Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir..."

[Steven Galbraith]

Oswald: "I work in that building..."
Question: "Were you in the building at the time [of the shooting]?
Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir...

So, while being filmed and interviewed, Oswald is given the perfect opportunity to prove his alibi. He is asked if he was in the building at the time of the shooting. Here he can say, "I was on the steps watching the parade at the time."
But he doesn't. He says, "Naturally, if I work in the building, yes sir..."
Oswald talked to his wife, his brother and his mother. He also talked to Lou Nichols, the head of the Dallas bar association who went to ask him if he wanted legal counsel.
These are the chances to tell his family and others that he didn't shoot JFK because he was with others on the steps. But he didn't. And none of the people on the steps who were interviewed said they ever saw him.
This isn't about "defending the Warren Commission". Whatever that means anymore. This is about the facts and evidence.

Video: https://jfkfacts.org/oswald-work-building/

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 06:40:10 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Oswald: "I work in that building..."

>Question: "Were you in the building at the time?

>Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir...

[Speculation removed.] Facts left.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Facts don't help you, Ben.

Instead of hysterically lashing out at everyone, why don't you calmly and rationally make your case for the conspiracy YOU believe occurred; a conspiracy involving LBJ as a mastermind, a conspiracy involving at least 7-8 shots, a conspiracy that involved JFK's body being snatched from his coffin, or the coffin itself being diverted somewhere by some team of conspirators, a conspiracy involving the alteration of the Z film, a conspiracy that spilled over to 1968 and claimed RFK's life, etc.

Lay out your case, tie it all together, show us the research that leads you to this startling conspiracy, and so on. And sorry, but the multi-segment Gish gallop you've laid on the group numerous times contains no research that backs the core tenants for the conspiracy you promote.

Make a POSITIVE case for what you allege. That's how conspiracies are unraveled, and that's how crimes are solved. You can stomp your tiny feet and wave your little fists skyward all you want, but nothing will change historically without a better solution for 11/22/63, a solution that you and the rest of Team Oswald seem incapable of producing.

Let the snipping commence!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 10:52:32 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 06:40:10 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Oswald: "I work in that building..."
>> >Question: "Were you in the building at the time?
>> >Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir...
>
>> [Speculation removed.] Facts left.
>
>Facts don't help you, Ben.

Actually moron, they are the only things that can.

> why don't you calmly and rationally make your case for the

> conspiracy YOU believe occurred...


Already have.

You ran.

As you do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 9:40:11 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:



Even better, by Steven's own logic Oswald is holding back from saying exactly where he was at the time of the shots because he was a CIA operative trained in Counter-Interrogation methods and was leaving them guessing...By Steven's own logic if Oswald was inside and could prove he was witnessed sitting eating in the 2nd floor Lunch Room he would have also said that and exonerated himself...The reason he didn't was because, as a CIA operative, he is required to leave all options open to the conspirators in order to work in that information to their advantage...What you see in Oswald's pattern of statements is a dutiful operative practicing standard tradecraft and not divulging or volunteering...He did however send hints to his handlers that he was not going to be pinned with the assassination...I believe the plot in the Police Station was Oswald was covertly assured his case would be blown by the failure to appoint an attorney and that is why he kept announcing that he had not been given legal representation...Oswald went along with that plot because he knew he had his 2nd floor Lunch Room location and its witnesses up his sleeve whenever he needed it...This is why Oswald was murdered...

Greg Parker is a blustering blowhard jackass who ignores evidence that disproves him...He thinks the whole world is his website where he can dictate who is "side-lined" (cowardly censored) and who he can ignore...The JFK research community is dysfunctional and peppered with Lone Nutter spooks so you can post the confirmed science that proves Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton and the trolls will ignore it and divert to evasive side threads designed to avoid recognizing it...

[John Corbett]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 2:32:47 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 9:40:11 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
>
>
> Even better, by Steven's own logic Oswald is holding back from saying exactly where he was at the time of the shots because he was a CIA operative trained in Counter-Interrogation methods and was leaving them guessing..

They weren't guessing for long. They figured out right away he was in the 6th floor sniper's nest at the time of the shooting.

[Steven Galbraith]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 2:32:47 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:

Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the investigation determined that there was no foreign government involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:01:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that
> *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with
> Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why
> would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and
> relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no
> connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
>And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the
> investigation determined that there was no foreign government
> involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to
> remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify
> one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.

It's questions like this that make you wonder if believers have any
brains.

First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA. Sworn testimony,
unrefuted, shows this... from several people who where in a position
to know. And yes, he was certainly "low level."

And if you can't figure out why they'd prefer to frame someone who
they controlled, rather than some random person - nothing I say will
make it easier for you to understand. People with a faith are rarely
interested in learning facts that contradict their faith.

The only people who could "expose" this are the very people who framed
him. By exposing the frame, they'd be indicting themselves. Is that
too hard to understand?

Why frame someone? Because an investigation into who killed a
President can't be like a normal investigation in Chicago... or Los
Angeles (etc)... that might lead nowhere. The American people
wouldn't accept a "go nowhere" investigation... and by framing a
suspect, they close the investigation.

This investigation was essentially closed that weekend. Nothing was
investigated that didn't support the "Oswald did it" theory. All
leads that lead elsewhere were abandoned early on...

BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SUSPECT!

This is all fairly simple, and even the average person who knows
little about this case could essentially replicate the above
explanation...

So why is it so difficult for believers to understand?

[Greg Parker]

How many times do I have to repeat myse;f here before anything sinks in?

Oswald could see sweet fuck all from his poition on the back corner. Like nearly everyone else, he seems to have assumed the noise was caused by a motorbike backfiring. You can watch the films and see the lack of reaction by anyone to the shots, So, oblivious like 99% of those on the steps, and unable to see anything, he went back inside. The commotion that drew him back to the front entrance was the commotion of those outside finally realizing that Kennedy had been shot. But he was stopped by a cop before he could leave. In any case, he thought Kennedy had been shot AFTER he went back in based on the late reaction of others,

So yeah... as far he knew, Kennedy was shot when he was inside.

As for not telling anyone he was on the first floor [a the time of the shooting] seeing as how that is where he was when he THOUGHT Kennedy was shot - he did tell that t his interrogators, because they asked specific questions. The question asked by the reporter did not include what you bracket. People like Oswald are very literal. "Were you in the building at the time?" You may think it is obvious that i is areference to the shooting of Kennedy... but ty asking someone like Oswald a question based on assumed knoeledge of the second part of the question and see what answer you get.

This is from the report of FBI agent O' Flaherty. It is evidece Flaherty obtained about Oswald's in Youth House:

"He does whatever is asked of him completely and without comment."

"He usually sits by himself"

"He does not encourage conversaton."

"He does not communicate with his supervisors OTHER THAN WHEN HE IS ASKED A DIRECT QUESTION, then his answer is very terse.""

"Lee is a very quiet boy who says very little to anyone and no one bothers him."

"Usually on the floor, he can be found sitting IN THE CORNER by the window"

"The boy is very quiet and withdrawn when not activated by any program"

"Most of the time the boy can be seen sitting alone, minding his own business."

"When he becomes involved in any MINOR ALTERCATON, he will become very hostile and beligerent."

