Which lie of Oswald's are we supposed to believe?
Steve
couldn't keep his lies straight could he. When first asked where he
was at the time of the assassination he told DPD that he was in the
first floor lunchroom eating his lunch with two colored boys, one he
thought was named "Junior" [Jarmen]. But later, only moments before
Ruby shot him he told Postal Inspector Holmes that at the time of the
assassination he was on one of the UPPER floors and that he only came
down after the assassination to see what all the commotion was about.
All right you bunch of dummies. Which time was the "innocent saint"
Oswald lying? Clearly he was either lying the first time or he was
lying the second time. Any explanations you Oswald lovers care to
offer? Wouldn't an innocent Oswald be able to remember where he was
at the time of the assassination? Also please keep in mind that NO
TSBD places Oswald in the first floor lunchroom at the time of the
assassination.
Good luck girls.
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald couldn't keep his lies straight. .... When first asked where he was at the time of the assassination, he told DPD that he was in the first-floor lunchroom eating his lunch with two colored boys. .... But later, only moments before Ruby shot him, he told Postal Inspector Holmes that at the time of the assassination he was on one of the UPPER floors and that he only came down after the assassination to see what all the commotion was about. All right you bunch of dummies. Which time was the "innocent saint" Oswald lying? Clearly he was either lying the first time or he was lying the second time. .... Wouldn't an innocent Oswald be able to remember where he was at the time of the assassination?" <<<
Correct, Steve.
And those lies of Oswald's should make it infinitely more difficult
for Robert Groden to pull the wool over anybody's eyes in his
(supposedly) soon-to-be-released book, "JFK: ABSOLUTE PROOF", wherein
Groden apparently has unearthed a witness (probably Geneva Hine)
claiming to have been with Lee Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR of the
Depository at the exact time of the assassination (even though she
conveniently forgot to tell the Warren Commission that fact in 1964).
But if Oswald had really been right beside Geneva Hine on the second
floor, then why on Earth didn't Oswald USE THAT AS HIS ALIBI AFTER HIS
ARREST?
Do you think Bob Groden will ask the above question in his new book?
Or will he attempt to smear the Dallas police (as conspiracy theorists
usually do when the facts get in the way of their Anybody-But-Oswald
fantasies)?
It's not too difficult to figure out what Groden will do. He'll smear
the Dallas Police Department. He's got to smear them. Otherwise, Bob
Groden has no choice but to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the
dumbest human being since the dawn of time (in addition to being the
proverbial patsy for two murders committed in Dallas on 11/22/63).
In summary -- Lee Harvey Oswald was a LYING MACHINE from Nov. 22nd to
24th, 1963:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
Gil Jesus
You got any of what he said on tape ?
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gil. Do you have the Gettysburg Address on tape? How then do YOU
know Lincoln gave that address and not someone else?
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
By the way dummy. IF the DPD were going to falisify what Oswald said,
wouldn't they have simply said that he confessed to the murders? Your
challenges are lame, illogical, and groundless.
Chuck Schuyler
Yes, some of what he said is on tape, such as when he was being
shuttled around the police station with television camera crews trying
to squeeze what they could from him. Oswald famously lied that
"They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet
Union...I'm just a patsy!"
Of course, in the convenient world of a Kooktard, if LHO's
interrogations had been tape recorded, you guys would simply argue
that any tape with incriminating stuff was altered.
In the world of a Kooktard, it's always "heads we win, tails you
lose."
Walt
I'll make this simple for you..... since simpletons like simple
answers........ Just believe the Warren Report and wander on along
the path of ignorance.
Walt
> couldn't keep his lies straight could he.
There are many innocent people who have been convicted..... They tell
the truth over and over, but the DA want convictions on their records
so they "prove" to a jury that the person was lying.
Several of Henry Wade's "guilty convicts" have been freed from prison
because they were NOT guilty and they were telling the truth all
along.
You're pretty naive aren't you Steve?
When first asked where he
> was at the time of the assassination he told DPD that he was in the
> first floor lunchroom eating his lunch with two colored boys,
NOT TRUE.....Lee said he saw Junior Jarman and Shorty Norman WALK BY
the lunchroom while he was eating. ( Lee didn't know their names)
one he
> thought was named "Junior" [Jarmen]. But later, only moments before
> Ruby shot him he told Postal Inspector Holmes that at the time of the
> assassination he was on one of the UPPER floors and that he only came
> down after the assassination to see what all the commotion was about.
