiting neigbors,
teachers....have you, or anybody else for that matter. He did this for
ten years and has thousands of cites. What more humanly possible could
you expect from a person?
> > And you want us to believe he spent all this time on Oswald because he was
> > such a Lone Nut that he was just an irresistable character to write a
> > novel on?
>
> I don't want you or others to believe anything I say, but rather read
> about and research on Thornley yourself before you come up here and
> parrot untenable theories about him.
>
All I see is two major lies, his not telling the truth about Oswald, and
the lies about not knowing some of the N.O characters that were under
public scrutiny that came Garrison's way. Knowing this sure makes it
interesting on what he COULD have been into. Right now he is in my highly
suspicious list.
> You still don't do your homework, do you? Well, I won’t serve it to
> you on a silver platter either. Excuse my repeating myself, but if you
> want to know when, how and why Thornley decided to base the main
> character in his first book "The Idle Warriors" (have you even read
> that?) on Oswald then go and read Thornleys books and biography. There
> appears to be no way I can challenge your Armstrong infested house of
> theories on Thornley anyway, so why should I try anymore when you
> refuse to read up on the man?
>
I know it had to be in the early 60's as he was finished with the book I
believe in somewhere 1962ish. He is not easy to read up on, as his books
are out of most people's price range and doesn't have the attraction of a
main player, albeit for this one, an interesting one, now. How would you
think his Bio would have anything to do with his potential involement with
Oswald or the JFK case? Armstrong doesn't have any major Thornley theory,
other than the places that he was that was pertinent. Most of Armstrong's
stuff isn't dictatorial, but 'here it it is...draw your own conclusions'.
He is very strong on a Wing of the CIA being involved. It's up to anyone
to see if that might be true.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
A Smashing Idea! I say, I say. Give this one 5 stars, please!
CJ
Alex Foyle
> It's not Garrison information, it's people information, and I am sure
> Garrison would look at it now, and be happy how it evolved into even
> better evidence.
The people of and many people frequenting the RCH were interviewed by
Garrison's team, so why didn't they tell him about all their sightings
of Oswald and Thornley?
> You don't see it yet, because you have a
> built-in buffer system, or who knows what else. It's indicative of your
> spirit and motivation when you want to 'amuse' with a 'two Thornley'.
You are the one with the Armstrong buffer here. You thinking that I want
to amuse you with the idea of two Thornley’s just shows again that you
know nothing about Thornley’s real story. If you would read up on him
you would also appreciate the inscrutable depth of this speculative train
of thought, i.e. if there were two Oswald’s then were also two
Thornley’s.
> Disrespecting Armstrong has not
> much meaning when you don't have any ammo or base on the assumption, does
> it? He spent his own money going to the neighborhoods, and schools, and
> military files, and military acquainences, visiting neigbors,
> teachers....have you, or anybody else for that matter. He did this for
> ten years and has thousands of cites. What more humanly possible could
> you expect from a person?
Are you saying he interviewed the people that apparently saw Oswald and
Thornley together? I am never disrespectful with private research, but I
do dislike bogus conclusions based on crap evidence, and will say so. The
rest of Armstrong’s theories might be right (although they didn't fare
too well on this board here if I remember correctly), just not his
findings on Thornley.
> All I see is two major lies, his not telling the truth about Oswald, and
> the lies about not knowing some of the N.O characters that were under
> public scrutiny that came Garrison's way. Knowing this sure makes it
> interesting on what he COULD have been into. Right now he is in my highly
> suspicious list.
Fine, but you base that suspicion on two delusions. Thornley did not meet
Oswald in N.O. and he didn't tell any lies about Oswald, contrary to many
other people. He saw Ferrie, Shaw and Bannister each once on different
occasions and involving not more than exchanging a hello. For example he
met Bannister once at the Bourbon house, when a friend introduced them.
Can you imagine how many people might have said hello to Bannister in the
Bourbon House once or have met Shaw or Ferrie once in N.O.? It's not that
unusual if you live in the same city for a while.
> I know it had to be in the early 60's as he was finished with the book I
> believe in somewhere 1962ish. He is not easy to read up on, as his books
> are out of most people's price range and doesn't have the attraction of a
> main player, albeit for this one, an interesting one, now. How would you
> think his Bio would have anything to do with his potential involement with
> Oswald or the JFK case?