"Avoids contact with members of the group"
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10461#relPageId=66

These traits lasted his entire short life.

Ask Marina if little things upset him. Yes they did. Same as at Youth House.

Ask his cowokers how well he mingled.

Look at how he answered questtions at 13. Same as he did at 24. Sort, sharp direct responses to the EXACT quesyoon - not what you know is the REAL question.

If you continue to ignore all of the evidence I am presenting and continue posting WC testimony as if it is the pinnacle of the evidence, we're done.

Oswald was innocent. The evidence is clear on that. But the fix was in - which is obvious to anyone who actually understands evidence, police clearance rates, the clear pattern of abuse of process in Dallas County and so on...

Your "why didn't do this or that" arguments are repugnant to anyone who has actually studied Oswald and understands how various disorders shape how people like Oswald actually respond to different situations.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 9:43:53 PM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 1:40:11 AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > Oswald: "I work in that building..."
> > Question: "Were you in the building at the time [of the shooting]?
> > Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir...
> >
> > So, while being filmed and interviewed, Oswald is given the perfect opportunity to prove his alibi. He is asked if he was in the building at the time of the shooting. Here he can say, "I was on the steps watching the parade at the time."
> > But he doesn't. He says, "Naturally, if I work in the building, yes sir..."
> > Oswald talked to his wife, his brother and his mother. He also talked to Lou Nichols, the head of the Dallas bar association who went to ask him if he wanted legal counsel.
> > These are the chances to tell his family and others that he didn't shoot JFK because he was with others on the steps. But he didn't. And none of the people on the steps who were interviewed said they ever saw him.
> > This isn't about "defending the Warren Commission". Whatever that means anymore. This is about the facts and evidence.
> >
> > Video: https://jfkfacts.org/oswald-work-building/
> How many times do I have to repeat myse;f here before anything sinks in?

Maybe it's not sinking in because it's not aligned with the evidence.

>
> Oswald could see sweet fuck all from his poition on the back corner. Like nearly everyone else, he seems to have assumed the noise was caused by a motorbike backfiring.

Curious how his rifle was found in the building then, don't you think? And that when police came to the Paine residence, Marina pointed out the blanket in the Paine garage and said that's where the rifle was. But when the blanket was picked up, it hung limp. Why do you suppose that was.

> You can watch the films and see the lack of reaction by anyone to the shots, So, oblivious like 99% of those on the steps, and unable to see anything, he went back inside.

He didn't say he was outside during the shooting and went back inside immediately afterward. He said he was inside the building at the time of the shooting.

> The commotion that drew him back to the front entrance was the commotion of those outside finally realizing that Kennedy had been shot. But he was stopped by a cop before he could leave. In any case, he thought Kennedy had been shot AFTER he went back in based on the late reaction of others,

His fingerprints are on the trigger guard and his palmprint is on the large box in the SE corner window in a position as if he sat on that box and looked out the window with his hand on the side of the box.

>
> So yeah... as far he knew, Kennedy was shot when he was inside.

Yeah, we agree on something. He knew that because he shot JFK from the sixth floor sniper's nest.

>
> As for not telling anyone he was on the first floor [a the time of the shooting] seeing as how that is where he was when he THOUGHT Kennedy was shot - he did tell that t his interrogators, because they asked specific questions. The question asked by the reporter did not include what you bracket. People like Oswald are very literal. "Were you in the building at the time?" You may think it is obvious that i is areference to the shooting of Kennedy... but ty asking someone like Oswald a question based on assumed knoeledge of the second part of the question and see what answer you get.

The question before "Were you in the building at the time?" was "Did you shoot the President?"

The only time the following question is referencing is therefore at the time the President was shot. If Oswald didn't know that, he couldn't function in society and belonged in a home.

>
> This is from the report of FBI agent O' Flaherty. It is evidece Flaherty obtained about Oswald's in Youth House:
>
> "He does whatever is asked of him completely and without comment."
>
> "He usually sits by himself"
>
> "He does not encourage conversaton."
>
> "He does not communicate with his supervisors OTHER THAN WHEN HE IS ASKED A DIRECT QUESTION, then his answer is very terse.""
>
> "Lee is a very quiet boy who says very little to anyone and no one bothers him."
>
> "Usually on the floor, he can be found sitting IN THE CORNER by the window"
>
> "The boy is very quiet and withdrawn when not activated by any program"
>
> "Most of the time the boy can be seen sitting alone, minding his own business."
>
> "When he becomes involved in any MINOR ALTERCATON, he will become very hostile and beligerent."
>
> "Avoids contact with members of the group"
> www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10461#relPageId=66
>
> These traits lasted his entire short life.
>
> Ask Marina if little things upset him. Yes they did. Same as at Youth House.
>
> Ask his cowokers how well he mingled.
>
> Look at how he answered questtions at 13. Same as he did at 24. Sort, sharp direct responses to the EXACT quesyoon - not what you know is the REAL question.
>
> If you continue to ignore all of the evidence I am presenting and continue posting WC testimony as if it is the pinnacle of the evidence, we're done.

Sorry, where did you get your degree in psychology?

>
> Oswald was innocent. The evidence is clear on that.

Except, his rifle, his prints on the rifle, his fresh prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest, numerous witnesses seeing someone who fit Oswald's description in that corner window, Oswald fleeing the building and gunning down Officer Tippit near the corner of Tenth and Patton, and then punching another cop in the theatre and drawing his gun on that cop. Yeah, he's just a poor misunderstood lad.

Maybe what you're selling is rotten to the core which is why those apples aren't selling. Don't blame the Philistines here for not understanding those apples are "ripened to perfection". They see rot, they understand rot.


> But the fix was in - which is obvious to anyone who actually understands the evidence, police clearance rates, the clear pattern of abuse of process in Dallas County and so on...

Uh-huh. The cops didn't care if a real cop-killer went free to kill again just so Henry Wade could clear the books and get a conviction. Nobody cared if a Presidential assassin walked off Scott-free either. Indicting an innocent man for the assassination was perfectly okay with everyone in law enforcement in Dallas as long as Henry Wade's record looked good.

>
> Your "why didn't do this or that" arguments are repugnant to anyone who has actually studied Oswald and understands how various disorders shape how people like Oswald actually respond to different situations.

Where'd you get your psychology degree again? What's the name of the disorder you're claiming Oswald suffered from?

[Greg Parker]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:42:26 PM UTC+11, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Not going tp get dragged int a time-consuming debate anout every single piece of evidence with someone whoreally does not care about whappened.

But it won;t take lomg to address this poece of bullshit.

"Uh-huh. The cops didn't care if a real cop-killer went free to kill again just so Henry Wade could clear the books and get a conviction. Nobody cared if a Presidential assassin walked off Scott-free either. Indicting an innocent man for the assassination was perfectly okay with everyone in law enforcement in Dallas as long as Henry Wade's record looked good"

I am sure you have head of the Thin Blue Line. U+You know - the case where Dallas cops purpsoely went after aninnocemt man bevause theu knew the real cop killer was too young to get a death sentence.

Leavelle on the assassination: "It was no dfferent to a southside nigger killing."

