Two Oswalds...

[Ben Holmes]

On 8 Nov 2011 12:09:27 -0500, Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:

>On Nov 5, 6:51 pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> Extra Oswalds are very extensive, and so one must live with that. There is
>> no place for identified people to be at the same place when one is at
>> another place, documented very well.
>
>Unfortunately, you won't be able to document the two Oswalds in two
>places at the same time.


This is, of course, precisely what the WC did when they eliminated Lee
Harvey Oswald from being at the firing range.

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster... proven ignorant on the evidence again... (and once again,
caught telling whoppers.)

[19e...@mail.com]

Another documented case of two Oswalds at once is on the morning of November 20, 1963, if we accept as "documentation" that Oswald was at work as he was supposed to be, by 8 AM. At 10AM, he was at the Dobbs House cafe across the street from 1026 Beckley Avenue. And at 10:30 he was getting a ride from Ralph Yates. One could argue that he is not documented as being at the TSBD at these times, but we seem to have a blanket assertion that he was always at the TSBD when he was supposed to be there. And it is important to the Nutters that Oswald not be roaming about at will when he supposed to be at work, so I don't see how the Nutters can argue.

Also, one should consider the possible purpose of two Oswalds. One might be, as is commonly said, that an Imposter is setting up the real LHO. But another possibility is that the two are working together and that it is the job of one to provide an alibi for the other. In the second case, one would not expect to find much documentation since an alibi would not be needed unless he was spotted doing something nefarious somewhere. Since LHO was never so spotted, no alibi was needed, so we wouldn't know about such instances. Perhaps the imposter was at the public library when General Walker was being shot at by LHO. In that event, If an alibi had been needed, it would have been provided by the librarian.

Also, while LHO was supposedly in the Soviet Union, we have documentation of him being at Bolton Ford in Louisiana. There is also documentation of h
LHO being at an airport inquiring about anti-Castro pilots, while he was supposed to be in the Soviet Union. But nothing short of DNA matches would satisfy the psychotic Nutters' demand for "documentation," so there is not point in discussing the matter with them. Everybody who contradicts their wacky theory is simply "mistaken."

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 2:09:49 PM UTC-5, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
> > <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On 8 Nov 2011 12:09:27 -0500, Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Nov 5, 6:51 pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >...
> > >>> Extra Oswalds are very extensive, and so one must live with that. There is
> > >>> no place for identified people to be at the same place when one is at
> > >>> another place, documented very well.
> > >>
> > >>Unfortunately, you won't be able to document the two Oswalds in two
> > >>places at the same time.
> > >
> > >
> > >This is, of course, precisely what the WC did when they eliminated Lee
> > >Harvey Oswald from being at the firing range.
> > Huckster... proven ignorant on the evidence again... (and once again,
> > caught telling whoppers.)
> Another documented case of two Oswalds at once is on the morning of November 20, 1963, if we accept as "documentation" that Oswald was at work as he was supposed to be, by 8 AM. At 10AM, he was at the Dobbs House cafe across the street from 1026 Beckley Avenue.

No, that's not correct. A waitress there *reported* after the assassination that Oswald was there, but this is a common occurrence in high profile cases. People come forward who are either honestly mistaken or trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by interjecting themselves into the case. Witness all the places Elvis Presley was reportedly seen after his death. Now, either Elvis rose from the dead, or the people who reported seeing him were simply mistaken. Which do you suppose is more likely?

Ditto with Oswald. What was the point of having the real Oswald at the TSBD and an impostor Oswald (who didn't identify himself as Oswald -- the waitress simply said it looked like Oswald) having a brunch at a restaurant? How does this help frame Oswald for the assassination?

> And at 10:30 he was getting a ride from Ralph Yates.

He was *reported* getting a ride from one Ralph Yates. That's a story Yates told.

His story matches in many respects the known facts as reported by Wes Frazier, Oswald's co-worker - Frazier gave Oswald a ride to the Depository on the morning of 11/22/63, the day of the assassination. Oswald had a long package wrapped in paper with him that morning that was seen by Frazier and his sister. Oswald told Frazier the package contains curtain rods.

All that was established the day of the assassination. Yates enters the story almost a week later, after telling a very similar tale - he picked up a hitchhiker, who he later claimed was Oswald, and Yates says this guy has a package he claims contained curtain rods, and he takes him to the street corner where the Depository was.

Asked to take a lie-detector test, Yates failed to respond to control questions and relevant questions.
https://ratical.com/ratville//JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html#RLY
“Results of test were inconclusive as Yates responded to neither relevant or control type questions.”[774]

But a problem is that Yates throws a lot of other stuff into the supposed encounter with his hitch-hiker.
https://ratical.com/ratville//JFK/Unspeakable/Nov63-22.jpg

He has the guy mentioning the Carousel Club; Jack Ruby; assassinating the President using a rifle out of a window with a scope... essentially this random guy Yates just gave a ride to a few days before the assassination, is revealing the whole plot.

