LHO relationship with Marina

[Alan Johnstone]

Like Bruce, i have a simple question for the forum

Was LHO's marriage to Marina breaking up?

[Alan Johnstone]

[John Corbett]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:17:32 AM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:
> Like Bruce, i have a simple question for the forum
>
> Was LHO's marriage to Marina breaking up?

It seemed to be on the rocks. They were living apart except for weekends.

[Hank Sienzant]

Oswald knew what the next day held for him but he was willing to forgo that to keep his marriage intact. Marina explained their last night together and it’s easy to see what might have been:
== quote ==
Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband give any reason for coming home on Thursday?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that he was lonely because he hadn't come the preceding weekend, and he wanted to make his peace with me.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to him then?
Mrs. OSWALD. He tried to talk to me but I would not answer him, and he was very upset.
Mr. RANKIN. Were you upset with him?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was angry, of course. He was not angry--he was upset. I was angry. He tried very hard to please me. He spent quite a bit of time putting away diapers and played with the children on the street.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you indicate to him that you were angry with him?
Mrs. OSWALD. By not talking to him.
Mr. RANKIN. And how did he show that he was upset?
Mrs. OSWALD. He was upset over the fact that I would not answer him. He tried to start a conversation with me several times, but I would not answer. And he said that he didn't want me to be angry at him because this upsets him.
On that day, he suggested that we rent an apartment in Dallas. He said that
he was tired of living alone and perhaps the reason for my being so angry was the fact that we were not living together. That if I want to he would rent an apartment in Dallas tomorrow--that he didn't want me to remain with Ruth any longer, but wanted me to live with him in Dallas.
He repeated this not once but several times, but I refused. And he said that once again I was preferring my friends to him, and that I didn't need him.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said it would be better if I remained with Ruth until the holidays, he would come, and we would all meet together. That this was better because while he was living alone and I stayed with Ruth, we were spending less money. And I told him to buy me a washing machine, because two children it became too difficult to wash by hand.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said he would buy me a washing machine.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Thank you. That it would be better if he bought something for himself--that I would manage.
…
RANKIN. On the evening of the 21st, was anything said about curtain rods or his taking curtain rods to town the following day?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I didn't have any.
Mr. RANKIN. He didn't say anything like that?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss the weekend that was coming up?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that he probably would not come on Friday, and he didn't come he was in jail.
Mr. RANKIN. Did the quarrel that you had at that time [earlier in the week on the phone - Hank] seem to cause him to be more disturbed than usual?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, not particularly. At least he didn't talk about that quarrel when he came. Usually he would remember about what happened. This time he didn't blame me for anything, didn't ask me any questions, just wanted to make up.
Mr. RANKIN. I understood that when you didn't make up he was quite disturbed and you were still angry, is that right?
Mrs. OSWALD. I wasn't really very angry. I, of course, wanted to make up with him. But I gave the appearance of being very angry. I was smiling inside, but I had a serious expression on my face.
Mr. RANKIN. And as a result of that, did he seem to be more disturbed than usual?
Mrs. OSWALD. As always, as usual. Perhaps a little more. At least when he went to bed he was very upset.
== unquote ==

Quite clearly, Lee Oswald was at a crossroads. And he choose the road less traveled. He had an opportunity on Friday to shoot the President and go down in history, or reconcile with his wife. If Marina had been willing to reconcile, he might have chosen to forgo the assassination attempt. But although she was willing to reconcile (“smiling inside”) she played hard to get, setting in motion Oswald’s actions thereafter.

[Ben Holmes]

And like Bruce, you seem unwilling to deal with the real questions in
this case.

Time will tell.

[Steven Galbraith]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 7:53:13 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

John: Marina said (WC and elsewhere) that they weren't splitting up, that after the Thursday conversation they had agreed to get together after the holidays and move back in together. She said they were living apart only due to financial reasons but that since Oswald had found a decent job they would get back together in one place.
She also said she was stunned when she found his wedding ring in her demitasse cup, the only expensive item she had. And that he had left $170 for her. He would leave her a few dollars at the start of the week when he returned to the rooming house.
And remember that she talked to him in jail. He didn't mention anything about separating. In fact, she said he told her that she had friends who could help her and the children and that the Red Cross would help her too. Those are odd words for someone who insists he's innocent. Why would she need help? Isn't he going to be cleared?
So shorter me: Yes, they were going to be separated because he was going to shoot JFK.

[Bruce]

No "real question" was posed to me, Ben. The only thing you asked was whether I'd be willing to answer the same kinds of questions I ask CTs. If you've got something more substantive, feel free to ask it.

[Ben Holmes]

Real questions are posed almost daily... let's try something simple:

"One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to
work, but he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands
as he entered the door." (WCR 133)

Let's examine the actual testimony to see if the Warren Commission
accurately rendered it:

Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
...
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you
would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this
way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.

If you believed the Warren Commission, you'd think that Dougherty just
"believed" he'd seen Oswald coming to work, when Dougherty wasn't
unsure at all. He was quite definite on that point, and the Warren
Commission simply lied.

If you believed the Warren Commission, you'd think that Dougherty
simply didn't remember if Oswald had anything in his hands, yet the
testimony shows that he was quite positive on that fact...

Now the question is a simple one... given the evidence above ... or
ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT YOU CAN CITE - did the WCR tell a lie, or
tell the truth?

[Bruce]

First, I have no obligation to defend the Warren Commission's rendering of testimony because I have not expressed any opinion on their report or methods. When I want information, I go to the testimony itself. I don't care what the WCR has to say about it. I wouldn't ask a CT to defend the opinion of say, Harold Weisberg or Jim Marrs, either, unless they specifically endorsed their work.

And to address your contention, let's look at Dougherty's testimony. Yes, he said that he was positive while testifying. But his initial statement was not definite at all. It said "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today." If you have to add "vaguely," it's not a very positive statement. (Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 376)

When asked about this during the testimony, he said "I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye -- that's the reason why I said it that way." That's also far from positive. How well are you going to remember what somebody is carrying if you see them out of the corner of your eye? (Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 377)

So, no I wouldn't say that the Warren Commission rendered the testimony incorrectly. Though he claimed to be positive on this point, the actual details of his testimony and the statement taken closer to the event are far from that.

As an addendum, Dougherty also testified when asked "did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?" that "Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did." He specifically cited Bill Shelley, who he said "told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package." (Warren Commission Hearings, volume 6, page 381)

So is it possible that Dougherty was just mistaken about what somebody he saw out of the corner of his eye was carrying? It seems plausible to me.

[Hank Sienzant]

I discussed this back in the summer here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JKMzn9yjhgo/m/e5nEPoKRBgAJ

And here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JKMzn9yjhgo/m/0QtmLtxCAAAJ

And here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JKMzn9yjhgo/m/7XxzM6tqBAAJ

Dougherty had mental failings that made everything he said questionable.

Anyone reading his testimony understands this:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:20:03 -0800 (PST), Bruce

>First, I have no obligation to defend the Warren Commission's rendering ...


That's all I need to read.

You're a coward like all the rest of the believers... you refuse to
answer questions, yet you ask us to answer yours.

How you look yourself in the mirror I have no idea...

[Ben Holmes]

>I discussed this ...


Unfortunately, you lied.