For anyone actually interested in the facts, here is wjat was really wrapped in the blanket until it was removed - by Marina.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2456-crib-age-talking-cribs-n-parts

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:01:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that
> > *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with
> > Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why
> > would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and
> > relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no
> > connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
> >And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the
> > investigation determined that there was no foreign government
> > involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to
> > remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify
> > one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.
> It's questions like this that make you wonder if believers have any
> brains.
>
> First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA. Sworn testimony,
> unrefuted, shows this... from several people who where in a position
> to know. And yes, he was certainly "low level."

You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it. You'll claim I already know it or some such nonsense.

>
> And if you can't figure out why they'd prefer to frame someone who
> they controlled, rather than some random person - nothing I say will
> make it easier for you to understand. People with a faith are rarely
> interested in learning facts that contradict their faith.

That explains CTs perfectly. Oswald was framed, don't confuse us with the facts.

>
> The only people who could "expose" this are the very people who framed
> him. By exposing the frame, they'd be indicting themselves. Is that
> too hard to understand?

And Oswald. If he didn't shoot the President, he'd be able to explain where he was and how he didn't shoot the President (except the evidence says he did) and how he didn't own a rifle (except the evidence says he did) and how he didn't shoot a cop (except the evidence says he did). Why didn't Oswald expose the frame?

>
> Why frame someone? Because an investigation into who killed a
> President can't be like a normal investigation in Chicago... or Los
> Angeles (etc)... that might lead nowhere. The American people
> wouldn't accept a "go nowhere" investigation... and by framing a
> suspect, they close the investigation.

You're assuming the frame-up then arguing all the evidence points to Oswald because of that assumed frame-up. You need to prove a frame-up, not assume one.

>
> This investigation was essentially closed that weekend.

Because of the evidence accumulated against Oswald, by Sunday they knew Oswald had killed both JFK and Officer Tippiit, and had resisted arrest and tried to kill Officer Baker in the movie theatre. Additional evidence would surface later that he had tried to kill another politician in April of 1963.

> Nothing was
> investigated that didn't support the "Oswald did it" theory. All
> leads that lead elsewhere were abandoned early on...

You won't be able to prove that. The Intelligence services were trying to discover any links Oswald had to other groups that could have conspired with Oswald for months and years thereafter.

>
> BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SUSPECT!

And what if there was a conspiracy involving Oswald, which is what many suspected and still suspect? Wouldn't you want the other co-conspirators to face justice? Wouldn't everyone? This is where your argument falls apart. You assume everyone was just peachy-keen on having one guy to fry and forgetting entirely about seeing if Oswald could be connected to others.

>
> This is all fairly simple, and even the average person who knows
> little about this case could essentially replicate the above
> explanation...

Except President dead, not bowery bum. Wouldn't some people be less than thrilled with a shoddy investigation? You know, like the Chief Justice of the United States, some Republican politicians and some Democratic politicians as well? They all just said "Nevermind" like Gilda Radner on SNL?

>
> So why is it so difficult for believers to understand?

Maybe because it makes no sense that everyone in power would just roll over and not blow the whistle on treason. Your conspiracy entails everyone doing just that. Including the doctors who were approached to alter the body and the film editors approached to edit the Zapruder film and to plant or swap evidence. Everyone just fell into line and said "Sure, no problem!" when approached to be a party to treason and to frame an innocent man? This was just 18 years after the war to defeat the Axis powers of Germany and Japan. Many of the people who'd have to go along with this plot were people who had served in WWII, putting their lives on the line for the defense of liberty and their country. They were young men during the war, they'd be in the mid-to late 30's and moving up the ranks in their given professions. And then they'd go along when approached with a plot to overthrow the government for what reason?

Your arguments make no sense.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 6:07:15 AM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:42:26 PM UTC+11, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> Not going tp get dragged int a time-consuming debate anout every single piece of evidence with someone whoreally does not care about whappened.
>
> But it won;t take lomg to address this poece of bullshit.
> "Uh-huh. The cops didn't care if a real cop-killer went free to kill again just so Henry Wade could clear the books and get a conviction. Nobody cared if a Presidential assassin walked off Scott-free either. Indicting an innocent man for the assassination was perfectly okay with everyone in law enforcement in Dallas as long as Henry Wade's record looked good"
> I am sure you have head of the Thin Blue Line. U+You know - the case where Dallas cops purpsoely went after aninnocemt man bevause theu knew the real cop killer was too young to get a death sentence.

So you think if it happened there, it happened here. No, there is evidence it happened there. You don't get to just assume it happened here. Show me the evidence.

>
> Leavelle on the assassination: "It was no dfferent to a southside nigger killing."

Source?

>
> For anyone actually interested in the facts, here is wjat was really wrapped in the blanket until it was removed - by Marina.
> https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2456-crib-age-talking-cribs-n-parts

No, that's nonsense. On the afternoon of the assassination, the police showed up at the Paine's home and this is what transpired:
Mrs Paine:
== quote ==
Mrs. PAINE - I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man in front said by way of explanation "We have Lee Oswald in custody. He is charged with shooting an officer." This is the first I had any idea that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in the day's events. I asked them to come in. They said they wanted to search the house. I asked if they had a warrant. They said they didn't. They said they could get the sheriff out here right away with one if I insisted. And I said no, that was all right, they could be my guests.
They then did search the house. I directed them to the fact that most of the Oswald's things were in storage in my garage and showed where the garage was, and to the room where Marina and the baby had stayed where they would find the other things which belonged to the Oswalds. Marina and I went with two or three of these police officers to the garage.
Mr. JENNER - How many police officers were there?
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
...
Mr. JENNER - Was the blanket roll on the floor at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - She indicated the blanket roll on the floor very close to where I was standing. As she told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll.
Mr. JENNER - This might be helpful. You had shaped that up yesterday and I will just put it on the floor.
Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle. And I then translated this to the officers that she knew that her husband had a gun that he had stored in here.
Mr. JENNER - Were you standing on the blanket when you advised--
Mrs. PAINE - When I translated. I then stepped off of it and the officer picked it up in the middle and it bent so.
Mr. JENNER - It hung limp just as it now hangs limp in your hand?
Mrs. PAINE - And at this moment I felt this man was in very deep trouble and may have done--
== unquote ==

Obviously, Mrs. Paine was lying, right?

Marina:
== quote ==
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn of the shooting of President Kennedy?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was watching television, and Ruth by that time was already with me, and she said someone had shot at the President.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was hard for me to say anything. We both turned pale. I went to my room and cried.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you think immediately that your husband might have been involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there, and I saw that the blanket was still there, and I said, "Thank God." I thought, "Can there really be such a stupid man in the world that could do something like that?" But I was already rather upset at that time--I don't know why. Perhaps my intuition. I didn't know what I was doing.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't unroll the blanket. It was in its usual position, and it appeared to have something inside.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you at any time open the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, only once.
Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about that.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And what about Mrs. Paine? Did she look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. She didn't know about the rifle. Perhaps she did know. But she never told me about it. I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. When did you learn that the rifle was not in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. When the police arrived and asked whether my husband had a rifle, and I said "Yes."
Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?
Mrs. OSWALD. They began to search the apartment. When they came to the garage and took the blanket, I thought, "Well, now, they will find it." They opened the blanket but there was no rifle there.
Then, of course, I already knew that it was Lee. Because, before that, while I thought that the rifle was at home, I did not think that Lee had done that. I thought the police had simply come because he was always under suspicion.
== unquote ==

Obviously, Marina was lying too, right?