Nothing, the book "The Idle Warriors" was Thornley’s attempt to become a
real novelist, a la Graham Greene "The Quiet American", you know, nothing
sinister there. If you don't believe me read the book. Much that was
written by Thornley can be found for free on the internet. Most of all
read his biography by Adam Gorightly. And since you keep quoting from his
"Dreadlock Recollections" which were eventually put on the net by Sondra
London with that sensationalist title “Confession to Conspiracy to
Assassinate JFK” I would recommend that you read that whole book, it’s
for free, too. Then you will know to what degree and how he might have
been involved in a plot that resulted in the assassination of JFK. Yet,
again, this plot had nothing to do with Oswald or Judyth and happened in
1962. And Thornley himself only came out with that story in the early
1970’s and was never sure if it really happened the way he remembered.
It basically revolved around many different conversations he had with two
men which also contained one line of thought where they speculated on how
one would kill the president. Go read the whole book, then you’ll know
and we can discuss the possible veracity of the Brooks/Kirstein
conversations and their implications to the JFK case.
> Armstrong doesn't have any major Thornley theory,
Good for him, because he has nothing to base that on. I tell you, with
regards to Thornley he is only recycling discarded Garrison innuendo and,
as I said in my reply to Pam, if this "horde" of Armstrong witnesses came
out with their numerous sightings of Oswald and Thornley in the RCH in the
1970's or later I don't believe a word of what they say, sorry.
Alex
curtjester1
> On 13 Sep., 04:05, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not Garrison information, it's people information, and I am sure
> > Garrison would look at it now, and be happy how it evolved into even
> > better evidence.
>
> The people of and many people frequenting the RCH were interviewed by
> Garrison's team, so why didn't they tell him about all their sightings
> of Oswald and Thornley?
>
I don't pretend to know everything BUT I would think that since Oswald
grew up there and was there during that year, that there would be hundreds
of places he probably was. I don't think he ever thought about the
assassination ever being a huge plot involving gov't officiandos. That
was obvious how he let Ferrie off right after returning from Texas when he
really should have been putting it together. The FBI man there was even
under the influence of Marcello protecting him as a mere $1600 a month
tomato salesman. So, I would suggest the people there knew their town and
we're careful then as Marcello had a billion dollar a year empire, and
people there were 'somehow' losing their lives that were water cooler talk
about who might be involved in the assassination. Many people who came
forward in the assassination came forward 5, 10 to 30 years to their
deathbed's because of fear of involvement. That, and just like the WC,
the most apparent questions were never asked. Some people have even
suggested Garrison took the investigation in a skewed way to actually take
the heat off the people involved by taking a course that would be
officially pronounced by an official court. So, I give you suggestions,
in hopes you think other than having to have a dogmatic assertion as your
only 'out.'
> > You don't see it yet, because you have a
> > built-in buffer system, or who knows what else. It's indicative of your
> > spirit and motivation when you want to 'amuse' with a 'two Thornley'.
>
> You are the one with the Armstrong buffer here. You thinking that I want
> to amuse you with the idea of two Thornley’s just shows again that you
> know nothing about Thornley’s real story. If you would read up on him
> you would also appreciate the inscrutable depth of this speculative train
> of thought, i.e. if there were two Oswald’s then were also two
> Thornley’s.
>
Pure psychobabble. Tell us Thornley's real story and how anything might
apply. You dismiss any Oswald history just like the WC did. There are
five more Sept/Oswald incidentses that had nothing to do with RCH or
Thornley, but not caring shows you're not really interested in Thornley
and his potential involvement is either.
> > Disrespecting Armstrong has not
> > much meaning when you don't have any ammo or base on the assumption, does
> > it? He spent his own money going to the neighborhoods, and schools, and
> > military files, and military acquainences, visiting neigbors,
> > teachers....have you, or anybody else for that matter. He did this for
> > ten years and has thousands of cites. What more humanly possible could
> > you expect from a person?
>
> Are you saying he interviewed the people that apparently saw Oswald and
> Thornley together? I am never disrespectful with private research, but I
> do dislike bogus conclusions based on crap evidence, and will say so. The
> rest of Armstrong’s theories might be right (although they didn't fare
> too well on this board here if I remember correctly), just not his
> findings on Thornley.
>
I could careless what these boards think. Armstrong interviewed many
people in N.O and other places. Literally hundreds that people aren't
aware of. He even includes a CD disc with further evidence/ citation
(which I haven't used) that add or support to the thousand(s) he uses in
the normal process. Even if these statements were just their public
announcings, I would think that should carry a lot of weight. I don't see
anyone coming forward, and saying, 'I didn't say that.' Do you? There are
many witnesses like Thornley that people will never give a certfied stamp
of non-guilt. And who knows, maybe somebody in the neighborhood saw
Thornley go to Marina's and just haven't been asked?