If you knew the FACTS....you'd know that Harry Holmes was a liar.
He's been exposed as a liar.....but you believe him.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
And your proof that Harry Holmes lied about Oswald's comments is WHAT
exactly, Walt? Let me get this straight. You BELIEVE Oswald who had
every motive to lie and you doubt Holmes who had no motive to lie.
You are an idiot, Walt.
JLeyd...@aol.com
All of them, Steve. The whole CT case falls apart if we don't.
JGL
Gil Jesus
> And your proof that Harry Holmes lied about Oswald's comments is WHAT
> exactly, Walt? �Let me get this straight. �You BELIEVE Oswald who had
> every motive to lie and you doubt Holmes who had no motive to lie.
>
> You are an idiot, Walt.-
No, YOU"RE the idiot, "Steve".
You're no teacher, that's for sure.
Holmes told the WC that Part 3 of the Post Office application, the
part that listed the names of people other than the applicant
( Oswald ) who were authorized to receive mail in that box, was
discarded when the box was closed in May, 1963 as per postal
regulations.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now is this regulation that says section 3 should be
torn off and thrown away, is that a general regulation of the Post
Office Department?
Mr. HOLMES. It is in the Post Office Manual Instructions to employees;
yes, sir.
( 7 H 527 )
But the regulations said no such thing. In fact the postal regulations
said that part 3 had to be retained for a period of TWO YEARS AFTER
THE BOX WAS CLOSED.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2jfhyrn.jpg
Making Holmes a liar.
Like I've said, this is what happens when you don't know the evidence
or testimony.
Steve
Gil you retard. YOU are the idiot. How does this establish the fact
that Holmes lied about Oswald's phony alibi. I asked Walt the moron
to prove that Holmes lied about Oswald's phony alibi and then you
chime in with a non-issue. This is what happens when you fall in love
with someone (Oswald in your case) it clouds your ability to descern
fact from fantasy.
Walt
Ok Steve....I'm an idiot...... But I'd rather be an "idiot" than a
Stupid naive sucker.....
Walt
Hey Steve .....Gill posted proof that Harry Holmes was a liar......
It's not irrelevant, it is a KEY issue. The authorities lied repeatly
and created false evidence, but you only focus on the lies that those
THOSE liars claimed Oswald told. You are a naive idiot....
This is what happens when you fall in love
> with someone (Oswald in your case) it clouds your ability to descern
> fact from fantasy.- Hide quoted text -
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt, please list the false evidence you claim the authorities
created. The fact that you doubt those in authority and believe every
word of Oswald is glaring evidence of who has been duped in this case
and who is really naieve. If you want me to list the lies Oswald told
just give me the green light and I will be happy to. I would LOVE to
hear you harmonize all of Oswald frantic fabrications in a desperate
attempt to dupe those around him. Of course he WAS successful in
duping YOU. That is the legacy of Oswald. He duped the gullible of
the world. (Walt)
Gil Jesus
> Hey Steve .....Gill posted proof that Harry Holmes was a liar......
> It's not irrelevant, it is a KEY issue. �The authorities lied repeatly
> and created false evidence, but you only focus on the lies that those
> THOSE liars claimed Oswald told. � �You are a naive idiot....
He asked for proof that Holmes was a liar and then when it was
offered, he declared it irrelevent ?
ROFLMAO
This guy is not a teacher. Teachers have answers, not questions.
Teachers know something about the subject matter. This guy has no
clue. Teachers use references, this guy uses none. Teachers don't
insult people, using terms like "nuts" and "idiots", while this guy
does.
Teachers have way more class than this ignoramus.
Funny how "Steve" has the same occupation as UIDOPTATKE ( education )
and location as Tara La Chat ( California ).
NOW WHAT'S THE ODDS OF THAT ?
ROFLMAO
tomnln
"Steve" <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:61d89c4f-b5d4-4ffe...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Tell us WHERE you heard that tape recording steve?
You're as Stupid as toad vaughan ! ! !
tomnln
On Dec 28, 7:07 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 9:23 pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > As with virtually ALL guilty person from the beginning of time, Oswald
> > couldn't keep his lies straight could he. When first asked where he
> > was at the time of the assassination he told DPD that he was in the
> > first floor lunchroom eating his lunch with two colored boys, one he
> > thought was named "Junior" [Jarmen]. But later, only moments before
> > Ruby shot him he told Postal Inspector Holmes that at the time of the
> > assassination he was on one of the UPPER floors and that he only came
> > down after the assassination to see what all the commotion was about.