Police officer Guy Rose:
== quote ==
Mr. BALL. What part did you take?
Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.
Mr. BALL. You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it did.
Mr. BALL. Was it tied at one end?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it.
...
Mr. BALL. Did Marina Oswald tell you--point to the blanket and say something?
Mr. ROSE. She pointed to the blanket and said something in Russian and Ruth Paine was standing right there beside her and she interpreted for me--she said, "That's where her husband's rifle is."
== unquote ==

Guy Rose was lying too, right?

Everyone was lying to frame Oswald?

[John Corbett]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 9:43:53 PM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 1:40:11 AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > Oswald: "I work in that building..."
> > Question: "Were you in the building at the time [of the shooting]?
> > Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir...
> >
> > So, while being filmed and interviewed, Oswald is given the perfect opportunity to prove his alibi. He is asked if he was in the building at the time of the shooting. Here he can say, "I was on the steps watching the parade at the time."
> > But he doesn't. He says, "Naturally, if I work in the building, yes sir..."
> > Oswald talked to his wife, his brother and his mother. He also talked to Lou Nichols, the head of the Dallas bar association who went to ask him if he wanted legal counsel.
> > These are the chances to tell his family and others that he didn't shoot JFK because he was with others on the steps. But he didn't. And none of the people on the steps who were interviewed said they ever saw him.
> > This isn't about "defending the Warren Commission". Whatever that means anymore. This is about the facts and evidence.
> >
> > Video: https://jfkfacts.org/oswald-work-building/
> How many times do I have to repeat myse;f here before anything sinks in?
>
> Oswald could see sweet fuck all from his poition on the back corner. Like nearly everyone else, he seems to have assumed the noise was caused by a motorbike backfiring. You can watch the films and see the lack of reaction by anyone to the shots, So, oblivious like 99% of those on the steps, and unable to see anything, he went back inside. The commotion that drew him back to the front entrance was the commotion of those outside finally realizing that Kennedy had been shot. But he was stopped by a cop before he could leave. In any case, he thought Kennedy had been shot AFTER he went back in based on the late reaction of others,

It's incredible that any intelligent human being who is familiar with the evidence could reach such a silly conclusion. In the three decades in which I have discussed this case online, I've never encountered such a person.

[John Corbett]

The Anybody-but-Oswald crowd draws great satisfaction from the fact latest polling indicates 61% of the public still believes there was a conspiracy. Of course they ignore the fact most of that 61% believes Oswald was a shooter, just not the only shooter. The only ones who believe Oswald was an innocent patsy are a niche group of willfully ignorant fanatics.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:43:53 PM UTC-6, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 1:40:11 AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > Oswald: "I work in that building..."
> > Question: "Were you in the building at the time [of the shooting]?

> > Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir...
> >
> > So, while being filmed and interviewed, Oswald is given the perfect opportunity to prove his alibi. He is asked if he was in the building at the time of the shooting. Here he can say, "I was on the steps watching the parade at the time."

> > But he doesn't. He says, "Naturally, if I work in the building, yes sir..."

> > Oswald talked to his wife, his brother and his mother. He also talked to Lou Nichols, the head of the Dallas bar association who went to ask him if he wanted legal counsel.

> > These are the chances to tell his family and others that he didn't shoot JFK because he was with others on the steps. But he didn't. And none of the people on the steps who were interviewed said they ever saw him.

> > This isn't about "defending the Warren Commission". Whatever that means anymore. This is about the facts and evidence.
> >
> > Video: https://jfkfacts.org/oswald-work-building/

> How many times do I have to repeat myse;f here before anything sinks in?
>
> Oswald could see sweet fuck all from his poition on the back corner. Like nearly everyone else, he seems to have assumed the noise was caused by a motorbike backfiring.

Begging the question. Of course, four investigations (DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA) determined Oswald fired the shots that day.

>You can watch the films and see the lack of reaction by anyone to the shots, So, oblivious like 99% of those on the steps, and unable to see anything, he went back inside.

Except Oswald says he was inside the building when the assassination occurred: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."

>The commotion that drew him back to the front entrance was the commotion of those outside finally realizing that Kennedy had been shot. But he was stopped by a cop before he could leave. In any case, he thought >Kennedy had been shot AFTER he went back in based on the late reaction of others,

In your opinion. Of course, you are begging the question.

>
> So yeah... as far he knew, Kennedy was shot when he was inside.

Because he fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD, as determined by several investigations.

>
> As for not telling anyone he was on the first floor [a the time of the shooting] seeing as how that is where he was when he THOUGHT Kennedy was shot - he did tell that t his interrogators, because they asked specific questions. The question asked by the reporter did not include what you bracket. People like Oswald are very literal. "Were you in the building at the time?" You may think it is obvious that i is areference to the shooting of Kennedy... but ty asking someone like Oswald a question based on assumed knoeledge of the second part of the question and see what answer you get.

Okay, Dr. Parker.

>
> This is from the report of FBI agent O' Flaherty. It is evidece Flaherty obtained about Oswald's in Youth House:
>
> "He does whatever is asked of him completely and without comment."

Also from the Youth House, via his caseworker, Evelyn Strickman, who wrote that Lee Oswald, "feels almost as if there's a veil between him and other people through which that cannot reach him, but he prefers this veil to remain intact."

>
> "He usually sits by himself"

Staff psychologist at the Youth House, Renatus Hartogs, said, "...when I examined him [Oswald], I found him to have definite traits of dangerousness. In other words, this child had the potential for explosive, aggressive, assaultive acting out which was rather unusual to find in a child who was sent to the Youth House on such a mild charge as truancy from school."

>
> "He does not encourage conversaton."

Oswald also said at the Youth House when examined, "I dislike everybody."

>
> "He does not communicate with his supervisors OTHER THAN WHEN HE IS ASKED A DIRECT QUESTION, then his answer is very terse.""

Hartogs' diagnosis of Oswald: "Personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies. Lee has to be seen as an emotionally, quite disturbed youngster who suffers under the impact of really existing emotional isolation and deprivation, lack of affection, absence of family life and rejection by a selfinvolved and conflicted mother."

>
> "Lee is a very quiet boy who says very little to anyone and no one bothers him."

Comments from Lee's teachers in NYC: Constantly losing control. Getting into battles with others. Refuses to do homework or salute the American flag during the classes' normal recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.

>
> "Usually on the floor, he can be found sitting IN THE CORNER by the window"

In 1953 Judge Sicher ordered that Oswald be placed in a home for disturbed boys and be given mandatory psychiatric care.

>
> "The boy is very quiet and withdrawn when not activated by any program"

Julian Evans, husband of a friend of Marguerite's who tried to befriend Oswald in a fatherly manner back in New Orleans: "I thought he [Oswald] was a pyscho. I really did."

>
> "Most of the time the boy can be seen sitting alone, minding his own business."

Michael Paine to Gerald Posner, "But while he [Oswald] thought change was necessary, he thought it would only come through violence, and he was sincere in that."