[Bud]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:53:29 -0800 (PST), Bruce
> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:02:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 23:17:39 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
> >> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Like Bruce, i have a simple question for the forum
> >>>
> >>>Was LHO's marriage to Marina breaking up?
> >>
> >> And like Bruce, you seem unwilling to deal with the real questions in
> >> this case.
> >>
> >> Time will tell.
> >
> > No "real question" was posed to me, Ben. The only thing you asked
> > was whether I'd be willing to answer the same kinds of questions I ask
> > CTs. If you've got something more substantive, feel free to ask it.
> Real questions are posed almost daily... let's try something simple:
>
> "One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to
> work, but he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands
> as he entered the door." (WCR 133)
>
> Let's examine the actual testimony to see if the Warren Commission
> accurately rendered it:

This is the same Jack Dougherty who said he ate lunch in the Domino Room. There goes Oswald`s "alibi".

[Bruce]

I directly answered your question, Ben. Anybody reading this thread knows it. I quoted from the testimony you cited three separate times and told you why I believe the WCR accurately rendered it. This is supreme bad faith.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:54:55 -0800 (PST), Bruce

I'm sure *YOU* believe you did.

> Anybody reading this thread knows it. I quoted from the testimony
> you cited three separate times and told you why I believe the WCR
> accurately rendered it. This is supreme bad faith.

If you say so...

An honest man might not feel the need to defend the WCR - but **ALSO**
would not hesitate to acknowledge the lies.

You've shown your true colors.

[Bruce]

Hi Ben, care to name a specific lie?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), Bruce

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), Bruce

I suspect you want me to "prove" it to you.

No need.

[Bruce]

Yes, I generally expect people to provide evidence for their claims. If that's too hard, I understand.

[Ben Holmes]

Why would I be interested in taking any time at all to "prove"
something to an dishonest person?

[Bruce]

This is like discussing something with a fanatically religious person; no answer will suffice unless it conforms to the dogma. Unfortunate.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:24:11 -0800 (PST), Bruce

You're lying.

**EVIDENCE** is the deciding factor, not "dogma."

[Bruce]

If evidence is the deciding factor, Ben, then you should address the three citations given in that reply. But you can't, because evidence isn't driving your beliefs.

[Steven Galbraith]

This is exactly what it's like. A dogma, a faith-based creed that is immune to reason. If you check out other conspiracy beliefs, the believers follow a similar pattern.
Remember, even today they believe the truth is being suppressed. By people in the government who weren't even alive at the time of the assassination. By people who admired JFK. By Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives; groups of people who literally loathe one another. But they all got together to do this. And still do.
And when conspiracy believers are asked, "Why would all these people who hated each other politically, band together for this?" Their answer is: "They just did."

[Ben Holmes]

I gave the evidence.

You lose!

[Hank Sienzant]

Told you!

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben is the ultimate troll.

[Ben Holmes]

LFD.

[Alan Johnstone]

BH - "And like Bruce, you seem unwilling to deal with the real questions in this case."

In any crime, particularly murder, the state of mind of the alleged perpetuator is crucial piece of evidence, albeit circumstantial.

Any investigation would center on the mental condition of the alleged perpetuator. If that is not a real question albeit speculate about , i don't know what is. We saw it with the recent trials of Rittenhouse and the McMichael's, how important such issues are.

Like JC, I had read that LHO's marriage was breaking up and this would be another psychological blow for him personally, giving him less of a reason to continue leading a "normal" life. I never thought it was "suicide by cop" but that it was possible that LHO sought instead to make his mark on history by an act of infamy to substitute for this yet another "failure" in his life expectations.

Hank's reply, however, clarifies that although not perfect, the marriage remained relatively solid.

It does beg the question why LHO left the wedding ring and much of his cash for Marina to find, as if he was not going to return for some reason or other. It is a strange thing to do. Why do it?

Occam's Razor. We look for the answer which is the simplest and the most common sense explanation.

Rather than casually dismiss my question, BH should offer some sort of response that does not suggest LHO was about to do something that was going to be irreversible and effect his future, Marina's and their marriage.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:48:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>BH - "And like Bruce, you seem unwilling to deal with the real questions in this case."
>
> In any crime, particularly murder, the state of mind of the alleged
> perpetuator is crucial piece of evidence, albeit circumstantial.

Alleged is correct. Why don't you work on that?

> Any investigation would center on the mental condition of the
> alleged perpetuator. If that is not a real question albeit speculate
> about , i don't know what is. We saw it with the recent trials of
> Rittenhouse and the McMichael's, how important such issues are.

I dispute that "mental condition" is what any investigation "centers"
on.

That's just silly.

If you presume what you need to prove, you aren't going to convince
anyone.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 6:48:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:
> BH - "And like Bruce, you seem unwilling to deal with the real questions in this case."
>
> In any crime, particularly murder, the state of mind of the alleged perpetuator is crucial piece of evidence, albeit circumstantial.
>
> Any investigation would center on the mental condition of the alleged perpetuator. If that is not a real question albeit speculate about , i don't know what is. We saw it with the recent trials of Rittenhouse and the McMichael's, how important such issues are.
>
> Like JC, I had read that LHO's marriage was breaking up and this would be another psychological blow for him personally, giving him less of a reason to continue leading a "normal" life. I never thought it was "suicide by cop" but that it was possible that LHO sought instead to make his mark on history by an act of infamy to substitute for this yet another "failure" in his life expectations.
>
> Hank's reply, however, clarifies that although not perfect, the marriage remained relatively solid.

I’m in the “Oswald tried to patch up his marriage but he perceived that failed when Marina turned down an offer of a washing machine” camp.

I think you’re crediting me with Steven Galbraith’s response here
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/by7-FtcXsfM/m/JcPNfUOTBQAJ

>
> It does beg the question why LHO left the wedding ring and much of his cash for Marina to find, as if he was not going to return for some reason or other. It is a strange thing to do. Why do it?
>
> Occam's Razor. We look for the answer which is the simplest and the most common sense explanation.
>
> Rather than casually dismiss my question, BH should offer some sort of response that does not suggest LHO was about to do something that was going to be irreversible and effect his future, Marina's and their marriage.

And his two kids. And JFK’s Kids. And Tippit’s kids. His actions ultimately led to all those kids growing up fatherless, and leaving three woman widows.

[Bud]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 6:54:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:48:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >BH - "And like Bruce, you seem unwilling to deal with the real questions in this case."
> >
> > In any crime, particularly murder, the state of mind of the alleged
> > perpetuator is crucial piece of evidence, albeit circumstantial.
> Alleged is correct. Why don't you work on that?

Conspiracy is alleged. Why don`t you work on that?

> > Any investigation would center on the mental condition of the
> > alleged perpetuator. If that is not a real question albeit speculate
> > about , i don't know what is. We saw it with the recent trials of
> > Rittenhouse and the McMichael's, how important such issues are.
> I dispute that "mental condition" is what any investigation "centers"
> on.