> > All I see is two major lies, his not telling the truth about Oswald, and
> > the lies about not knowing some of the N.O characters that were under
> > public scrutiny that came Garrison's way. Knowing this sure makes it
> > interesting on what he COULD have been into. Right now he is in my highly
> > suspicious list.
>
> Fine, but you base that suspicion on two delusions. Thornley did not meet
> Oswald in N.O. and he didn't tell any lies about Oswald, contrary to many
> other people. He saw Ferrie, Shaw and Bannister each once on different
> occasions and involving not more than exchanging a hello. For example he
> met Bannister once at the Bourbon house, when a friend introduced them.
> Can you imagine how many people might have said hello to Bannister in the
> Bourbon House once or have met Shaw or Ferrie once in N.O.? It's not that
> unusual if you live in the same city for a while.
>
But he was asked the question specifically and the truth didn't come out
for Ferrie and Bannister, and yet you will go out on a limb and
emphatically pardon an Oswald/Thornley tete-tete that lasted an hour. You
must admit that seems very agenda-orientated on the outset?
> > I know it had to be in the early 60's as he was finished with the book I
> > believe in somewhere 1962ish. He is not easy to read up on, as his books
> > are out of most people's price range and doesn't have the attraction of a
> > main player, albeit for this one, an interesting one, now. How would you
> > think his Bio would have anything to do with his potential involement with
> > Oswald or the JFK case?
>
> Nothing, the book "The Idle Warriors" was Thornley’s attempt to become a
> real novelist, a la Graham Greene "The Quiet American", you know, nothing
> sinister there. If you don't believe me read the book. Much that was
> written by Thornley can be found for free on the internet. Most of all
> read his biography by Adam Gorightly. And since you keep quoting from his
> "Dreadlock Recollections" which were eventually put on the net by Sondra
> London with that sensationalist title “Confession to Conspiracy to
> Assassinate JFK” I would recommend that you read that whole book, it’s
> for free, too. Then you will know to what degree and how he might have
> been involved in a plot that resulted in the assassination of JFK. Yet,
> again, this plot had nothing to do with Oswald or Judyth and happened in
> 1962. And Thornley himself only came out with that story in the early
> 1970’s and was never sure if it really happened the way he remembered.
> It basically revolved around many different conversations he had with two
> men which also contained one line of thought where they speculated on how
> one would kill the president. Go read the whole book, then you’ll know
> and we can discuss the possible veracity of the Brooks/Kirstein
> conversations and their implications to the JFK case.
>
Why don't you just tell us "to what degree and (or) how he might have been
involved in a plot that resulted in the assassination of JFK?" I mean I
can see why H.L. Hunt was involved by his Alpaca book by his biased toward
the rich in forming and running society. I then can say, H.L.,
DeMorenshildt, Ruby, and Oswald seen by a confidante on numerous
occasions, and draw some pretty serious possibilities. Now since you
claim enlightenment after some readings, and perhaps claiming to know the
soul of the man....why don't you just say what you think of Thornley and
this stuff that came out of a pretty fair relationship to begin with by
his getting to know Oswald on an intimate basis in El Toro?
> > Armstrong doesn't have any major Thornley theory,
>
> Good for him, because he has nothing to base that on. I tell you, with
> regards to Thornley he is only recycling discarded Garrison innuendo and,
> as I said in my reply to Pam, if this "horde" of Armstrong witnesses came
> out with their numerous sightings of Oswald and Thornley in the RCH in the
> 1970's or later I don't believe a word of what they say, sorry.
>
You don't need to apologize, you should just have to show why this group
of people were non-existant, manipulated, dis-orientated, liars, or a
victim of some conspiracy to make them look awfully bad. Like I said, did
anyone of this horde claim they were mis-represented in the public forum
of their opinions expressed in print form? (besides Thornley)
CJ
Alex Foyle
> Many people who came
> forward in the assassination came forward 5, 10 to 30 years to their
> deathbed's because of fear of involvement.
Fear of involvement ... for having seen Oswald and Thornley at the
RCH? Makes no sense to me.
And you ignore the fact that Garrison’s team did question the people
of the RCH already in detail.
> So, I give you suggestions,
> in hopes you think other than having to have a dogmatic assertion as your
> only 'out.'
Who needs suggestions regarding Thornley when we have the facts. If
Armstrong has better facts than the SS, FBI, WC, Garrison & the HSCA than
tell me the sources for the Thornley claims in Armstrongs book. Not just
the names of the alleged witnesses, but when and to whom they made their
statements.
> Pure psychobabble. Tell us Thornley's real story and how anything might
> apply.