>
> "When he becomes involved in any MINOR ALTERCATON, he will become very hostile and beligerent."

One day Marge Pic, wife of Lee's half-brother John, asked Lee to lower the volume on the television, and instead he pulled out a knife and threatened her. When Marguerite rushed into the room and told him to put it away, he punched her in the face.

>
> "Avoids contact with members of the group"
> www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10461#relPageId=66
>
> These traits lasted his entire short life.

These traits perhaps contributed to his actions on 11/22/63.

>
> Ask Marina if little things upset him. Yes they did. Same as at Youth House.

Indeed. Classic traits of a maladjusted individual who might take a rifle to his workplace and point it out the window at some cars traveling on the street below.

>
> Ask his cowokers how well he mingled.
>
> Look at how he answered questtions at 13. Same as he did at 24. Sort, sharp direct responses to the EXACT quesyoon - not what you know is the REAL question.
>
> If you continue to ignore all of the evidence I am presenting and continue posting WC testimony as if it is the pinnacle of the evidence, we're done.

You seem to be in agreement with the experts that Lee Oswald had some serious issues.

>
> Oswald was innocent. The evidence is clear on that.

Begging the question.

But the fix was in - which is obvious to anyone who actually understands evidence, police clearance rates, the clear pattern of abuse of process in Dallas County and so on...

Begging the question, No True Scotsman fallacy.

>
> Your "why didn't do this or that" arguments are repugnant to anyone who has actually studied Oswald and understands how various disorders shape how people like Oswald actually respond to different situations.

Your inability to post your own scenario of the events that day and defend your research is duly noted.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Actually the largest respondent group in polls (ABC/Gallup 2013) on the assassination regarding a possible conspiracy is the group that says on the subject, "No opinion." (40%.)

Out of the people expressing a conspiracy OPINION to pollsters, most believe Oswald was involved with the help of an other person or group. Ben's theory that LBJ was involved barely measures a blip on the opinion poll.

Of course the polls are weeding out the vast group of people who really have no knowledge of the event and decline to participate in the poll in any way, shape or form. ABC might have just as well commissioned a poll to find out opinions on the McKinley assassination.

Hard to believe, but we're almost as far away from the JFK assassination in 1963 (nearly 58 years) than the JFK assassination was from the McKinley assassination (1901...62 years). Time just rolls along, and Team Oswald still can't get their jalopy from continuously its spinning tires in the mud.

[Bud]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:01:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that
> > *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with
> > Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why
> > would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and
> > relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no
> > connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
> >And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the
> > investigation determined that there was no foreign government
> > involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to
> > remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify
> > one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.
> It's questions like this that make you wonder if believers have any
> brains.

Let us deconstruct Ben`s bad thinking here...

> First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA.

How is it certain. Ben will never make a convincing case but will demand that "certainty" be the default.

> Sworn testimony,
> unrefuted, shows this...

Just because information is unrefuted doesn`t mean it is true.

Once again Ben attempts a burden shift, where his position needs to be refuted, rather than him carry his burden and showing it is true.

> from several people who where in a position
> to know.

By all means, let these people show Oswald was a CIA agent. Never happen, but Ben will pretend it has.

>And yes, he was certainly "low level."

Easier said than shown.

> And if you can't figure out why they'd prefer to frame someone who
> they controlled, rather than some random person - nothing I say will
> make it easier for you to understand.

Ben wants the nothing he has presented to be considered the default.

The correct way would be for Ben to lay out his idea. How Oswald was placed, and how Oswald was controlled, that sort of thing. He couldn`t do anything like this in a million years, but but the lack of understanding is the fault of other people.

>People with a faith are rarely
> interested in learning facts that contradict their faith.

Ironic.

> The only people who could "expose" this are the very people who framed
> him. By exposing the frame, they'd be indicting themselves. Is that
> too hard to understand?

Perhaps if you could show something rather than just say it.

> Why frame someone? Because an investigation into who killed a
> President can't be like a normal investigation in Chicago... or Los
> Angeles (etc)... that might lead nowhere. The American people
> wouldn't accept a "go nowhere" investigation... and by framing a
> suspect, they close the investigation.

Or, conducting an investigation that was closed could be done to convince people that there was more to it.

Or, conducting an investigation, coming to conclusions that a lone person was involved and then closing the investigation could be done.

Note all these would look the same from the outside.

> This investigation was essentially closed that weekend. Nothing was
> investigated that didn't support the "Oswald did it" theory. All
> leads that lead elsewhere were abandoned early on...

Why haven`t the conspiracy authors and the conspiracy hobbyists taken these "leads" anywhere? Perhaps they are only seen as "leads" by those desperate to believe there was more to this event.

> BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SUSPECT!

This is what happens when you have a guilty party, the indications of his guilt pile up. Is it reasonable to be suspicious when this occurs?

> This is all fairly simple, and even the average person who knows
> little about this case could essentially replicate the above
> explanation...
>
> So why is it so difficult for believers to understand?

The concept of a fall guy is easy to understand. It just doesn`t fit the known facts and no one has been able to put a cohesive and comprehensive explanation the table for consideration on how such a thing could be accomplished (especially in light of all the complications that hobbyists insinuate, but of course never fully spell out).

[Scrum Drum]

These are dumb questions you already know the answers to Steven...The CIA will kill the president of the United States if they need to and did...So they wouldn't hesitate to frame and murder one of their own if that was what they needed to do...Jim D has a good side and that good side did a pretty good job at outlining the political factors that drove the assassination and its motive...James Douglass too...

Why frame Oswald?...Because he was the perfect patsy as shown by assholes like Greg Parker who partner with the government murderers and do defamation smearing to make it look like Oswald had fatal personality flaws that led to his being prone to such things...Jim D has a bad side too and he dishonestly avoids recognizing that Greg practices all of the same things Jim criticizes Lone Nutters for in his mis-rendering of the evidence...

Steven, you are using the Lone Nutter tactic of ignoring where the evidence I have posted leads to and responding with an aggressive question...That is the method used by people who can't answer evidence they know is true so they try to seize the narrative with a question...It is easier to control a cooperative in-house agent than an outside operative...They were glad to get JFK out of the way and chose Viet Nam as the battlefield for the show-down with communism in order to keep tanks from rolling in Europe...

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 9:43:53 PM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:

Here is evidence hoaxer Greg Parker up to his usual business and spinning bullshit in to cotton candy evidence-wise...Just like Bart Kamp, Greg uses the words of the FBI directly without entering any disclaimer that FBI is trying to frame Oswald as a Lone Nut with their personality profiling...DiEugenio knows this is a serious sin against good research but he plays dumb and pretends he doesn't notice Greg doing this...A few weeks later Jim will pop up and give Parker credit for doing good research...All we are seeing here from Greg is a contrived pseudo-analysis using the character defamation of FBI to make Oswald look like a Lone Nut...Greg then takes it up to another level by trying to infer that this Lone Nut profile explains why Prayer Man was Oswald off by himself in the corner of the Depository portal in the Prayer Man spot...This kind of huge logical leap and violation of sound research methods is something that anyone else would be laughed off the board for attempting but with the 95% pro-Prayer Man Education Forum membership it is OK and slides-by uncriticized...