I`ve been watching videos on this search and rescue team finds bodies in water. Sometimes if a person is despondent they will drive their vehicles into water. It is the mental condition of the person that causes the investigation to center on looking at possible water sites.

https://www.youtube.com/c/AdventureswithPurpose/videos

[Bud]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 6:48:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:

> BH - "And like Bruce, you seem unwilling to deal with the real questions in this case."
>
> In any crime, particularly murder, the state of mind of the alleged perpetuator is crucial piece of evidence, albeit circumstantial.
>
> Any investigation would center on the mental condition of the alleged perpetuator. If that is not a real question albeit speculate about , i don't know what is. We saw it with the recent trials of Rittenhouse and the McMichael's, how important such issues are.
>
> Like JC, I had read that LHO's marriage was breaking up and this would be another psychological blow for him personally, giving him less of a reason to continue leading a "normal" life. I never thought it was "suicide by cop" but that it was possible that LHO sought instead to make his mark on history by an act of infamy to substitute for this yet another "failure" in his life expectations.

I`ve read a fair amount of true crime books about serial killers, and sometimes these would mention "stressors" in the killers life that would pressure him to go out and look for victims. Here is what one article has to say on it...

"Theories have been proposed as to what triggers someone to become a serial killer. One particular theory that has been stressed was the diathesis-stress model, which is stated to be that all serial killers have a propensity to act and think a certain way due to environmental stressors. Through a combination of other factors such as self-esteem and self-control coupled with social skill issues, the person retreats into a more withdrawn state. The killer, at that point, believes that they can correct their problems through killing."

https://www.atmostfear-entertainment.com/health/psychology/serial-killers-psychological-motivation/

It seems likely to me that without mentioning the facts of this case to a criminal profiler they would come up with someone of a similar profile to Oswald. A maladjusted loner.

I expect that if you gave any decent investigator or profiler just the facts about each person in the TSBD, without any evidence of the crime they could pinpoint Oswald as the perpetrator. Of course the conspiracy folks will turn that around and say that is why he was selected to be the patsy.

[Alan Johnstone]

Those who hold that LHO was the lone wolf assassin, the "hunter of fascists", may well possess all the necessary physical evidence to indicate that the shooter was indeed LHO.

Yet potential motive cannot be ignored.

Why JFK? Why November 22nd? Why Dallas?

The first question is frequently answered that it was an act of solidarity by LHO with the Castro Regime and indignation at the continued sanctions and boycott and blockade of Cuba by JFK.

This is disputed by some who claim LHO was not a communist but rather an intelligence mole, a double agent and can cite the example where he once pretended to be anti-Castro to infiltrate the opposition, something that goes back to his youth when an avid viewer of I Led Three Lives, a fantasy he wished to emulate.

The last two questions are answered that rather than a planned plot, it was a crime of opportunity. Circumstances arose that provided LHO with a favorable moment he could seize upon. And that brings us back to what made him take it and that means understanding his personality and his personal situation.

Marina mentioned it could have been Nixon who could have become his second target.

In her WC testimony cited by Hank, she could, and it would be perfectly understandable, have distanced herself from her husband, and declared that she was indeed leaving him but she didn't. Although she provided damning evidence she nevertheless remained according to what she said to the WC a loyal wife. I find that interesting.

Another question is if LHO was hoping at a forthcoming trial he would be center-stage, his every word listened to and analysed and his statements to the police are to be understood by that possibility? Why talk to the monkeys when he was later going to be addressing the organ-grinders.

After the very little publicity he received by being first a defector then an ex-defector, no media cared to listen to his views which he had prepared in a diary, this was where what he said was going heard as important.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 05:03:41 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Those who hold that LHO was the lone wolf assassin, the "hunter of fascists", may well possess all the necessary physical evidence to indicate that the shooter was indeed LHO.

Untrue.

Watch folks, as Alan absolutely REFUSES to cite this alleged "physical
evidence."

[Alan Johnstone]

> Watch folks, as Alan absolutely REFUSES to cite this alleged "physical
> evidence."

There is a well known saying - Don't teach your granny to suck eggs.

There are others on this forum that can cite the physical evidence very much better than I can, and there are many here who know of that physical evidence but deny its validity.

My present interest is not in convincing people to change their minds but to explore the psyche of LHO which is something that all can participate in, whether they think he did it alone, totally innocent set up to be the fall guy or complicit in a conspiracy with unknown others.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 07:44:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>> Watch folks, as Alan absolutely REFUSES to cite this alleged "physical
>> evidence."
>
>There is a well known saying - Don't teach your granny to suck eggs.

Logical fallacy.

> There are others on this forum that can cite the physical evidence\

> very much better than I can...


So you agree that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite for your claims.

You're not unique, most believers refuse to cite for their claims.

> and there are many here who know of that
> physical evidence but deny its validity.

This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

> My present interest is not in convincing people

That's good. Because without facts, you have virtually no chance.

> to change their
> minds but to explore the psyche of LHO which is something that all can
> participate in, whether they think he did it alone, totally innocent
> set up to be the fall guy or complicit in a conspiracy with unknown
> others.

Nah... that's simply begging the question. If he was simply a patsy,
then ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about his character, thoughts, motives, and so
forth is relevant to anything at all.

And most of what you're speaking of is sheer speculation.

Speculation is, of course, favored among believers...

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 10:57:23 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 07:44:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> Watch folks, as Alan absolutely REFUSES to cite this alleged "physical
> >> evidence."
> >
> >There is a well known saying - Don't teach your granny to suck eggs.
> Logical fallacy.
> > There are others on this forum that can cite the physical evidence\
> > very much better than I can...
>
>
> So you agree that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite for your claims.

So you can remove those cites?

> You're not unique, most believers refuse to cite for their claims.

Lie, and say you don`t remove cites when they are given.

> > and there are many here who know of that
> > physical evidence but deny its validity.
> This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

You want to set up a crooked game where the validity of the physical evidence has to be accepted by you.

> > My present interest is not in convincing people
> That's good. Because without facts, you have virtually no chance.
> > to change their
> > minds but to explore the psyche of LHO which is something that all can
> > participate in, whether they think he did it alone, totally innocent
> > set up to be the fall guy or complicit in a conspiracy with unknown
> > others.
> Nah... that's simply begging the question. If he was simply a patsy,
> then ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about his character, thoughts, motives, and so
> forth is relevant to anything at all.

Then why didn`t they set up Truly?

> And most of what you're speaking of is sheer speculation.
>
> Speculation is, of course, favored among believers...

Thinking is. You can`t do it so you try to stop those that can.

[Alan Johnstone]

BH, it has not taken me very long to discover that you are a pretentious prat.

Others here who I vehemently disagreed with will vouch I always endeavoured to remain civil in my exchanges with them. It has not taken you very long to undo that approach. It is quite an achievement. Not an admirable one but an achievement nevertheless.

When I try to engage those who have deep disagreements in a process where they can share their respective knowledge in a joint thought experiment without conceding their individual positions, being such a contrarian, you can perceive no benefit from such a search for answers.

There is an apt quote from Herbert Spencer you should acquaint yourself with

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

But you have raised one question that has to be investigated.

Why did LHO describe himself as being a patsy? What were his reasons for doing so? Was his level of self-worth so low that he felt he could be so easily duped by others and set-up? I find it hard to believe someone with such a very high opinion of himself would actually believe he was tricked. But it is a possible interpretation. As Mark Twain said "it is easier to fool the people than to convince them that they have been fooled"

Was he perhaps being paranoid and expressing a persecution complex, believing he was being victimized for past actions such as defecting or marrying a Russian. In the lingering McCarthyite Red Scare a few would describe him as a collaborator and fraternalizing with the enemy.