>
> > All right you bunch of dummies. Which time was the "innocent saint"
> > Oswald lying? Clearly he was either lying the first time or he was
> > lying the second time. Any explanations you Oswald lovers care to
> > offer? Wouldn't an innocent Oswald be able to remember where he was
> > at the time of the assassination? Also please keep in mind that NO
> > TSBD places Oswald in the first floor lunchroom at the time of the
> > assassination.
>
> > Good luck girls.
>
> You got any of what he said on tape ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
steve wrote;
By the way dummy. IF the DPD were going to falisify what Oswald said,
wouldn't they have simply said that he confessed to the murders? Your
challenges are lame, illogical, and groundless.
I write;
steve has a habit of aligning herself with Proven LIARS/Criminals.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4ac7617a-f535-40e3...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Only a retard would reject simple explanations in favor of
impossibly complex constructs.
>Just believe the Warren Report and wander on along
> the path of ignorance.
We aren`t wandering, we are at the finish line. It was easy to
find, just follow the huge blinking signs.
Gil Jesus
> � Only a retard would reject simple explanations in favor of
> impossibly complex constructs.
Which explains why you're simple, fatman.
Gil Jesus
> >
> By the way dummy. �IF the DPD were going to falisify what Oswald said,
> wouldn't they have simply said that he confessed to the murders? �Your
How could they say he confessed when at every chance he was
proclaiming his INNOCENCE to the press ?
Idiot.
Steve
Oooo...Gill is closing in on my true identity. His Sherlock Holmes
skills are shining through. He has narrowed it down to either someone
in New York or someone in California. And he has narrowed down my
occupation to the unusual occupation of teacher. Incidentally Gil you
dumbass, the photograph you posted a couple of weeks ago that you
posted as being me is hilarious. You are such an idiot, you think
every photograph someone posts on a site is reall of them. If you
had done five minutes of investigation you could have found that
photograph on one of the largest mugshot sites on the Internet, but
you didn't pull your head out of your ass long enough to do any actual
research. I haven't used that photograph for about five years and
when I DID post it everyone of my friends laughed their heads off
since they (unlike you) got the joke. I never dreamed in a million
years that anyone would be stupid enough as to believe that an old
mugshot of some drunk was actually me. I'm not even the race of that
person in the photograph.
Remember last summer when I posted from California, Arizona, Utah,
Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas? You don't have the
foggiest clue who I am or where I live. You don't even know what my
name is. But I must admit you are getting closer. Now all you have
to do is narrow down which person in either California or New York I
am and you will have solved the mystery.
Everyone is laughing at you just like in high school. I've taught 500
students just like you through the years. They are the socially
retarded student that never quite feel accepted by their peers and
then when they get out of school they spend the rest of their lives
trying to get people to take them seriously, but they are never quite
successful. Even at your age your peers are still laughing at you.
Poor Gil. Still the perennial loser.
Richard
> As with virtually ALL guilty person from the beginning of time, Oswald
> couldn't keep his lies straight could he.
Evidently you live in a world where a lie about ANYTHING proves guilt of
EVERYTHING.
Question: Have YOU ever told a lie? Yes? And what does that prove you are
guilty of?
P.S. Notwithstanding Oswald's clear innocence, he had plenty of reason to
lie about many things. He was working in several undercover capacities and
hadn't been able to contact any of his case officers for clarification
and/or orders. And most of all, he didn't realize how horrifically he had
been betrayed. Examples: He was trying to protect Ruth Paine even as she was
burying him. He had no way of knowing that he was being impersonated ever
since the summer both in Dallas and Mexico City.) If he had, I imagine he'd
have been shouting to the rooftops.
Gil Jesus
> On Dec 28, 7:07�pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You got any of what he said on tape ?- >
> Gil. �Do you have the Gettysburg Address on tape? �How then do YOU
> know Lincoln gave that address and not someone else?-
The Gettysberg Address is historical and documented.
You got what Oswald said transcribed ?
"My comments about ear-eyewitness testimony is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN
that ear and eyewitness testimony is only believed when it is backed
up with forensic evidence. That has been my position for as long as I
have been contributing to this forum."