If we cut to the chase, what Greg is avoiding in his pathetic attempt to steer all things towards Prayer Man being Oswald is that the Lone Nut tendencies isolated in FBI's painting of Oswald as a Lone Nut are mainly due to the effects of the Oswald Project on the young boy in question...Greg fails to inform the research public that FBI is trying to blame Oswald for those tendencies in order to avoid correctly attributing them to the Oswald Project and its damaging effect on the young Oswald's development...So in effect Greg joins the FBI and Lone Nutters in their smearing of Oswald in order to avoid the truth...If this short-cutting of the real meaning of the evidence aids in supporting Oswald as Prayer Man the JFK research community will look the other way and allow it...

Another thing Greg does in his Fetzer-like smoke and mirrors crazy scenario development is he ignores how the very evidence he presents works for my case...Greg has the hubris to ignore in public that the lone wolf personality profile created by FBI that Greg cites applies just as firmly to those who witnessed Oswald regularly eating in the 2nd floor Lunch Room...Karen Westbrook said Oswald was alone by himself and didn't talk to anybody when he sat in that booth seat Carolyn Arnold saw him in...Greg has the balls to try to ignore in public that the multiple secretaries who witnessed Oswald regularly eating in the 2nd floor Lunch Room all used the exact same wording as the FBI in its profile and that therefore lends credence to their witnessing...As Greg shows above his case for Oswald being Prayer Man is based on cherry-picking, wordsmithing, and using strategic banning to spin the evidence...When I proved Greg was outright lying about Oswald never eating in that 2nd floor Lunch Room he stopped responding to my posts...This rogue dishonesty earns Greg citation on the Education Forum...It also earns myself banning and ignoring...Something is backwards in Denmark...

But let's not forget what this bullshitting speech-making is all about...I asked Greg and the ROKC members to answer a simple question...I asked them to please answer where Sarah Stanton is in the Altgens and Wiegman images?...Where is she to the left of Frazier as they claimed?...Greg ignored that challenge and he answered with a Cinque-like attempt to take FBI's smearing of Oswald and translate it by magical thinking in to proof that Oswald was standing alone in the portal corner as Prayer Man...With any other person on any other topic Greg's failure would be seen as the concession that it was and silent agreement that Prayer Man was Stanton...However on the dysfunctional, Prayer Man-corrupted JFK internet that rogue dishonesty and inability to conduct fair objective debate works out in to the cheaters being given the victory and the skilled researcher being banned and ignored (and ridiculed)...If the JFK research internet had credible moderation and credible peer review this would not happen and the correct evidence would be used to make progress in solving the conspiracy...

[healyd...@gmail.com]

your 15 seconds of fame is nearly up here, Brian. might I suggest the Lincoln assassination next... all Lincoln assassination theorist's are dead and gone nobody to cast aspersions... you'll have a field day with all dem (pardon the pun) there facts... and just think, maybe, just maybe another person was in the theater booth with Lincoln and Mary, in the shadows back in that corner over yonder -- kinda looks like a woman, *prayer woman* we'll call'er-- don'tcha'know... can you believe that shit, what are the odds? That ought to give you a headstart...

[John Corbett]

Another way to look at it is that JFK has been dead for longer than he was alive. Almost 12 years longer. Oliver Stone's movie was closer in time to the actual event (28 years) than it is to the present (30 years).

At the time of JFK's death, I was aware of the McKinley assassination and it meant almost nothing to me so I doubt any school kids today have much interest in JFK's assassination. Does anyone think they are spending their time with discussion groups such as this or reading the latest conspiracy book to come off the presses. If they have an opinion at all, it probably came from their parents, most of whom were not alive when JFK was assassinated.

Few Americans, regardless of age, have much knowledge of the basic facts of the JFK assassination. I'll bet less than 10% could tell you the name of the area in which the assassination took place or the street JFK was on when he was shot. They probably couldn't tell you the name of the building Oswald fired from. Few could tell you who Roy Truly, Marion Baker, J. D. Tippit, or Ruth Paine were.

I remember a group of us from work were traveling from Ohio down to West Virginia for a weekend of white water rafting. To pass the time, somebody brought along a Trivial Pursuit game. At the time I was in my late 30s and all of them were 20 somethings. They decided to play the Jeopardy version of Trivial Pursuit where the answer was given and you had to give the correct question. The very first answer was Abraham Zapruder. That was a slam dunk for me but they were amazed I knew that right question. I further dazzled them when under the category of Sports the answers were touch football and Rome and I gave the correct question for both. I won't spoil the fun for you by giving the correct questions.

[Hank Sienzant]

Touch Football: What was President Kennedy's favorite backyard pastime?

I have no clue for 'Rome'. What did JFK let his hands do over any woman he was near? ;)

[John Corbett]

DING! DING! DING! DING!

>
> I have no clue for 'Rome'. What did JFK let his hands do over any woman he was near? ;)

You're thinking of Bill Clinton.

I'll wait until noon today to give others a crack at it.

[Steven Galbraith]

JFK's favorite city?
Okay, I'll try one: when JFK worked out at the White House he liked to listen to music in the background. What was his favorite type of music to listen to? I was surprised when I read it.
As to the prayerman/woman whatever: I just spent a year a couple of days ago at the conspiracy forums on this matter. Seemed like a year. It's....well, think of Dante's circles of Hell. This topic would have been another one had he known about it.
I'll suggest that the reason Oswald didn't tell anyone - his wife, his brother, his mother, Nichols, the media - that he was on the steps was because he wasn't. He knew that his co-workers on the steps would have been asked about it. And they all would have said they didn't see him. It's similar to the curtain rods story. Oswald understood that if he said he brought curtain rods with him the next question would be: "Okay, where are they?" They didn't exist and he knew that story would fall apart. If he said he was on the steps the next question would have been "Who was there with you?" With that question his whole story would have collapsed. Leading to the next question: "Why did you make that up?"

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 11:34:00 AM UTC-8, Scrum Drum wrote:




> your 15 seconds of fame is nearly up here, Brian. might I suggest the Lincoln assassination next... all Lincoln assassination theorist's are dead and gone nobody to cast aspersions... you'll have a field day with all dem (pardon the pun) there facts... and just think, maybe, just maybe another person was in the theater booth with Lincoln and Mary, in the shadows back in that corner over yonder -- kinda looks like a woman, *prayer woman* we'll call'er-- don'tcha'know... can you believe that shit, what are the odds? That ought to give you a headstart...

I think you mean Greg's unearned 15 minutes of troll sensation...


What Healy is shouting loudly here in trolling projection is Greg has badly failed to answer where Stanton is to Frazier's left in Altgens and Wiegman like they claimed...Wiegman was taken at the exact same time as Altgens and it shows the same scene from a 90 degree angle, therefore exposing the hidden portions of Altgens...Sarah is clearly not there to Frazier's left so therefore that AUTOMATICALLY, by science, PROVES Stanton is Prayer Man...


Being a Kennedy social media troll Healy defends Parker on his cowardly evasion of honestly answering this...