I would agree that it is psychobabble, but not mine, see:
"In 1992 Kerry Thornley appeared on the television show A Current Affair
and said he had been part of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. His
co-conspirators were two men he called ‘Brother-in-Law’ and
‘Slim’. Thornley also denied having been responsible for framing
Oswald, whom Thornley had befriended in the Marines: ‘I would gladly
have killed Kennedy, but I would never have betrayed Oswald.’ He added,
‘I wanted [Kennedy] dead. I would have shot him myself.’ Thornley has
also claimed that he and Oswald were the products of a genetic engineering
experiment carried out by a secret neo-Nazi sect of eugenicists called the
Vril Society, and that the two of them had been manipulated since
childhood by Vril overlords."
http://listverse.com/crime/11-alternative-jfk-assassins/
So Thornley even came to believe at some point that Oswald and him were
part of a Nazi breeding experiment. If you take that speculation and add
Armstrong’s two Oswald theory and the fact that Thornley was not in N.O.
from May to September of 63 then you could also speculate that there was a
second Thornley. Personally I don't believe any of this.
> You dismiss any Oswald history just like the WC did.
I don't, I just dismiss liars who say that Thornley knew Oswald in
N.O.
> I could careless what these boards think.
You didn't answer my question. Did Armstrong himself interview the
"witnesses" who supposedly saw Oswald and Thornley at the RCH?
I thought he only found old and discarded FBI and Garrison statements
at the National Archives.
> Why don't you just tell us "to what degree and (or) how he might have been
> involved in a plot that resulted in the assassination of JFK?"
OK, although you could read up on it yourself, you know. Here we go: In
1973 Thornley read an article in the Yipster Times about the three tramps
theory that was later expanded on and published in a book by A.J. Weberman
and Michael Canfield called, as you know, "Coup D'Etat in America".
Thornley became a believer of their theory that the older tramp was E.
Howard Hunt. Moreover, Thornley imagined E. Howard Hunt was also the
mysterious Gary Kirstein with whom he had his discussions in 1962, albeit
Thornley’s "Brother-in-Law" Kirstein was bald at the time they knew each
other. So in August of 1973 Thornley wrote an article entitled "Did the
Plumbers Plug JFK Too?" for the underground paper The Great Speckled Bird.
After the publication he got two strange calls from a man he later thought
was Kirstein asking him if he remembered who he (Kirstein) was, when
Thornley answered in the negative the caller hung up. After these calls
Thornley began to remember and write down all the topics he discussed with
Kirstein and Brooks in 1962. Originally Kirstein had asked Thornley to
collect information for a book called "Hitler was a Good Guy" and their
discussions revolved around all sorts of topics. One of them was to
theorize on how to kill the president. That is the degree to which
Thornley might have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.
Many personal friends of Thornley and also researchers like David Lifton
believed Thornley had exaggerated the conversations with Kirstein
regarding Kennedy. The unfortunate and somewhat ironic side effect of the
whole Garrison circus was that it did turn Thornley into a wildly
speculating CTer himself, later believing (for a while) in the Torbitt
documents, the Gemstone File and other dubious theories which culminated
in the Nazi breeding experiment conundrum.
Have you read Liftons summary of how he introduced Thornley to Garrison
and the subsequent fallout? If not, it’s a good read:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lifton1.htm
In Thornleys biography Lifton also said with regards to the Garrison
investigation and its effects on Thornley:
“You’re dealing with a New Orleans version of a five and dime Salem
Witch Hunt – and poor Kerry got his mind warped by this thing and bent
out of shape and instead of being the critically reasoning person I knew
him to be, he ended being a paranoid schiz. And these idiots who think
Clay Shaw was guilty, and Garrison was a person who came down from Mount
Olympus with the solution of the Kennedy assassination, are off their
rocker. “
“The Prankster & the Conspiracy” by Adam Gorightly, pages 212-213
Alex
curtjester1
> On 14 Sep., 06:10, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Many people who came
> > forward in the assassination came forward 5, 10 to 30 years to their
> > deathbed's because of fear of involvement.
>
> Fear of involvement ... for having seen Oswald and Thornley at the
> RCH? Makes no sense to me.
>
Oswald and Thornley might seem docile but when there is an Oswald- Ferrie
connection already brewing in one's neighborhood from the day of the
assassination, and Ferrie being the personal pilot of Marcello and Ferrie
getting a gas station in a well-to-do neighborhood in your town, and then
people that could be very well connected dying, like a Ferrie, Bannister,
Mary Sherman, CIA Gaudet....unusually...you might tend to walk on
eggshells a bit.