Believable? Not to me.

> One could argue that he is not documented as being at the TSBD at these times, but we seem to have a blanket assertion that he was always at the TSBD when he was supposed to be there. And it is important to the Nutters that Oswald not be roaming about at will when he supposed to be at work, so I don't see how the Nutters can argue.

Argue with what? That Elvis really is dead?

>
> Also, one should consider the possible purpose of two Oswalds. One might be, as is commonly said, that an Imposter is setting up the real LHO. But another possibility is that the two are working together and that it is the job of one to provide an alibi for the other.

How does the Dobbs House encounter further either aspect? Oswald snuck out to have a brunch? So what? How does that further a setup of Oswald for the assassination, or provide Oswald with an alibi for the assassination?

Ditto with the supposed Yates ride. While "Oswald" is said by Yates to be in possession of curtain rods, curtain rods don't frame Oswald for the assassination. We're supposed to assume it was really a rifle and the hitch-hiker was lying, I guess. But the problem there is the rifle was seen at the Paine's home by Marina and stored there. And the hitch-hiker encounter supposedly happened on Wednesday, 11/20/63, per Yates. And Oswald hadn't been to the Paine home yet to retrieve the rifle. He only went to the Paine home on Thursday, 11/21/63 and left on the morning of the 22nd with the long package.

So the Yates story clearly doesn't fit whatsoever. Oswald owned one rifle, and it was recovered from the Depository after the assassination. A paper trail and photographs and his fingerprints link him to that specific rifle.

So how does the Yates story help setup Oswald, or provide him an alibi? Can you explain how this furthers a conspiracy?

> In the second case, one would not expect to find much documentation since an alibi would not be needed unless he was spotted doing something nefarious somewhere. Since LHO was never so spotted, no alibi was needed, so we wouldn't know about such instances. Perhaps the imposter was at the public library when General Walker was being shot at by LHO. In that event, If an alibi had been needed, it would have been provided by the librarian.

Or perhaps there was no impostor at the public library.

>
> Also, while LHO was supposedly in the Soviet Union, we have documentation of him being at Bolton Ford in Louisiana.

No, we don't. We have a sheet of paper with the name "Oswald" on it from the day of JFK's inaurguration. There were other Oswalds in Louisiana - not all of them relatives of LHO. That name appearing on that Bolton Ford document doesn't point to Lee Harvey Oswald whatsoever. It's been an assumption by conspiracy theorists that it does for five decades.

> There is also documentation of h
> LHO being at an airport inquiring about anti-Castro pilots, while he was supposed to be in the Soviet Union. But nothing short of DNA matches would satisfy the psychotic Nutters' demand for "documentation," so there is not point in discussing the matter with them.

Or lying. Again, did all those people who reported seeing Elvis all see the risen King, or did they simply make a mistake? And could some of them come forward with the claim just to get their name in the paper? Of course they could. But of course, if the witness reported seeing "Oswald", not "Elvis", then they are all presumed to be honest and not mistaken by conspiracy theorists. Witnesses never make a mistake concerning the Kennedy assassination when it concerns anything that might point to a conspiracy.

Calling us "psychotic Nutters' doesn't make it so.

> Everybody who contradicts their wacky theory is simply "mistaken."

Calling it wacky doesn't make it so. The claim that Oswald shot President Kennedy is supported by the evidence.
At least we can advance a coherent argument supported by evidence. All you have are a disjointed jumble of little hearsay vignettes and assumptions that you see as part of some murky bigger picture you cannot yet clearly see or explain. You think this random crumbs and dust bunnies are part of a bigger jigsaw puzzle but you never consider that the puzzle box was dropped and its contents spilled out, and in sweeping them up, the crumbs and dust bunnies got included with the legitimate puzzle pieces.

Hank

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 5:38:38 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:
[...]

did all those people who reported seeing Elvis all see the risen King, or did they simply make a mistake? And could some of them come forward with the claim just to get their name in the paper? Of course they could. But of course, if the witness reported seeing "Oswald", not "Elvis", then they are all presumed to be honest and not mistaken by conspiracy theorists. Witnesses never make a mistake concerning the Kennedy assassination when it concerns anything that might point to a conspiracy.
>
> Calling us "psychotic Nutters' doesn't make it so.
> > Everybody who contradicts their wacky theory is simply "mistaken."
> Calling it wacky doesn't make it so. The claim that Oswald shot President Kennedy is supported by the evidence.
> At least we can advance a coherent argument supported by evidence. All you have are a disjointed jumble of little hearsay vignettes and assumptions that you see as part of some murky bigger picture you cannot yet clearly see or explain. You think this random crumbs and dust bunnies are part of a bigger jigsaw puzzle but you never consider that the puzzle box was dropped and its contents spilled out, and in sweeping them up, the crumbs and dust bunnies got included with the legitimate puzzle pieces.

cohertent argument? Get real nutter. You can't even hypothesize as to WHY JFH was murdered. Ya don't ambush unless you want death and/or mayhem. Was it fair to take down JFK by shooting him in the back, or, should the assassins of just waited for the next election cycle...? What was the rush. Come on sherlock, you've been called out here before, what is your scenario... Why Kennedy, then deal with Oswald.

> Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 9:18:26 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 5:38:38 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> [...]
> did all those people who reported seeing Elvis all see the risen King, or did they simply make a mistake? And could some of them come forward with the claim just to get their name in the paper? Of course they could. But of course, if the witness reported seeing "Oswald", not "Elvis", then they are all presumed to be honest and not mistaken by conspiracy theorists. Witnesses never make a mistake concerning the Kennedy assassination when it concerns anything that might point to a conspiracy.
> >
> > Calling us "psychotic Nutters' doesn't make it so.
> > > Everybody who contradicts their wacky theory is simply "mistaken."
> > Calling it wacky doesn't make it so. The claim that Oswald shot President Kennedy is supported by the evidence.
> > At least we can advance a coherent argument supported by evidence. All you have are a disjointed jumble of little hearsay vignettes and assumptions that you see as part of some murky bigger picture you cannot yet clearly see or explain. You think this random crumbs and dust bunnies are part of a bigger jigsaw puzzle but you never consider that the puzzle box was dropped and its contents spilled out, and in sweeping them up, the crumbs and dust bunnies got included with the legitimate puzzle pieces.
> cohertent argument? Get real nutter. You can't even hypothesize as to WHY JFH was murdered.

No, it's not a cohertent argument. But it is a coherent one.
And you're right, I don't know why JFH was murdered. In fact, I don't even know who JFH was, or if he was murdered.

> a don't ambush unless you want death and/or mayhem. Was it fair to take down JFK by shooting him in the back, or, should the assassins of just waited for the next election cycle...?

You're so wedded to your conspiracy theory I'll wager you don't even see the logical fallacy of a begged question in the question you asked.

> What was the rush. Come on sherlock, you've been called out here before, what is your scenario... Why Kennedy, then deal with Oswald.

That's funny, when I used the "Sherlock" line on Ben, he claimed initially I didn't know his first name, then he dropped it for a year. Then he started claiming I'd mislabelled him, so he used it as a excuse to start calling me "Huckster".

Can't deal with one (Kennedy's assassination) without the other (Oswald).

JFK was a target of opportunity. Oswald had already shown a predisposition to kill a political target he disagreed with when he made his assassination attempt on General Walker seven months earlier.

How many other opportunities in his life do you think Oswald imagined he might get to shoot and kill a President that came right past his place of employment? So Oswald wrestled with that for a few sleepless nights, no doubt. He was conflicted. He didn't want to die, which would be the certain outcome if he went ahead with the assassination attempt. But he didn't want to be unhappy and live apart from his wife and children either.

He went to the Paine household on Thursday night to try to patch things up with Marina. He begged and pleaded with her to come home with him, he promised that he would be a better husband. He even promised to buy her a new washing machine so she didn't have to wash June's diapers by hand. His wife's response was, "No thanks, buy something nice for yourself".

The next morning, he left the Paine residence with a long package wrapped in paper, and his rifle was determined to be missing from its usual hiding place inside the blanket inside the Paine garage after the assassination. His rifle was found shortly after the assassination on the sixth floor of the Depository, where numerous witnesses outside the building saw a rifle or an assassin with a rifle.

Now you. Your scenario?

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 17:38:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 2:09:49 PM UTC-5, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
>>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 8 Nov 2011 12:09:27 -0500, Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 5, 6:51 pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>>> Extra Oswalds are very extensive, and so one must live with that. There is
>>>>>> no place for identified people to be at the same place when one is at
>>>>>> another place, documented very well.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately, you won't be able to document the two Oswalds in two
>>>>>places at the same time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is, of course, precisely what the WC did when they eliminated Lee
>>>>Harvey Oswald from being at the firing range.

Notice that Huckster RAN AWAY like a coward from the point I just
made...

>>> Huckster... proven ignorant on the evidence again... (and once again,
>>> caught telling whoppers.)
>>
>> Another documented case of two Oswalds at once is on the morning
>> of November 20, 1963, if we accept as "documentation" that Oswald was
>> at work as he was supposed to be, by 8 AM. At 10AM, he was at the
>> Dobbs House cafe across the street from 1026 Beckley Avenue.
>
>No, that's not correct.

Unless you can deal with the first example, why are you bothering with
the second?

You're a coward, Huckster...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 07:35:20 -0800, Ben Holmes

And, surprising no-one who pays attention, Huckster PROVABLY read
this, and refused to answer.

Cowardice is quite common among believers, indeed I've not ever found
a knowledgeable believer who was also not a coward.