So when he said he was a patsy. Did he mean he was gullible by being set up? Or was LHO suffering from a delusion that he was being purposefully treated unfairly?

If he wanted to be the centre of attention, why the diversion away from himself?

Jack Ruby's behavior and personality also bring more questions than answers.

I may be a Marxian materialist but that does not mean I dismiss the influence of an individual's action in determining the twists and turns of history even if it does not affect the eventual destination.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:32:45 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>BH, it has not taken me very long to discover that you are a pretentious prat.

Although you aren't responding to any of my posts, I'll presume, based
on your beliefs and cowardice, that you're referring to me.

> Others here who I vehemently disagreed with will vouch I always
> endeavoured to remain civil in my exchanges with them. It has not
> taken you very long to undo that approach. It is quite an achievement.
> Not an admirable one but an achievement nevertheless.

Sorry moron - no-one believes such hogwash.

> When I try to engage those who have deep disagreements in a process
> where they can share their respective knowledge in a joint thought
> experiment without conceding their individual positions, being such a
> contrarian, you can perceive no benefit from such a search for
> answers.

Who are you trying to fool?

Why the cowardice?

The rest of your pretentious nonsense deleted...

[Bud]

You are wasting your time trying to engage Ben on ideas. He hasn`t the ability or the interest. His interest is in playing crooked games from which he claims meaningless points in his favor.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 6:39:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:32:45 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >BH, it has not taken me very long to discover that you are a pretentious prat.
> Although you aren't responding to any of my posts, I'll presume, based
> on your beliefs and cowardice, that you're referring to me.
> > Others here who I vehemently disagreed with will vouch I always
> > endeavoured to remain civil in my exchanges with them. It has not
> > taken you very long to undo that approach. It is quite an achievement.
> > Not an admirable one but an achievement nevertheless.
> Sorry moron - no-one believes such hogwash.

Want to put it to a poll?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:59:34 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 6:39:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:32:45 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
>> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>BH, it has not taken me very long to discover that you are a pretentious prat.
>> Although you aren't responding to any of my posts, I'll presume, based
>> on your beliefs and cowardice, that you're referring to me.
>>
>>> Others here who I vehemently disagreed with will vouch I always
>>> endeavoured to remain civil in my exchanges with them. It has not
>>> taken you very long to undo that approach. It is quite an achievement.
>>> Not an admirable one but an achievement nevertheless.
>>
>> Sorry moron - no-one believes such hogwash.
>
>Want to put it to a poll?

Sure, why not?

But I've already won. The majority of America sides with me on the
issues.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:53:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> You are wasting your time trying to engage Ben on ideas. He hasn`t
> the ability or the interest. His interest is in playing crooked games
> from which he claims meaningless points in his favor.

Tell us Huckster, what part of Chickenshit's screed is *NOT* a logical
fallacy?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you are dancing, chum... .john is in purgatory expect no help... liars simply can't fly here.... adios. DVP is creeping the halls again...

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:59:34 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 6:39:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:32:45 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
> >> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>BH, it has not taken me very long to discover that you are a pretentious prat.
> >> Although you aren't responding to any of my posts, I'll presume, based
> >> on your beliefs and cowardice, that you're referring to me.
> >>
> >>> Others here who I vehemently disagreed with will vouch I always
> >>> endeavoured to remain civil in my exchanges with them. It has not
> >>> taken you very long to undo that approach. It is quite an achievement.
> >>> Not an admirable one but an achievement nevertheless.
> >>
> >> Sorry moron - no-one believes such hogwash.
> >
> >Want to put it to a poll?
> Sure, why not?
>
> But I've already won. The majority of America sides with me on the
> issues.

Do the majority of American believe Oswald killed Kennedy?

[Bud]

I was just letting the new guy know what he is dealing with.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Hang in there, Dud. You've had a very difficult time since .john went to purgatory and the AAJ shop closed up.

I smell a Jason Burke, another alias found us. <sigh> maybe Dave Drummond will show up and sweep out the trash. There your Christmas present, enjoy!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Jason Burke is not a new guy...

[Bud]

Can`t be Jason Burke, not one reference to Ben wrestling with kids or Ben avoiding a rusty hanger during a botched abortion.

[Alan Johnstone]

If trying to score schoolboy debating points is your ambition and aspiration, you fail miserably with me, BH. I'm not so easily impressed.

Name-calling is a very superficial and shallow way of responding to criticism.

Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

[healyd...@gmail.com]

ahhhhh.... another over educated, food delivery, closet hidden whack job whom thinks Latin will score points waltzing through a JFK assassination maze of Jesuit trained conspiracy wonks.... Good Luck Einstein! Sgt. Einstein that is....

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 11:32:46 PM UTC, Alan Johnstone wrote:
> BH, it has not taken me very long to discover that you are a pretentious prat.

Tsk. Tsk. Where are the Ad Hominem Police when you really need them?

[Alan Johnstone]

Understanding the use of irony is not your strong point, is it healyd?

But as a newcomer, I'd like to as if there is any purpose in this forum?

Is there an objective search to determine if LHO was framed and entirely innocent, or complicit in participating in a conspiracy or solely responsible for the killing?

Are there any other options for his part in the assassination?

I suppose he could have been hypnotised like as suggested happened to Sirhan Sirhan in the RFK assassination.

Or brainwashed to act upon a trigger as in the Hollywood Manchurian Candidate.

Another question, if 22 November had failed, was there a Plan B?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 11:51:41 PM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 11:32:46 PM UTC, Alan Johnstone wrote:
> > BH, it has not taken me very long to discover that you are a pretentious prat.
> Tsk. Tsk. Where are the Ad Hominem Police when you really need them?

Like Ben you can`t make the distinction between ad hominem and insults.

[Bud]

This is what I meant when I said this to you...

"I would caution you about trying to discuss the assassination here, any real discussion on that front is pretty much impossible here. Read a few threads and you`ll easily be able to determine why."

Ben is merely playing a silly game where he steers every discussion to one of his talking points so he can claim victory. If you do start whipping his ass, like Hank does frequently, he just starts removing your replies. He is an intellectual coward who is not worth anyone`s time.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 2:21:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:
> Understanding the use of irony is not your strong point, is it healyd?
>
> But as a newcomer, I'd like to as if there is any purpose in this forum?

Light entertainment.

> Is there an objective search to determine if LHO was framed and entirely innocent, or complicit in participating in a conspiracy or solely responsible for the killing?

Not really.

> Are there any other options for his part in the assassination?

The only limit is the imagination of the conspiracy folk. One might argue he was mind controlled in some way. One argued that he was duped in some way, and wasn`t aware of the subterfuge until it was too late.

Umbrellas being opened an horns being sounded are seen as signals. The event is a playground where childish minds play.

> I suppose he could have been hypnotised like as suggested happened to Sirhan Sirhan in the RFK assassination.

Wow, I didn`t even read down this far.

> Or brainwashed to act upon a trigger as in the Hollywood Manchurian Candidate.

Or here. Just think of the silliest thing you can think of and some conspiracy hobbyist has probably posited it.