----- "Steve" 12/28/09
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc6e20969b9b09c7
So far, you're contention that Oswald lied is based on eyewitness
testimony, i.e. what they said he said..
Now back it up with your "forensic" or physical evidence, nutcase.
Walt
> "Steve" <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:61d89c4f-b5d4-4ffe...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > As with virtually ALL guilty person from the beginning of time, Oswald
> > couldn't keep his lies straight could he.
>
> Evidently you live in a world where a lie about ANYTHING proves guilt of
> EVERYTHING.
> Question: Have YOU ever told a lie? Yes? And what does that prove you are
> guilty of?
>
> P.S. Notwithstanding Oswald's clear innocence, he had plenty of reason to
> lie about many things. He was working in several undercover capacities and
> hadn't been able to contact any of his case officers for clarification
> and/or orders. And most of all, he didn't realize how horrifically he had
> been betrayed. Examples: He was trying to protect Ruth Paine even as she was
> burying him. He had no way of knowing that he was being impersonated ever
> since the summer both in Dallas and Mexico City.) If he had, I imagine he'd
> have been shouting to the rooftops.
You're absolutely right Richard...... yer firing on all cylinders
now...... Oswald being a sucker who had been trained in intelligence
as a spy, and indoctinated into keeping his mouth shut and lie as
little as possible, was acting exactly as he'd been trained.
However, he was still very young and inexperienced and lied about
things that he shouldn't have. He denied using the name AJ
Hidell....... ( I suspect that he knew that there were other agents
using that name and didn't want to jeopardize them.)
However ....He began to smell the stench when they showed him a back
yard photo that he KNEW he had not created and having that knowledge
he realized that someone was creating incriminating evidence to be
used against him. The smell was strong in his nose when he called
"Mr Hunt" in Raleigh on Saturday night. That phone called sealed his
fate......He logically would have told "Mr. Hunt" ( EH Hunt) that if
Mr Hunt didn't send a lawyer to his defense, post haste he would start
telling the cops that it was his understanding that he was simply
participating in another ruse like he had done at Walker's house the
previous April. After the phone Mr Hunt, set the ball rolling to get
Oswald's mouth shut permanently the next morning.
>
>
>
> >When first asked where he
> > was at the time of the assassination he told DPD that he was in the
> > first floor lunchroom eating his lunch with two colored boys, one he
> > thought was named "Junior" [Jarmen]. But later, only moments before
> > Ruby shot him he told Postal Inspector Holmes that at the time of the
> > assassination he was on one of the UPPER floors and that he only came
> > down after the assassination to see what all the commotion was about.
>
> > All right you bunch of dummies. Which time was the "innocent saint"
> > Oswald lying? Clearly he was either lying the first time or he was
> > lying the second time. Any explanations you Oswald lovers care to
> > offer? Wouldn't an innocent Oswald be able to remember where he was
> > at the time of the assassination? Also please keep in mind that NO
> > TSBD places Oswald in the first floor lunchroom at the time of the
> > assassination.
>
> > Good luck girls.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:f3165fa4-ef31-426d...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> Oswald's Raliegh N. C. phone call never went Through ! ! !
So you say Mr Warren Commission apoligist..... However the jailer
said he escorted oswald to the phone booth and waited about a half
hour while Oswald talked on the phone.
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
> Oswald's Raliegh N. C. phone call never went Through ! ! !
So you say Mr Warren Commission apoligist..... However the jailer
said he escorted oswald to the phone booth and waited about a half
hour while Oswald talked on the phone.
AGAIN;
Volume & page number would be nice Wally World.
LIST OF WALLY’s LIES
Just as his Unsubstantiated Lyin
Bastard Claims below.
(Notice Wally's been RUNNIN from his own words
for Months)
Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had
"Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never proved that LHO worked for
RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved
Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's
car
(allegedly LHO's).
Walt never proved Michael
Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40").
Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in
4/63.
Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General
Walker
in 4/63.
Walt never proved LHO received a
40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a
40" Carcano was
ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved
his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved
that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that
LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a
6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the
CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip
inside the Carcano when it was
found at the
TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable
so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt
never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for RFK.
Walt never proved
that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the ONLY
one
missing.
Walt never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo)
came from a
Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt
never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40"
Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein's.