> And you ignore the fact that Garrison’s team did question the people
> of the RCH already in detail.
>
Of all the testimony I have gone through, I have been appalled at the lack
of depth and conciseness by the Questioners, the WC being the most
flagrant. I doubt there would have been a giant Oz-Thornley breaking
story ahead for even those close to them. Now given that Judyth has
Oswald and Ferrie dealing with rats and monkeys...and Thornley being an
interesting intruder to Marina's....that might have gotten things going a
little better.
> > So, I give you suggestions,
> > in hopes you think other than having to have a dogmatic assertion as your
> > only 'out.'
>
> Who needs suggestions regarding Thornley when we have the facts. If
> Armstrong has better facts than the SS, FBI, WC, Garrison & the HSCA than
> tell me the sources for the Thornley claims in Armstrongs book. Not just
> the names of the alleged witnesses, but when and to whom they made their
> statements.
>
We would all like better times with conciseness, but the surroundings
didn't warrant them in many instances. If there was anyone to get a date
right it was Armstrong, and he had a penchant for N.O. as The Mafia
Kingfish is what got him interested in the case to begin with. He even got
the exact date Oswald got residence into a Motel that ended up in a
roommate situation in 1959 while the other Oswald was still in So. Calif
in the Marines. That was a no-no, and the HSCA dumped the legwork Mary
Reid did to get it. Of course she is going to have to be discredited.
Garrison would have no clue as to that importance when his investigation
was going on.
> > Pure psychobabble. Tell us Thornley's real story and how anything might
> > apply.
>
> I would agree that it is psychobabble, but not mine, see:
>
> "In 1992 Kerry Thornley appeared on the television show A Current Affair
> and said he had been part of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. His
> co-conspirators were two men he called ‘Brother-in-Law’ and
> ‘Slim’. Thornley also denied having been responsible for framing
> Oswald, whom Thornley had befriended in the Marines: ‘I would gladly
> have killed Kennedy, but I would never have betrayed Oswald.’ He added,
> ‘I wanted [Kennedy] dead. I would have shot him myself.’ Thornley has
> also claimed that he and Oswald were the products of a genetic engineering
> experiment carried out by a secret neo-Nazi sect of eugenicists called the
> Vril Society, and that the two of them had been manipulated since
> childhood by Vril overlords."
>
Heck if Ferrie was involved with ways to killing Castro with all the
weapons he stole from Houma, then it's easy to see he might have been
storing rats and monkeys at his place for the many already plans to kill
Castro with poison and diseases...so why wouldn't think he couldn't be CIA
involved in recruiting people into the CIA's realm (that was already shown
to get unwitting participants in their brain control experiments)...to
which he was affiliated to those in high places within the CIA and Mafia?
> http://listverse.com/crime/11-alternative-jfk-assassins/
>
> So Thornley even came to believe at some point that Oswald and him were
> part of a Nazi breeding experiment. If you take that speculation and add
> Armstrong’s two Oswald theory and the fact that Thornley was not in N.O.
> from May to September of 63 then you could also speculate that there was a
> second Thornley. Personally I don't believe any of this.
>
Well to a person who changed his politics radically by reading Ayn Rand,
and the fact they were born in the late 1930's, I wouldn't either, BUT
that still doesn't exonerate Thornley from being in the shadows of the JFK
assassination or knowing Oswald on a personal level when both might have
been right in the middle of stuff perhaps not knowing fully what was going
on around them.
> > You dismiss any Oswald history just like the WC did.
>
> I don't, I just dismiss liars who say that Thornley knew Oswald in
> N.O.
>
Liars? You have no idea. And yet there were many. A conspiracy of
Liars. Why should anyone believe YOU?
> > I could careless what these boards think.
>
> You didn't answer my question. Did Armstrong himself interview the
> "witnesses" who supposedly saw Oswald and Thornley at the RCH?
>
I would say yes by how he wrote what he wrote. If not, like I say, nobody
has said anything was wrong, and yet we know Thornley fibbed, don't we?
> I thought he only found old and discarded FBI and Garrison statements
> at the National Archives.
>
I am sure he did. Didn't they find the FBI's pages of the interviewing of
Ferrie when he came back from his 'vacation'? Oh a few pages were missing
of course. The thing is you can't say these witnesses were wrong. You
just want them to be wrong (for some unknown reason).
> > Why don't you just tell us "to what degree and (or) how he might have been
> > involved in a plot that resulted in the assassination of JFK?"