> Another question, if 22 November had failed, was there a Plan B?

Keep in mind that *THEY* can do anything.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Perhaps you can tell the difference, Little Retard.

[Hank Sienzant]

The “JFK wasn’t shot” theories. I know of two.
1. This one is the more recent, JFK faked his own death so he could get out of the presidency. Not sure what reason the CT gave for JFK not simply resigning or wanting to get out of the presidency.
2. This is a very old one, JFK wasn’t in the limo on the ride through Dealey Plaza. It was Tippit who was sitting in the car and he got assassinated.

> > Another question, if 22 November had failed, was there a Plan B?
> Keep in mind that *THEY* can do anything.

While they could do anything and had an unlimited budget so they always did things the hard way, they apparently weren’t good planners and failed a lot. Perhaps they couldn’t find any good planners who would go along with the plot, or good planners are awfully expensive.

Not Plan B, Plan D. Dallas was already Plan C according to CTs. CTs already allege failed plots in Miami and Chicago.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:09:22 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>If trying to score schoolboy debating points...

The only other person besides Kantor who recalled seeing Ruby at the
hospital did not make known her observation until April 1964, had
never seen Ruby before, allegedly saw him only briefly then, had an
obstructed view, and was uncertain of the time. (WCR 336)

But, let's take a look at Mrs. Tice's actual testimony - to see if the
WC was telling the truth or not:

Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did this man that you think was Jack Ruby, how
long did he stand out there next to you?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about 3 feet from them.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was he standing in relation to you. Was he in front
of you or behind you, or off to the side, or where was he?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about like this, and they were standing
there, but I was being nosey and listening.
Mr. GRIFFIN. In other words, this man was off to the side 4 or 5 feet
distant from you, the distance from you to me?
Mrs. TICE. This man that I say was Jack Ruby was about 3 feet from me,
I guess, about as far as you are from me.
Mr. GRIFFIN. You could only see the side of his face, I take it?
Mrs. TICE. Jack Ruby's?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. (15H 392)

Mr. GRIFFIN. So Jack actually was a little bit in front of you?
Mrs. TICE. Yes; I guess.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you put an R where Ruby was?
(Mrs. Tice marks.)
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, a man walked up to him and tapped him on the
shoulder?
Mrs. TICE. The man came right down this way, over this way and slapped
him on the shoulder and asked him how he was doing.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And at that point Jack turned around?
Mrs. TICE. At that point Jack turned around and started talking to
him. At the time, he was facing right toward me. (15H 394)

The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby -
attempting to state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony
shows that Ruby was just 3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs.
Tice. The WC *cited* her testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware
that their own evidence contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the
WC would argue that Mrs. Tice had never seen Jack Ruby before... they
didn't appear to be embarrassed that Brennan had never seen Oswald
before...

Another lie of the WC that believers can't refute... Interestingly,
the last time I posted this - not a single believer responded. It's a
little hard when the facts go against you, isn't it?

[Bud]

Perhaps you cannot.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben *desperately* tries to change the subject.

You can almost see the sweat oozing from his pores as he brings up Wilma Tice.

[Bud]

Like I said, he tries to steer the discussions to his talking points.

But Ben won`t explain why the WC would need to lie about her, what is their motivation. They can just say she is dippy broad who interjected herself into the investigation, or take the higher road and just say they find the evidence that Ruby was elsewhere to be more compelling.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Why does the Warren Commission want to disbelieve Seth Kantor? It seems to be very important to them that Jack Ruby be elsewhere. Why should it matter? So Ruby went to the hospital. Maybe they're simply defending the honor of Honest Jack.

[Hank Sienzant]

The latter is what they essentially concluded, especially since Kantor and Ruby were both at the police station for Oswald’s press conference, and Kantor doesn’t remember seeing Ruby there.

Here’s what the Commission concluded:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-6.html#ruby
== quote ==
Investigation has limited the period during which Kantor could have met Ruby at Parkland Hospital on Friday to a few minutes before and after 1:30 p.m. Telephone company records and the testimony of Andrew Armstrong established that Ruby arrived at the Carousel Club no later than 1:45 p.m. and probably a few minutes earlier. Kantor was engaged in a long-distance telephone call to his Washington office from 1:02 p.m. until 1:27 p.m. Kantor testified that, after completing that call, be immediately left the building from which he had been telephoning, traveled perhaps 100 yards, and entered the main entrance of the hospital. It was there, as he walked through a small doorway, that he believed he saw Jack Ruby, who, Kantor said, tugged at his coattails and asked, "Should I close my places for the next three nights, do you think?" Kantor recalled that he turned briefly to Ruby and proceeded to the press conference at which the President's death was announced. Kantor was certain he encountered Ruby at Parkland but had doubts about the exact time and place.

Kantor probably did not see Ruby at Parkland Hospital in the few minutes before or after 1:30 p.m., the only time it would have been possible for Kantor to have done so. If Ruby immediately returned to the Carousel Club after Kantor saw him, it would have been necessary for him to have covered the distance from Parkland in approximately 10 or 15 minutes in order to have arrived at the club before 1:45 p.m., when a telephone call was placed at Ruby's request to his entertainer, Karen Bennett Carlin. At a normal driving speed under normal conditions the trip can be made in 9 or 10 minutes. However, it is likely that congested traffic conditions on November 22 would have extended the driving time. Even if Ruby had been able to drive from Parkland to the Carousel in 15 minutes, his presence at the Dallas Morning News until after 1 p.m., and at the Carousel prior to 1:45 p.m., would have made his visit at Parkland exceedingly brief. Since Ruby was observed at the Dallas Police Department during a 2 hour period after 11 p.m. on Friday, when Kantor was also present, and since Kantor did not remember seeing Ruby there, Kantor may have been mistaken about both the time and the place that he saw Ruby. When seeing Ruby, Kantor was preoccupied with the important event that a press conference represented. Both Ruby and Kantor were present at another important event, a press conference held about midnight, November 22, in the assembly room of the Dallas Police Department. It is conceivable that Kantor's encounter with Ruby occurred at that time, perhaps near the small doorway there.
== unquote ==

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben to jump in here to argue about Tice now, further attempting to divert the conversation from the topic of the original post.

[Ben Holmes]

Alan "desperately" proves my point. No "schoolboy debating points" in
sight... only the testimony, evidence, and WCR lies that you can't
explain or acknowledge.

I could care less about your speculations, Alan... I'm going to keep
posting the evidence that forces believers to run...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

>You can almost see the sweat oozing from his pores as he brings up Wilma Tice.

You can almost see the fear from Alan as he's confronted with actual
evidence.

You're a coward, Alan. As we've just proved.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 11:02:40 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

The evidence, you mean.

As I provably just did.

> But Ben won`t explain why the WC would need to lie about her, what
> is their motivation.

No need for me to speculate on motivations...

I just proved that the WCR lied. I don't need "motivation" for that.

This also shows that you and Alan are liars & cowards.

[Bud]

The things you want to talk about, you mean.

> As I provably just did.
> > But Ben won`t explain why the WC would need to lie about her, what
> > is their motivation.
> No need for me to speculate on motivations...

It speaks to the validity of your idea that it is a lie when they have no reason to lie.