Walt
never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo) came
from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never
proved LHO went to Mexico
City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved his
claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the
money
order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle
order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard
photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved
Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN
minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on
the "Bill of lading" was TARE
weight.
Walt never
proved the weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad
the WC used says 7.0LBS.
Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a
notary seal" signed by
the LHO saying he was going to
hijack a plane and make the pilot fly
him to Cuba EVER
existed.
Walt never proved the rifle found on the roof was a DPD
shotgun and
NOT a Mauser as the Mentesana film
shows.
Jack Ruby had bought several of the .38
S&W pistols which also wouldn't leave markings on the bullets that could be
traced to a particular pistol
Wally is a WCR SHILL ! !
!
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in messagenews:0f0c7672-c93f-4d83...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Dec 30, 1:51 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> Oswald's Raliegh N. C. phone call never went Through ! ! !
>
> Wally World wrote;
>
> So you say Mr Warren Commission apoligist..... However the jailer
> said he escorted oswald to the phone booth and waited about a half
> hour while Oswald talked on the phone.
>
> I write;
> AGAIN;
> This Asshols gives NO Citation.
>
> Volume & page number would be nice Wally World.
What the hell do you think I'm a glossary for all of the information??
I know what the jailer said....... Sorry I can't tell you where to
find his testimony....I don't even remember his name.
Gil Jesus
>
> What the hell do you think I'm a glossary for all of the information??
>
> I know what the jailer said....... �Sorry I can't tell you where to
> find his testimony....I don't even remember his name.
You don't have to be a glossary Walt.
You can easily look it up online.
CE 1999 Vol. 24 Pg. 34
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0026b.htm
He didn't say he waited for 1/2 hour while Oswald talked on the phone,
he said that between 1:30 and 2:00 Oswald made the call. When he went
back and checked the phone records, the exact time was given as 1:40
pm.
No one was home at the Abt house that day. The Abts were spending the
weekend at their cabin in Connecticut. ( 10 H 116 )
If Oswald was speaking to anyone, it must have been the long-distance
operator.
Walt
> On Dec 30, 3:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What the hell do you think I'm a glossary for all of the information??
>
> > I know what the jailer said....... Sorry I can't tell you where to
> > find his testimony....I don't even remember his name.
>
> You don't have to be a glossary Walt.
> You can easily look it up online.
>
> CE 1999 Vol. 24 Pg. 34
>
>
> He didn't say he waited for 1/2 hour while Oswald talked on the phone,
> he said that between 1:30 and 2:00 Oswald made the call. When he went
> back and checked the phone records, the exact time was given as 1:40
> pm.
>
> No one was home at the Abt house that day. The Abts were spending the
> weekend at their cabin in Connecticut. ( 10 H 116 )
>
> If Oswald was speaking to anyone, it must have been the long-distance
> operator.
I believe Henry Hurt covers the telephone call in his book "Reasonable
Doubt'.....
Does anybody have that book at there fingertips?
tomnln
EVERYONE knows that you just make "Wild Ass Lying Speculations" that make
the WCR look good ! ! !
Yer a Warren Commission SHILL ! ! !
And, you're STILL Runnin from your list of Bullshit below.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:a3c9ed7a-7988-4a1b...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Richard
First of all, he wasn't calling Howard Hunt, he was calling an ONI contact,
cutout or whatever you call it.
Second, you're not being logical. He had been formally charged in a court of
law with assassinating the President of the United States and murdering a
Texas police officer, which is far, far different than pretending to shoot
at someone (for which he was never arrested or charged). How could he
possibly think this was just a ruse?
Question: I agree that the BY photo would have tipped him off that an
elaborate frameup was going on. I'm not sure of the timeline here. Did he
blurt out that he was a patsy, that he hadn't shot anyone and "I
emphatically deny these charges" before or after he saw the BY photo? In any
case BY THAT TIME he was being hustled along as fast as possible away from
the reporters, I believe to prevent him from saying any more. I would
speculate that by then he not only realized the seriousness of his
situation, but had begun to grasp that he had been abandoned. He was clearly
much more excited on those occasions than earlier, when he asked for someone
to come forward to represent him. On that occasion he was allowed to stand
before the reporters and answer questions. His calmness shows that he had
not grasped the extent of his betrayal at that time.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:f3165fa4-ef31-426d...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
> Walt:
>
> �First of all, he wasn't calling Howard Hunt, he was calling an ONI contact,
> cutout or whatever you call it.