>
> OK, although you could read up on it yourself, you know. Here we go: In
> 1973 Thornley read an article in the Yipster Times about the three tramps
> theory that was later expanded on and published in a book by A.J. Weberman
> and Michael Canfield called, as you know, "Coup D'Etat in America".
> Thornley became a believer of their theory that the older tramp was E.
> Howard Hunt. Moreover, Thornley imagined E. Howard Hunt was also the
> mysterious Gary Kirstein with whom he had his discussions in 1962, albeit
> Thornley’s "Brother-in-Law" Kirstein was bald at the time they knew each
> other. So in August of 1973 Thornley wrote an article entitled "Did the
> Plumbers Plug JFK Too?" for the underground paper The Great Speckled Bird.
> After the publication he got two strange calls from a man he later thought
> was Kirstein asking him if he remembered who he (Kirstein) was, when
> Thornley answered in the negative the caller hung up. After these calls
> Thornley began to remember and write down all the topics he discussed with
> Kirstein and Brooks in 1962. Originally Kirstein had asked Thornley to
> collect information for a book called "Hitler was a Good Guy" and their
> discussions revolved around all sorts of topics. One of them was to
> theorize on how to kill the president. That is the degree to which
> Thornley might have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.
>
And weren't there other E.H. Hunt sightings in N.O. as well? Anyway, this
is nothing new that I haven't read. Anyway, all this plus being in
Oswald's, Ferrie's, and Bannister's midst give way that he may have been
very close to the fire during a very controversial time. And if he made a
few stops at Marina's...well.....it's certainly no cause for 'dismissal'
is it?
> Many personal friends of Thornley and also researchers like David Lifton
> believed Thornley had exaggerated the conversations with Kirstein
> regarding Kennedy. The unfortunate and somewhat ironic side effect of the
> whole Garrison circus was that it did turn Thornley into a wildly
> speculating CTer himself, later believing (for a while) in the Torbitt
> documents, the Gemstone File and other dubious theories which culminated
> in the Nazi breeding experiment conundrum.
>
It's easy to make anyone to a "speculating CT'er". The media still
does it today, and they don't even know diddly about the case.
> Have you read Liftons summary of how he introduced Thornley to Garrison
> and the subsequent fallout? If not, it’s a good read:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lifton1.htm
>
> In Thornleys biography Lifton also said with regards to the Garrison
> investigation and its effects on Thornley:
>
> “You’re dealing with a New Orleans version of a five and dime Salem
> Witch Hunt – and poor Kerry got his mind warped by this thing and bent
> out of shape and instead of being the critically reasoning person I knew
> him to be, he ended being a paranoid schiz. And these idiots who think
> Clay Shaw was guilty, and Garrison was a person who came down from Mount
> Olympus with the solution of the Kennedy assassination, are off their
> rocker. “
>
New Orleans has always been five and dime. They didn't even press Wray
Gill about him saying he "might have heard", "through rumor" about Ferrie
and the library card, through Jack Martin. So the Feds released Ferrie on
just that. Of course FBI agent of N.O. the one accused of abscounding off
with Beverly Oliver's version of the Zapruder film, also covered for
Marcello saying he was a $1600 month tomato salesman (when he owned half
of N.O and was pulling in a billion a year in business revenues). You
would think that when Oswald ran numbers for Marcello via his uncle who
was a confidante of Marcello, who had one of his guys bail Oswald out of
jail for the Fair Play disturbance...that people would look a little more
closely than to slough all things off as 'Something-Garrison'.
> “The Prankster & the Conspiracy” by Adam Gorightly, pages 212-213
>
> Alex
CJ
curtjester1
>
> >> The question is how valid are all these "cites" ... or his
> >> interpretation of them?
>
> >It's actually a good question.
>
> Of course it's a good question ... it is *the* question.
>
I wouldn't pat yourself on the back so quickly, thar. Every bit of
evidence in this case is subjective, and debated, for quality of evidence.
What seems to be the annoyance here, is that it is evidence.
> >How many people does one having checking
> >them, since it's basically new ground for any, and for what vein of topic?
>
> Why haven't you checked? You're promoting it, one would think you
> would want to know what you are putting out there is fact, not fancy.
>
Why hasn't thee, or anybody? It's testimony that has been in some
official form, either a Garrison investigation, or HSCA or more. I read
what I read and put down the cites as they have them. I don't stroll the
neighborhoods.
>
>
> >> > What more humanly possible could
> >> >you expect from a person?
>
> >> To proof their pudding. Isn't Armstrong the one who decided a Fed
> >> Employer Number on a W-2 (from Reily, I believe) was faked after the
> >> fact because according to the IRS the number was created in 1972
> >> ....74...whatever?