> I just proved that the WCR lied. I don't need "motivation" for that.
>
> This also shows that you and Alan are liars & cowards.

I explained to him what you are about...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 11:51:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Ben to jump in here to argue about Tice now, further attempting to divert the conversation from the topic of the original post.

My point has already been made.

Alan and you lost.

[Alan Johnstone]

The full WC testimony of Wilma Tice

https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol15/page388.php

A few questions for BH.

Why was her husband so set upon his wife not testifying?

What was the reference to her being barricaded in her house all about?

What was the details of his and Giffen's conversation before she gave her testimony?

What was her relationship to Eva Grant, Ruby's sister?

What is the relevance of Ruby's visit to Parklands if it took place which he himself denied?

If he was there, why should he lie about it?

If he was there, what was the purpose and what did he do there, if anything?

[Bud]

Ben has no interest in this issue at all other than his "gotcha" point.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

ya wanna make noise cause you are tied up in knots? Grow up, clown! You nutter's are a *hoot* to quote my old lone nut nemesis from years and years ago Steve Keating.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:00:13 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, Alan Johnstone wrote:
> > The full WC testimony of Wilma Tice
> >
> > https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol15/page388.php
> >
> > A few questions for BH.
> >
> > Why was her husband so set upon his wife not testifying?
> >
> > What was the reference to her being barricaded in her house all about?
> >
> > What was the details of his and Giffen's conversation before she gave her testimony?
> >
> > What was her relationship to Eva Grant, Ruby's sister?
> >
> > What is the relevance of Ruby's visit to Parklands if it took place which he himself denied?
> >
> > If he was there, why should he lie about it?
> >
> > If he was there, what was the purpose and what did he do there, if anything?
> ya wanna make noise cause you are tied up in knots?

He`ll wise up soon enough about the possibilities of having adult discussions on this event here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 13:46:03 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The full WC testimony of Wilma Tice
>
>https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol15/page388.php
>
>A few questions for BH.

Nope.

Until you start ANSWERING questions, there's no reason for me to even
read your questions.

Believers don't believe in debate - they love to ask questions, but
absolutely DESPISE answering them.

When you answer some questions I raise, I'll be happy to answer some
of yours.

You can start by acknowledging that the WCR lied about her testimony,
or giving a credible reason why they weren't lies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 12:13:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

LFD.

>> As I provably just did.
>>> But Ben won`t explain why the WC would need to lie about her, what
>>> is their motivation.
>> No need for me to speculate on motivations...

LFD.

[Bud]

Thinking isn`t a logical fallacy.

> >> As I provably just did.
> >>> But Ben won`t explain why the WC would need to lie about her, what
> >>> is their motivation.
> >> No need for me to speculate on motivations...
> LFD.

Thinking isn`t a logical fallacy.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Hank about to bare his ass so that it can be spanked cherry red.

[Alan Johnstone]

BH - giving a credible reason why they weren't lies.

As it was yourself who brought her into the discussion, I assumed that you had done more than use the WC as a source.
But you refuse to share your extra knowledge.

I was obliged to conduct my own enquiry

Where Tice spotted Ruby
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0347b.htm

I can only go by the WC testimony and the fact that her own husband did not wish her to give evidence.

Only for two reasons, I can think of.
One, he feared for her safety, and suspicious phone calls and a suspect prowler reported may be the reason for his caution.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337939/

The possibility it was all a figment of her imagination was raised by WC investigators.

Two, he didn't believe her. Perhaps he was a control-freak?

I suspect that Wilma could have been genuinely mistaken and was not lying. Or she was a woman with mental health problems. Hence I asked about this barricade incident. Which may have been this incident
https://archive.org/details/nsia-TiceWilma/nsia-TiceWilma/Tice%20Wilma%2004

It seems that Tice contacted Eileen Kaminski, Ruby's other sister, concerned about both sisters well-being as Ruby stood trial. Tice was not the one who reported to the police believing that they already knew Ruby was present at Parklands.

I asked for clarification. You seem to believe such a request is unreasonable.

But let us accept that Ruby was indeed at Parklands and run with that.

Other than Kantor and Tice, Roy Stamps also said he saw Ruby carrying tv cables at Parklands.

I asked what does it matter if he was or not.

Perhaps indeed he was the Plan B I asked about previously.

If JFK survived Ruby was to ensure he didn't. How? Or as Kantor thought, to tamper with the evidence. Did he plant the bullet on the stretcher? Was he sighted near that location? It isn't stated but why draw attention to your presence by approaching Kantor if that was the purpose? How did "they" have prior knowledge that the pristine bullet was required to be found and managed to arrange it all in advance, supplying Ruby with it to plant? Who knows?

If the WC lied about Ruby being at Parklands, the HSCA thought different.
"While the Warren Commission concluded that Kantor was mistaken, the Committee determined he probably was not."

So how important does the HSCA rate the incident in understanding who killed JFK?

Tice quoted Ruby saying he would donate his kidney to Gov. Connally.
https://archive.org/details/nsia-TiceWilma/nsia-TiceWilma/Tice%20Wilma%2002/page/n1/mode/2up

Does it exonerate LHO? Does it involve him in a conspiracy?

I have dutifully followed up your post, BH. Are you ready now to answer my questions?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 20:41:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>BH - giving a credible reason why they weren't lies.

Ah, this will be good. Amusing that you didn't *start* with my post,
so let's put that back in, so that lurkers can see how well you dealt
with the facts I posted:

>As it was yourself who brought her into the discussion, I assumed that you had done more than use the WC as a source.
>But you refuse to share your extra knowledge.
>
>I was obliged to conduct my own enquiry

Logical fallaicies such as these will be deleted in the future. You
will see a "LFD" - 'Logical fallacy deleted. I never feel the need to
respond to logical fallacies, so in this post, I'll merely point them
out.

>Where Tice spotted Ruby
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0347b.htm
>
>I can only go by the WC testimony and the fact that her own husband did not wish her to give evidence.

The *WARREN COMMISSION* didn't want her to give testimony... no-one
who's honest can read her testimony and not see this. But this has
*NOTHING* to do with the lie I pointed out, so it's a logical fallacy.

>Only for two reasons, I can think of.
>One, he feared for her safety, and suspicious phone calls and a suspect prowler reported may be the reason for his caution.
>https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337939/

There was quite a bit of eyewitness intimidation. It's unfortunate
that there aren't any believers who will publicly acknowledge it.

Again, simply a logical fallacy that won't get responses in the
future.

>The possibility it was all a figment of her imagination was raised by WC investigators.

Speculation isn't evidence. You've given *NO* evidence that would
support this, nor does it address the issue.

This doesn't address the lie the WC told *AT ALL*.

>Two, he didn't believe her. Perhaps he was a control-freak?
>
>I suspect that Wilma could have been genuinely mistaken and was not lying. Or she was a woman with mental health problems. Hence I asked about this barricade incident. Which may have been this incident
>https://archive.org/details/nsia-TiceWilma/nsia-TiceWilma/Tice%20Wilma%2004
>
>It seems that Tice contacted Eileen Kaminski, Ruby's other sister, concerned about both sisters well-being as Ruby stood trial. Tice was not the one who reported to the police believing that they already knew Ruby was present at Parklands.

None of the above has addressed the lies told by the WCR... no wonder
you deleted what you were allegedly responding to.