>
> Second, you're not being logical. He had been formally charged in a court of
> law with assassinating the President of the United States and murdering a
> Texas police officer, which is far, far different than pretending to shoot
> at someone (for which he was never arrested or charged). How could he
> possibly think this was just a ruse?
Oswald didn't "lose it" until after he was charged with killing the
President.
He claimed to be a patsy after a reporter in the hallway asked him if
he killed the President. His reply was no, they had taken him in
because he had lived in the Soviet Union. The cops were trying to tie
the Soviets into the murder.
If you watch the videos of Oswald, his demeanor changes after he is
formally charged with the assassination.
The timeline is relatively easy to figure out.
The scene of him wearing the brown shirt were shot before his
arraignment for the assassination, while the clips of him in his t-
shirt were shot after that arraignment.
He claims "I don't know what dispatches you people have been given,
but I emphaticly deny these charges. I have nothing against anyone. I
have not committed any acts of violence."
It's clear that his demeanor changes in the scenes where he's in his t-
shirt.
In the end, the DPD forbids reporters from asking him any questions in
the hallway.
Walt
> On Dec 30, 11:22 pm, "Richard" <richcole...@sysmatrix.net> wrote:
>
> > Walt:
>
> > First of all, he wasn't calling Howard Hunt, he was calling an ONI contact,
> > cutout or whatever you call it.
Gil, you don't know that Oswald wasn't calling E.Howard Hunt...... He
didn't tell the operator he wanted to call E.Howard Hunt.....He merely
said he wanted to call " Mr Hunt" (Of which there are thousands)
"Mr. Hunt" was his contact.... I believe it was EH Hunt....because
it's logical.
E.H.Hunt LOATHED John Kennedy because of the BOP fiasco.... Hunt was a
real bonified grade "A" asshole who had grandiose visions of himself.
He was THE key reason for the BOP fiasco, but he was such an arrogant
asshole that he wouldn't take the responsibility...he blamed JFK.
> > Second, you're not being logical. He had been formally charged in a court of
> > law with assassinating the President of the United States and murdering a
> > Texas police officer, which is far, far different than pretending to shoot
> > at someone (for which he was never arrested or charged). How could he
> > possibly think this was just a ruse?
At the time Oswald was still playing out the role he'd been given.....
He knew that JFK had been shot but he was stickin to the script. When
he talked to "Mr Hunt" he logically would have told him to get him a
lawyer or he'd start telling the cops about the role he was given.
Oswald was still playing the role when he was murdered by Jack
Ruby...... Just before they lead him to his execution he was talking
to a Secret Service man who told Lee that the SS had doubts about the
story that Hoover was propagating, and he wanted to talk to Lee.
Apparently Oswald thought that the Secret Service were going to
"spring him" from the clutches of the FBI and allow him to escape and
send him on his way to Cuba....because he said..."Oh, so this is now
the plan" or words to that effect.
>
> Oswald didn't "lose it" until after he was charged with killing the
> President.
Nonsense....It's common knowledge that Lee exploded when Hosty showed
up in Captain Fritz's office..... Lee had warned Hosty that there was
a plot to murder JFK ( the note) but Hosty never took him seriously
and Lee was pissed.
>
> He claimed to be a patsy after a reporter in the hallway asked him if
> he killed the President. His reply was no, they had taken him in
> because he had lived in the Soviet Union. The cops were trying to tie
> the Soviets into the murder.
Right he was still playing the role of a "commie" so Castro would
accept him if he got to Cuba.
>
> If you watch the videos of Oswald, his demeanor changes after he is
> formally charged with the assassination.
>
> The timeline is relatively easy to figure out.
>
> The scene of him wearing the brown shirt
The shirt isn't brown......It's gray
were shot before his
> arraignment for the assassination, while the clips of him in his t-
> shirt were shot after that arraignment.
They took the gray arrest shirt from him at about 11:00 and sent it to
the FBI in Washington. All photo taken after 11:00 he is seen
wearing a T shirt.
Walt
> Walt:
>
> First of all, he wasn't calling Howard Hunt, he was calling an ONI contact,
> cutout or whatever you call it.
>
> Second, you're not being logical. He had been formally charged in a court of
> law with assassinating the President of the United States and murdering a
> Texas police officer, which is far, far different than pretending to shoot
> at someone (for which he was never arrested or charged). How could he
> possibly think this was just a ruse?