Go to the Education Forum and you can see Gordon and the members there have allowed Stancak to post his cross-eyed slavic professor nutty pseudo-science once again in Gil Jesus's "Oswald's Shirt" thread...Stancak is still claiming Oswald is Prayer Man and no one says anything...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 03:09:33 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:01:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that
>>> *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with
>>> Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why
>>> would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and
>>> relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no
>>> connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
>>>And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the
>>> investigation determined that there was no foreign government
>>> involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to
>>> remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify
>>> one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.
>>
>> It's questions like this that make you wonder if believers have any
>> brains.
>>
>> First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA. Sworn testimony,
>> unrefuted, shows this... from several people who where in a position
>> to know. And yes, he was certainly "low level."
>
> You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it. You'll
> claim I already know it or some such nonsense.

I'll put up a post on this topic today - and the first thing you'll
need to do is apologize for both of your lies.

(Watch folks, as Huckster will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to admit he lied
here! He knows that there's evidence that Oswald was CIA connected,
and he knows I've debated it in this forum before...)

>> And if you can't figure out why they'd prefer to frame someone who
>> they controlled, rather than some random person - nothing I say will
>> make it easier for you to understand. People with a faith are rarely
>> interested in learning facts that contradict their faith.
>>

>> The only people who could "expose" this are the very people who framed
>> him. By exposing the frame, they'd be indicting themselves. Is that
>> too hard to understand?

LFD.

>> Why frame someone? Because an investigation into who killed a
>> President can't be like a normal investigation in Chicago... or Los
>> Angeles (etc)... that might lead nowhere. The American people
>> wouldn't accept a "go nowhere" investigation... and by framing a
>> suspect, they close the investigation.

LFD.

>> This investigation was essentially closed that weekend.

LFD.

>> Nothing was
>> investigated that didn't support the "Oswald did it" theory. All
>> leads that lead elsewhere were abandoned early on...
>
>You won't be able to prove that.

To you? No. To any reasonable and intelligent person, yes.

>> BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SUSPECT!
>>

>> This is all fairly simple, and even the average person who knows
>> little about this case could essentially replicate the above
>> explanation...

LFD.

>> So why is it so difficult for believers to understand?
>

>Maybe because it makes no sense...

This is the sort of cowardice required to be a believer...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:34:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:01:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that
>> > *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with
>> > Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why
>> > would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and
>> > relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no
>> > connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
>> >And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the
>> > investigation determined that there was no foreign government
>> > involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to
>> > remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify
>> > one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.
>>
>> It's questions like this that make you wonder if believers have any
>> brains.
>
> Let us deconstruct Ben`s bad thinking here...

You'd have to understand it first.

>> First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA.
>
> How is it certain. Ben will never make a convincing case but will demand that "certainty" be the default.

Tut tut tut, Chickenshit. It's my opinion. The evidence supports my
opinion. You've been unable to offer anything to contradict it.

>> Sworn testimony,
>> unrefuted, shows this...
>
> Just because information is unrefuted doesn`t mean it is true.

Of course not, stupid! But when it corroborates other evidence, then
yes, it's far more likely to be true.

>> from several people who where in a position
>> to know.
>
> By all means, let these people show Oswald was a CIA agent. Never
> happen, but Ben will pretend it has.

Show to who?

>>And yes, he was certainly "low level."
>
> Easier said than shown.

Shown by the facts & evidence.

>> And if you can't figure out why they'd prefer to frame someone who
>> they controlled, rather than some random person - nothing I say will
>> make it easier for you to understand.
>>

>>People with a faith are rarely
>> interested in learning facts that contradict their faith.
>>

>> The only people who could "expose" this are the very people who framed
>> him. By exposing the frame, they'd be indicting themselves. Is that
>> too hard to understand?
>>

>> Why frame someone? Because an investigation into who killed a
>> President can't be like a normal investigation in Chicago... or Los
>> Angeles (etc)... that might lead nowhere. The American people
>> wouldn't accept a "go nowhere" investigation... and by framing a
>> suspect, they close the investigation.
>

> Or...

You just admitted that you lost.

>> This investigation was essentially closed that weekend. Nothing was
>> investigated that didn't support the "Oswald did it" theory. All
>> leads that lead elsewhere were abandoned early on...
>>

>> BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SUSPECT!
>>

>> This is all fairly simple, and even the average person who knows
>> little about this case could essentially replicate the above
>> explanation...
>>
>> So why is it so difficult for believers to understand?
>
> The concept of a fall guy is easy to understand.

And yet, believers can't understand...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:52:30 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 03:09:33 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:01:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> >> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that
> >>> *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with
> >>> Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why
> >>> would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and
> >>> relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no
> >>> connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
> >>>And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the
> >>> investigation determined that there was no foreign government
> >>> involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to
> >>> remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify
> >>> one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.
> >>
> >> It's questions like this that make you wonder if believers have any
> >> brains.

Ad hominem. No evidence, no argument. Just the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger.

> >>
> >> First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA. Sworn testimony,
> >> unrefuted, shows this... from several people who where in a position
> >> to know. And yes, he was certainly "low level."

Unsupported assertions simply repeated ad nauseum do not a valid argument make.

> >
> > You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it. You'll
> > claim I already know it or some such nonsense.
> I'll put up a post on this topic today - and the first thing you'll
> need to do is apologize for both of your lies.

Ad hominem logical fallacy and begged question logical fallacy.

Unsupported assertions simply repeated ad nauseum do not a valid argument make.

>
> (Watch folks, as Huckster will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to admit he lied
> here!

Ad hominem logical fallacy and begged question logical fallacy.

> He knows that there's evidence that Oswald was CIA connected,
> and he knows I've debated it in this forum before...

Are you a mind-reader? You don’t speak for me. I don’t know there’s any evidence Oswald was CIA connected and what you’ve cited thus far is rumors from Wilcott and your interpretation of what Ann Egerter meant. That isn’t evidence. No evidence of Oswald’s CIA connections has been presented by you.

> >> And if you can't figure out why they'd prefer to frame someone who
> >> they controlled, rather than some random person - nothing I say will
> >> make it easier for you to understand. People with a faith are rarely
> >> interested in learning facts that contradict their faith.
> >>
> >> The only people who could "expose" this are the very people who framed
> >> him. By exposing the frame, they'd be indicting themselves. Is that
> >> too hard to understand?
> LFD.

Deleting the points you either don’t understand or cannot refute does not a valid counter-argument make.

> >> Why frame someone? Because an investigation into who killed a
> >> President can't be like a normal investigation in Chicago... or Los
> >> Angeles (etc)... that might lead nowhere. The American people
> >> wouldn't accept a "go nowhere" investigation... and by framing a
> >> suspect, they close the investigation.
> LFD.

Deleting the points you either don’t understand or cannot refute does not a valid counter-argument make. Calling them a logical fallacy doesn’t advance the discussion either.

> >> This investigation was essentially closed that weekend.
> LFD.

Deleting the points you either don’t understand or cannot refute does not a valid counter-argument make. Calling them a logical fallacy doesn’t advance the discussion either.

> >> Nothing was
> >> investigated that didn't support the "Oswald did it" theory. All
> >> leads that lead elsewhere were abandoned early on...
> >
> >You won't be able to prove that.
> To you? No. To any reasonable and intelligent person, yes.