When all you have are logical fallacies, you lose.

> I asked for clarification. You seem to believe such a request is unreasonable.

Another logical fallacy.

>But let us accept that Ruby was indeed at Parklands and run with that.

No, let's examine the evidence, AND SEE IF THE WARREN COMMISSION TOLD
THE TRUTH.

>Other than Kantor and Tice, Roy Stamps also said he saw Ruby carrying tv cables at Parklands.
>
>I asked what does it matter if he was or not.
>
>Perhaps indeed he was the Plan B I asked about previously.
>
> If JFK survived Ruby was to ensure he didn't. How? Or as Kantor
> thought, to tamper with the evidence. Did he plant the bullet on the
> stretcher? Was he sighted near that location? It isn't stated but why
> draw attention to your presence by approaching Kantor if that was the
> purpose? How did "they" have prior knowledge that the pristine bullet
> was required to be found and managed to arrange it all in advance,
> supplying Ruby with it to plant? Who knows?

None of these logical fallacies addresses the lies told by the WC
about Tice's testimony.

You've make a huge mistake if you think I support the "planting"
nonsense.

>If the WC lied about Ruby being at Parklands, the HSCA thought different.
>"While the Warren Commission concluded that Kantor was mistaken, the Committee determined he probably was not."

Again, this has nothing to do with the lies told by the WC.

> So how important does the HSCA rate the incident in understanding who killed JFK?

Another logical fallacy.

> Tice quoted Ruby saying he would donate his kidney to Gov. Connally.
>https://archive.org/details/nsia-TiceWilma/nsia-TiceWilma/Tice%20Wilma%2002/page/n1/mode/2up
>
>Does it exonerate LHO? Does it involve him in a conspiracy?
>
>I have dutifully followed up your post, BH. Are you ready now to answer my questions?

Here's the relevant points from my post:

The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby -
attempting to state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony
shows that Ruby was just 3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs.
Tice. The WC *cited* her testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware
that their own evidence contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the
WC would argue that Mrs. Tice had never seen Jack Ruby before... they
didn't appear to be embarrassed that Brennan had never seen Oswald
before...

You didn't address THE ONE SINGLE ASSERTION I MADE!

The WC provably lied, AND YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT LIE *AT ALL*.

After evading the point I made, you now think you are owed any
answers to your questions?

How silly!

What part of Mrs. Tice's testimony, OR ANY OTHER TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE
WHATSOEVER - allowed the WC to say that her view was obstructed?

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I RAISE, WITHOUT DELETING THEM - IF YOU THINK YOU
ARE OWED ANSWERS FROM ME.

I can answer ANY evidential question on the JFK case, and have proved
that a number of times before. But the answers *I* sought were not
then forthcoming.

So my policy is a simple one - *YOU* prove you can answer questions
first, then I'll answer yours.

And as any honest person reading this post can see - you failed.

[Alan Johnstone]

So you proved the WC lied about Tice, misrepresenting her statements, which corroborated the claims of Kantor.

Now is the time to answer my questions. And drop all that the faux-philosophical LDF nonsense.

Why did her husband oppose her offering evidence and engage in a pre-testimony private discussion with the investigator, something that need not have been referred to publicly but Griffen did make known?

If you don't know, simply say so.

The Dallas police investigated Wilma Tice's claims of intimidation and reported them to the WC investigation. It is on record and therefore acknowledged

But address the crucial element.

The HSCA accepted the testimony of Kantor that Ruby was at the hospital. How did that affect their conclusions?

Kantor says "Now, however, after reading this book, Burt W. Griffin, the Warren Commission attorney who developed these conclusions about Jack Ruby for the Warren Report, has changed his mind about Ruby not appearing at Parkland soon after the President had been brought there. Griffin, who since has become a judge in Ohio, now says "the greater weight of the evidence" indicates I did see Ruby at Parkland."

Now tell me what YOU believe to be the relevance is of Ruby being at Parklands in regard to the assassination? Otherwise, it is merely a little bit of trivia where the WC erred.

If it was not as some assert to plant the "magic" bullet, which you say you do not ascribe to, what was Ruby's reason other than curiosity to be at Parklands?

Why did Ruby have the need to lie about his presence, although he went out of his way to address an acquaintance and understood he just made a provable lie?

Don't you hold any theory on those matters?

[Bud]

He looks at the wrong things, and then looks at those wrong things incorrectly.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 13:25:09 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>So you proved the WC lied about Tice, misrepresenting her statements, which corroborated the claims of Kantor.
>
>Now is the time to answer my questions.

You tell me what I already know... that I proved the WC lied by
quoting the testimony, and showing that what they said wasn't
supported by that testimony.

I already *KNOW* I did that.

I asked **YOU** to answer questions before I answer yours...

You provably RAN AND EVADED what I posted, and now you think you
deserve answers????

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Alan Johnstone]

BH you are what is commonly referred to in the UK as a tosser.

It is yourself who is the coward, refusing to raise your head above the ramparts to answer the questions put to you, even if it is a speculative reply.

Bud, JC, you were correct. This is not a forum for someone like myself, an honest debater who concedes that some questions about LHO and JFK remain unanswered.

I see only one purpose for this discussion list, and it is to stroke the ego of narcissists who seem to believe they are the oracles of wisdom when it comes to the JFK assassination. It has no other function, other than an amusing diversion, and that I am afraid is very short-lived.

I bid you adieu.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 14:58:29 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>BH ...

I hope you realize that you're very close to the killfile.

You refuse to answer questions.

You often don't quote what you're responding to...

You're clearly a coward & evidently narcissistic.

And most seriously, you're terrified of the evidence in this case.

You need to find a censored forum.

[Bud]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:
> BH you are what is commonly referred to in the UK as a tosser.
>
> It is yourself who is the coward, refusing to raise your head above the ramparts to answer the questions put to you, even if it is a speculative reply.
>
> Bud, JC, you were correct. This is not a forum for someone like myself, an honest debater who concedes that some questions about LHO and JFK remain unanswered.

Not your fault, you just naively thought that in a forum devoted to a topic you might actually discuss ideas about that topic. That is why I advised you to read a few posts to get an idea of what passes for discussion on the assassination around here to acquaint yourself.

I hope you pop on occasion to put your two cents into any OT topics that might be active. Blowhard Benny doesn`t up the noise level in those very often.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:

Don’t go on Ben’s account. He lives to drive people off with his drivel. Just ignore his posts. We could use more adults in the room.

[Ben Holmes]

Actually, what we need are honest people who can defend their faith in
the WCR.

Adults need not run, adults need not lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:58:15 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

>> As I provably just did.
>>> But Ben won`t explain why the WC would need to lie about her, what
>>> is their motivation.
>> No need for me to speculate on motivations...

LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 03:16:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 6:54:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:48:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
>> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>BH - "And like Bruce, you seem unwilling to deal with the real questions in this case."
>>>
>>> In any crime, particularly murder, the state of mind of the alleged
>>> perpetuator is crucial piece of evidence, albeit circumstantial.
>> Alleged is correct. Why don't you work on that?
>
> Conspiracy is alleged. Why don`t you work on that?

Been there, done that. You ran.