>
> >All I know is he traces that stuff very well,
>
> How do you know that he has traced it accurately and come up with the
> correct interpretation of his findings ... that he has followed it
> any of it to a conclusionary end? You don't ... and since you say "all
> I know is..." ... that's quite clear.
>
And unless someone is on a particular vein in the case..it's all they
know. Nobody can know can they?, when they haven't hit that virgin
territory yet? If you want to really find out, I suggest getting all the
records he has embarked upon which might take you a year or so, and lay
them flat out. Are you willing to do this, instead of 'making decisions'?
> And how about the specific example I asked about?
>
You want me to look it up for you? Isn't that a little commandish? I
venture to say, if one is so adamant against certain topics or potential
testimony where it gets their metabolism in high gear, why don't you just
get the book? I have only had mine for about 6 months, and I don't even
know if JVB is in the book.
> >to even showing the Feds had
> >used their typewriter to make anomalies seem ok, when obviously they used
> >a different one at the correct time.
>
> Established aas a fact, eh? How? Because he says it, and because you
> accept it, hardly makes it a fact.
>
So, are you going to go out on a limb and say's it's 'NOT' a fact? Or are
you just baiting for someone to do your research for you. I think you can
get this one on the 'Harvey and Lee' site online....I am not sure if he
includes it in the book or not. Lot's of stuff online, not in the book.
> > And so for a Mary Reid, the HSCA,
> >the Alex Foyle's come down hard to discredit because she comes up with
> >much more than a Thornley at a coffee house with Oz. She has been in the
> >'hood for years in N.O and has uncovered paperwork from whence Oz and a
> >ant-Castro exile guy are rooming together. Not so ominous until one knows
> >that 'Oz' is still in the Marines during that paperwork time. The HSCA
> >dismissed it just like the WC....but the 'facts' still remain...and so
> >does an emerging pattern to the scrutinizer.
>
> You make scrambled eggs and expect to pass it off as an eggs benedict.
> You talk about "facts" ... have you got any?
>
>
Does two Oswald's scare you that much, or don't you like discussing the
event and testimony? I know it's not common knowledge even among
researchers, but you seem soooo 'Anti'???
>
> >> Very little digging is required to ascertain that ALL such numbers for
> >> employers that existed in that area at that time will show that same
> >> thing because the area got computerized for the first time that year
> >> ('72...'74...I don't recall the year offhand) and by default, the date
> >> they first got entered into the new computer system shows as the year
> >> the tax ID number was created.
>
> >When you did into Oswald's mother's work records, all the Marine stuff it
> >becomes very, very clear. The classmates, the teachers, the
> >acquaintances...all have tales to tell, and really lots of tantalizing
> >things to even anticipate what they might say or have said.
>
> Another non-answer. I am aware of all the "tales" ... but I prefer to
> have established, documented facts.
>
Just what are the tales, if I may ask? Those above mentioned take up
countless pages. Have you ever read one?
>
>
> >> Others that come to mind are the supposed missing tooth, the mastoid
> >> operation/scar....it's been a lot of years since I've seen anyone even
> >> raise the Armstrong stuff, I can't recall more offhand.
>
> >The thing is that in the missing tooth pic inside the classroom, Oz was
> >the tallest guy in the class.
>
> Now there's a thought process for ya.<g> There's zero evidence he had
> a missing tooth ... no matter how tall or short he was.
>
Actually there is lots of evidence for a tooth knocked out...and that kind
of shows where yer head is at...up Red Forman's ass.
> > The New York zoo pic, he is a little guy.
> >One of the best book buys I ever made was getting Groden's 'The Search For
> >Lee Harvey Oswald' (A Comprehensive Photographic Record). Groden takes
> >anyone and shows that all this medical history doesn't add up when he
> >shows Oswald butt nekkid at the autopsy where this stuff isn't showing up.
>
> You expect his looking taller in one picture and shorter in another to
> show up on the autopsy table? You're scrambling and rambling ...
>
Instead of looking for an inch or two in heighth, why don't you ask
questions about shooting incidents, the suicide attempt, the cracked jaw
incident, and all his medical things that would cause one to wonder about
something physical in appearance? I gave you a good book...for a
start...and yer doing 'da babbleoo'.
> >Beyond that I was able to take a few emails I asked Judyth to identify to
> >other's Armstrong asked to even further show the guy lying on the gurney
> >on Nov. 24-25 was not the Oswald born in N.O and at many of the Marine
> >bases of record.