Ad hominem logical fallacy and begged question logical fallacy.

> >> BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SUSPECT!
> >>
> >> This is all fairly simple, and even the average person who knows
> >> little about this case could essentially replicate the above
> >> explanation...
> LFD.

Deleting the points you either don’t understand or cannot refute does not a valid counter-argument make. Calling them a logical fallacy doesn’t advance the discussion either.

> >> So why is it so difficult for believers to understand?
> >
> >Maybe because it makes no sense...
>
> This is the sort of cowardice required to be a believer...

…in a conspiracy. Delete all the counter-arguments and simply repeat your own assertions. It’s faith-based, not evidence-based, and nothing establishes it better than Ben’s treatment of any and all evidence cited in opposition to his unsupported assertions.

He excommunicates it.

[Bud]

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:02:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:34:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:01:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> >> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that
> >> > *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with
> >> > Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why
> >> > would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and
> >> > relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no
> >> > connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
> >> >And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the
> >> > investigation determined that there was no foreign government
> >> > involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to
> >> > remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify
> >> > one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.
> >>
> >> It's questions like this that make you wonder if believers have any
> >> brains.
> >
> > Let us deconstruct Ben`s bad thinking here...
> You'd have to understand it first.

The fact that you were forced to run from what I wrote not only shows I understood it but also demolished it.

> >> First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA.
> >
> > How is it certain. Ben will never make a convincing case but will demand that "certainty" be the default.
> Tut tut tut, Chickenshit. It's my opinion.

Hard ti imagine anything more worthless than that.

>The evidence supports my
> opinion.

The weak evidence you produced does not come close to supporting that fantastic idea you`ve proposed.

And Hank keeps showing the evidence is not what you represent it to be.

> You've been unable to offer anything to contradict it.

Not how it works. You have to establish your ideas are valid.

> >> Sworn testimony,
> >> unrefuted, shows this...
> >
> > Just because information is unrefuted doesn`t mean it is true.
> Of course not, stupid!

Then it doesn`t "show this", does it?

>But when it corroborates other evidence, then
> yes, it's far more likely to be true.

Weak plus weak does not equal strong.

> >> from several people who where in a position
> >> to know.
> >
> > By all means, let these people show Oswald was a CIA agent. Never
> > happen, but Ben will pretend it has.
> Show to who?

You could show it to the authorities if you actually had something. But you don`t.

> >>And yes, he was certainly "low level."
> >
> > Easier said than shown.
> Shown by the facts & evidence.

Actually not. Conspiracy folks just put the bar for their ideas so close to the ground that an ant couldn`t limbo under it.

> >> And if you can't figure out why they'd prefer to frame someone who
> >> they controlled, rather than some random person - nothing I say will
> >> make it easier for you to understand.
> >>
> >>People with a faith are rarely
> >> interested in learning facts that contradict their faith.
> >>
> >> The only people who could "expose" this are the very people who framed
> >> him. By exposing the frame, they'd be indicting themselves. Is that
> >> too hard to understand?
> >>
> >> Why frame someone? Because an investigation into who killed a
> >> President can't be like a normal investigation in Chicago... or Los
> >> Angeles (etc)... that might lead nowhere. The American people
> >> wouldn't accept a "go nowhere" investigation... and by framing a
> >> suspect, they close the investigation.
> >
> > Or...
>
> You just admitted that you lost.

When you remove the ideas I express because you can`t counter them this means I`ve won. Hank beats you all the time, you run from every point he makes.

> >> This investigation was essentially closed that weekend. Nothing was
> >> investigated that didn't support the "Oswald did it" theory. All
> >> leads that lead elsewhere were abandoned early on...
> >>
> >> BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SUSPECT!
> >>
> >> This is all fairly simple, and even the average person who knows
> >> little about this case could essentially replicate the above
> >> explanation...
> >>
> >> So why is it so difficult for believers to understand?
> >
> > The concept of a fall guy is easy to understand.
> And yet, believers can't understand...

I explained it. You removed the explanation.

That people can think frightens you, because you can`t.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 06:37:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 06:37:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:52:30 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 03:09:33 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:01:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>>>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that
>>>>> *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with
>>>>> Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why
>>>>> would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and
>>>>> relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no
>>>>> connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
>>>>>And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the
>>>>> investigation determined that there was no foreign government
>>>>> involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to
>>>>> remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify
>>>>> one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.
>>>>
>>>> It's questions like this that make you wonder if believers have any
>>>> brains.
>>>>

>>>> First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA. Sworn testimony,
>>>> unrefuted, shows this... from several people who where in a position
>>>> to know. And yes, he was certainly "low level."
>>>

>>> You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it. You'll
>>> claim I already know it or some such nonsense.
>> I'll put up a post on this topic today - and the first thing you'll
>> need to do is apologize for both of your lies.
>>

>> (Watch folks, as Huckster will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to admit he lied
>> here!

Another perfect prediction!

>> He knows that there's evidence that Oswald was CIA connected,
>> and he knows I've debated it in this forum before...
>>

>>>> And if you can't figure out why they'd prefer to frame someone who
>>>> they controlled, rather than some random person - nothing I say will
>>>> make it easier for you to understand. People with a faith are rarely
>>>> interested in learning facts that contradict their faith.
>>>>
>>>> The only people who could "expose" this are the very people who framed
>>>> him. By exposing the frame, they'd be indicting themselves. Is that
>>>> too hard to understand?
>> LFD.

>>>> Why frame someone? Because an investigation into who killed a
>>>> President can't be like a normal investigation in Chicago... or Los
>>>> Angeles (etc)... that might lead nowhere. The American people
>>>> wouldn't accept a "go nowhere" investigation... and by framing a
>>>> suspect, they close the investigation.
>> LFD.

>>>> This investigation was essentially closed that weekend.
>> LFD.

>>>> Nothing was
>>>> investigated that didn't support the "Oswald did it" theory. All
>>>> leads that lead elsewhere were abandoned early on...
>>>
>>>You won't be able to prove that.
>> To you? No. To any reasonable and intelligent person, yes.

>>>> BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SUSPECT!
>>>>
>>>> This is all fairly simple, and even the average person who knows
>>>> little about this case could essentially replicate the above
>>>> explanation...
>> LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:59:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:02:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:34:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:01:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>>>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Just one question, please: Does it make any sense at all to you that
>>>>> *if* Oswald had been, as you argue, a CIA operative - along with
>>>>> Harvey - that the CIA would frame him/them for the assassination? Why
>>>>> would you frame a person with a supposed long connection and
>>>>> relationship to your agency? Wouldn't they frame someone with no
>>>>> connections? A nobody? Why do this and risk being exposed?
>>>>>And why frame Oswald? For what purpose? After the assassination the
>>>>> investigation determined that there was no foreign government
>>>>> involvement. Castro wasn't involved. If they wanted an excuse to
>>>>> remove Castro they would have connected Oswald to Castro to justify
>>>>> one. But they said Oswald acted alone, with no help.
>>>>
>>>> It's questions like this that make you wonder if believers have any
>>>> brains.
>>>
>>> Let us deconstruct Ben`s bad thinking here...
>> You'd have to understand it first.

No reason to spend any time on Chickenshit's whining... deleted.