>>> Any investigation would center on the mental condition of the
>>> alleged perpetuator. If that is not a real question albeit speculate
>>> about , i don't know what is. We saw it with the recent trials of
>>> Rittenhouse and the McMichael's, how important such issues are.
>>
>> I dispute that "mental condition" is what any investigation "centers"
>> on.

LFD.

>> That's just silly.
>>
>> If you presume what you need to prove, you aren't going to convince
>> anyone.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:18:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 10:57:23 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 07:44:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
>> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Watch folks, as Alan absolutely REFUSES to cite this alleged "physical
>>>> evidence."
>>>
>>>There is a well known saying - Don't teach your granny to suck eggs.
>> Logical fallacy.
>>> There are others on this forum that can cite the physical evidence\
>>> very much better than I can...
>>
>>
>> So you agree that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite for your claims.

LFD.

>> You're not unique, most believers refuse to cite for their claims.

LFD.

>>> and there are many here who know of that
>>> physical evidence but deny its validity.
>>
>> This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

LFD.

>>> My present interest is not in convincing people
>>
>> That's good. Because without facts, you have virtually no chance.
>>
>>> to change their
>>> minds but to explore the psyche of LHO which is something that all can
>>> participate in, whether they think he did it alone, totally innocent
>>> set up to be the fall guy or complicit in a conspiracy with unknown
>>> others.
>>
>> Nah... that's simply begging the question. If he was simply a patsy,
>> then ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about his character, thoughts, motives, and so
>> forth is relevant to anything at all.

LFD.

>> And most of what you're speaking of is sheer speculation.
>>
>> Speculation is, of course, favored among believers...

LFD.

Notice folks, that Chickenshit was COMPLETELY unable to refute
anything I stated here... all he had were logical fallacies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:53:29 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:02:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 23:17:39 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
>>>> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Like Bruce, i have a simple question for the forum
>>>>>
>>>>>Was LHO's marriage to Marina breaking up?

>>>>
>>>> And like Bruce, you seem unwilling to deal with the real questions in
>>>> this case.
>>>>

>>>> Time will tell.
>>>
>>> No "real question" was posed to me, Ben. The only thing you asked
>>> was whether I'd be willing to answer the same kinds of questions I ask
>>> CTs. If you've got something more substantive, feel free to ask it.
>> Real questions are posed almost daily... let's try something simple:
>>
>> "One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to
>> work, but he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands
>> as he entered the door." (WCR 133)
>>
>> Let's examine the actual testimony to see if the Warren Commission
>> accurately rendered it:

LFD.

>> Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
>> Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
>> ...
>> Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
>> Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you
>> would remember whether he did or didn't?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this
>> way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
>> Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
>> Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
>> his hands?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
>> Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
>>
>> If you believed the Warren Commission, you'd think that Dougherty just
>> "believed" he'd seen Oswald coming to work, when Dougherty wasn't
>> unsure at all. He was quite definite on that point, and the Warren
>> Commission simply lied.
>>
>> If you believed the Warren Commission, you'd think that Dougherty
>> simply didn't remember if Oswald had anything in his hands, yet the
>> testimony shows that he was quite positive on that fact...
>>
>> Now the question is a simple one... given the evidence above ... or
>> ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT YOU CAN CITE - did the WCR tell a lie, or
>> tell the truth?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 7:26:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:53:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> You are wasting your time trying to engage Ben on ideas. He hasn`t
>>> the ability or the interest. His interest is in playing crooked games
>>> from which he claims meaningless points in his favor.
>>
>> Tell us Huckster, what part of Chickenshit's screed is *NOT* a logical
>> fallacy?
>
> I was just letting the new guy know what he is dealing with.

Isn't it amazing how each new believer takes no time at all to
demonstrate that they too, are liars and cowards?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:36:37 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:59:34 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 6:39:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:32:45 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
>>>> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>BH, it has not taken me very long to discover that you are a pretentious prat.
>>>> Although you aren't responding to any of my posts, I'll presume, based
>>>> on your beliefs and cowardice, that you're referring to me.
>>>>
>>>>> Others here who I vehemently disagreed with will vouch I always
>>>>> endeavoured to remain civil in my exchanges with them. It has not
>>>>> taken you very long to undo that approach. It is quite an achievement.
>>>>> Not an admirable one but an achievement nevertheless.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry moron - no-one believes such hogwash.
>>>
>>>Want to put it to a poll?
>> Sure, why not?
>>
>> But I've already won. The majority of America sides with me on the
>> issues.

LFD.

>>>>> When I try to engage those who have deep disagreements in a process
>>>>> where they can share their respective knowledge in a joint thought
>>>>> experiment without conceding their individual positions, being such a
>>>>> contrarian, you can perceive no benefit from such a search for
>>>>> answers.
>>>>
>>>> Who are you trying to fool?
>>>>
>>>> Why the cowardice?
>>>>
>>>> The rest of your pretentious nonsense deleted...

[David Healy]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 3:53:25 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 6:32:46 PM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:
> > BH, it has not taken me very long to discover that you are a pretentious prat.
> >

> > Others here who I vehemently disagreed with will vouch I always endeavoured to remain civil in my exchanges with them. It has not taken you very long to undo that approach. It is quite an achievement. Not an admirable one but an achievement nevertheless.
> >

> > When I try to engage those who have deep disagreements in a process where they can share their respective knowledge in a joint thought experiment without conceding their individual positions, being such a contrarian, you can perceive no benefit from such a search for answers.
> >

> > There is an apt quote from Herbert Spencer you should acquaint yourself with
> >
> > "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
> >
> > But you have raised one question that has to be investigated.
> >
> > Why did LHO describe himself as being a patsy? What were his reasons for doing so? Was his level of self-worth so low that he felt he could be so easily duped by others and set-up? I find it hard to believe someone with such a very high opinion of himself would actually believe he was tricked. But it is a possible interpretation. As Mark Twain said "it is easier to fool the people than to convince them that they have been fooled"
> >
> > Was he perhaps being paranoid and expressing a persecution complex, believing he was being victimized for past actions such as defecting or marrying a Russian. In the lingering McCarthyite Red Scare a few would describe him as a collaborator and fraternalizing with the enemy.
> >
> > So when he said he was a patsy. Did he mean he was gullible by being set up? Or was LHO suffering from a delusion that he was being purposefully treated unfairly?
> >
> > If he wanted to be the centre of attention, why the diversion away from himself?
> >
> > Jack Ruby's behavior and personality also bring more questions than answers.
> >
> > I may be a Marxian materialist but that does not mean I dismiss the influence of an individual's action in determining the twists and turns of history even if it does not affect the eventual destination.

> You are wasting your time trying to engage Ben on ideas. He hasn`t the ability or the interest. His interest is in playing crooked games from which he claims meaningless points in his favor.

and you suffer from that age-old, chronic disease: "lookin' at things the wrong way."

So, never fret again, .john has settled into his new digs... (pardon the pun)

[Bud]

You are even worthless as a lapdog, you let two months go by before you come to your master`s defense? Pitiful, put down the new crackpipe Joe Biden supplied you with and do your job, or Ben will replace you with, well, I guess you are safe, nobody else would willingly be the little guy`s fanboy.

> So, never fret again, .john has settled into his new digs... (pardon the pun)

Any last words before fentanyl takes you?