>
> Oh yes, Judyth would be the perfect person for that ... NOT. Will give
> her some credit though for NOT believing this 2 Oswald stuff. Sooo, if
> you believe Judyth knew Oswald intimately, and she says the 2 Oswald
> stuff is wrong ... why don't you believe her?
>
>
Why would you give credit for THAT and rail her for other things? Maybe
your evidence gathering JUST takes in the side yer on? Actually we don't
really know what you believe do we? I would actually postulize that
Judyth would probably have no idea if he were a mission of that sort
unless he told her. I think I could convince her over coffee that her guy
might not be dead yet...but then I would just expect a nice smart aleck
remark for that.
>
> >> How many of his "cites" ... and his conclusions drawn from them, have
> >> been taken out to the degree necessary to verify his ***opinion*** of
> >> what these things mean are correct?
>
> >I really doubt any
>
> The you have opinion and theory ... not anything established as fact.
>
Name one thing in this case established as FACT, besides JFK maybe not
committing suicide?
> > as he could have written a much larger tome, and from
> >what I hear put in the most verifiable of material.
>
> Anything wrong with you taking this stuff and doing fact checking on
> your own? Hellooooo?
>
If you were doing a little of your own you wouldn't be asking these types
of questions 'of dismissal' would you? Name one verifiable fact that
would draw anyone to conclude that a or two 'Oswald(s) couldn't be part of
a CIA project? I challenge you or anyone to just even take the online
stuff of 'Harvey and Lee' and say for a FACT that it's just not so.
> > In reality, no one
> >can answer that question as many stuff is based on preponderance of
> >witness testimony.
>
> :-)
>
That shouldn't be a wry grin of victory, it should be a sign of
admitted 'I-dunno'.
> > Anyone can make any testimony 'not good enough', but I
> >think he has done a marvelous job on what he set out to do, proof-wise.
> >One example would be something seemingly insignificant as tying the rifle
> >to Oz. He takes one on a roller- coaster paper trail, and one that would
> >embarrass law-enforcement, the Feds..to the highest degree, IMO. I have
> >tried to leave some of these 'teasers' around here the last months. Not
> >much in the way of a defense has come about,
>
> Don't mistake lack of interest as lack of what you call "defense."
> This 2 Oswald thing has been out and about a very long time. Most
> researchers, particularly those who bothered to do any verification on
> their own, abandones it long long ago.
>
Now you have a team on your side, a poster, a team of researchers, a
regular THEM society. When are you going to think on your own, instead of
drawing on conclusions that people have never investigated or made any
kind of defense for their apathy in the subject? I'll give you a little
hint. The best researchers know that there was a concerted effort by an
entity or group that tried to portray themselves off as LHO when LHO as
they even think of him couldn't have been there because of documented
accounts by witnesses. Did I use the D word, heaven forbid...and say
"Documented"? Or should I say somebody said it, and gave details, and
hopefully it passed the 'Tale Committee'?
For Barb's homework assignment and the whole semester is riding on it.
Please essay us the reason the WC didn't further itself in the
investigation of a more clandestine Oswald? And give us the reasons that
they were 'Correct' in doing so?..:O
> > nor the desire to explore
> >beyond the usual set of topics one is used to.
>
> Those wo believe Armstrong is correct should be able to present
> specific reasoning and facts. Waxing in generalities, while admitting
> all you know is what "you hear" and that you "doubt any" of his
> conclusions have been checked out to see if they are correct, says it
> all. ...and it doesn't say much.
>
It took him over ten years, and you want me to do that how fast? Any
particular brand of silver platter. Actually his theory would go more on
the lines of a Deadly Secrets, or a Double Cross theory. Should we just
have a quiz on the theories first? How many people have a WC Theory and
have presented their testimony to whomever....should we say that they
'checked out'? I would say that people can't have a "doesn't say much"
basis when they don't even know what they are 'doubting', does one?
As the student of Plato once said, "What is 'A' valid JFK theory"?
That's extra credit..:)
> I looked at some of this stuff when it was the hot topic years ago,
> looked at some of the socuments and his conclusions, checked out a few
> things and was quite underwhelmed. Nothing I am interested in going
> back to .... unless someone, like yourself, is able to presesent
> something specific and verifiable worth looking at.
>
You read it and didn't do much else, and it got lost in the back burner's
of life, and now you are trying to draw on straws of that experience to
make a stance...can we say Strawman?
> > It's why John prefers just
> >building houses these days.
>
> Sounds like a better endeavor for him.
>
> Barb :-)
>
Awwww...can you just think that he might think the research community and
American Public is too ignorant and apathetic in caring if their country
is in the hands of some cabal that did the ol' dispy d' etat' on us?
CJ