>
> Question: I agree that the BY photo would have tipped him off that an
> elaborate frameup was going on. I'm not sure of the timeline here. Did he
> blurt out that he was a patsy, that he hadn't shot anyone and "I
> emphatically deny these charges" before or after he saw the BY photo?
Some one has compiled a chronological list of the things that Oswald
said after he was arrested and before he was executed..... I believe
it was published as book.
In any
> case BY THAT TIME he was being hustled along as fast as possible away from
> the reporters, I believe to prevent him from saying any more. I would
> speculate that by then he not only realized the seriousness of his
> situation, but had begun to grasp that he had been abandoned. He was clearly
> much more excited on those occasions than earlier, when he asked for someone
> to come forward to represent him. On that occasion he was allowed to stand
> before the reporters and answer questions. His calmness shows that he had
> not grasped the extent of his betrayal at that time.
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Dec 30, 1:51 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Oswald's Raliegh N. C. phone call never went Through ! ! !
>
> So you say Mr Warren Commission apoligist..... However the jailer
> said he escorted oswald to the phone booth and waited about a half
> hour while Oswald talked on the phone.
Oh boy, I think the list will get longer now!!!
Where is Ben? I mean he said this, didn't he?
“Lies will be pointed out, no matter *WHO* asserts 'em.” (Ben Holmes—
12/8/09)
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Dec 30, 3:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What the hell do you think I'm a glossary for all of the information??
>
> > I know what the jailer said....... Sorry I can't tell you where to
> > find his testimony....I don't even remember his name.
>
> You don't have to be a glossary Walt.
> You can easily look it up online.
>
> CE 1999 Vol. 24 Pg. 34
>
>
> He didn't say he waited for 1/2 hour while Oswald talked on the phone,
> he said that between 1:30 and 2:00 Oswald made the call. When he went
> back and checked the phone records, the exact time was given as 1:40
> pm.
>
> No one was home at the Abt house that day. The Abts were spending the
> weekend at their cabin in Connecticut. ( 10 H 116 )
>
> If Oswald was speaking to anyone, it must have been the long-distance
> operator.
The man who did the MOST research on this one topic was Grover
Proctor. Here is some of his work!
Walt
wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2:54 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 1:51 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Oswald's Raliegh N. C. phone call never went Through ! ! !
>
> > So you say Mr Warren Commission apoligist..... However the jailer
> > said he escorted oswald to the phone booth and waited about a half
> > hour while Oswald talked on the phone.
>
> Oh boy, I think the list will get longer now!!!
Oh screw you and your stupid list ya simple bastard...An intelligent
person would have realized a long time ago that the list is totally
ineffective. ( As a matter of fact I'm happy that you idiots are
compiling it)
If you want to read about the phone call...get Henry Hurt's book
Reasonable Doubt......
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Dec 31, 6:01 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 11:22 pm, "Richard" <richcole...@sysmatrix.net> wrote:
>
> > > Walt:
>
> > > First of all, he wasn't calling Howard Hunt, he was calling an ONI contact,
> > > cutout or whatever you call it.
>
> Gil, you don't know that Oswald wasn't calling E.Howard Hunt...... He
> didn't tell the operator he wanted to call E.Howard Hunt.....He merely
> said he wanted to call " Mr Hunt" (Of which there are thousands)
> "Mr. Hunt" was his contact.... I believe it was EH Hunt....because
> it's logical.
He was trying to to call John HURT you moron! This one post shows
your ABILITY TO COMPREHEND this case. YOU obvioulsy forget or make
things up. IF you forget, ask for help BEFORE YOU LIE AND MAKE CLAIMS
YOU CANNOT SUPPORT!
If you are a liar, move on.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKsx24w8Ybg- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Dec 31, 10:57 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 2:54 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 1:51 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Oswald's Raliegh N. C. phone call never went Through ! ! !
>
> > > So you say Mr Warren Commission apoligist..... However the jailer
> > > said he escorted oswald to the phone booth and waited about a half
> > > hour while Oswald talked on the phone.
>
> > Oh boy, I think the list will get longer now!!!
>
> Oh screw you and your stupid list ya simple bastard...An intelligent
> person would have realized a long time ago that the list is totally
> ineffective. ( As a matter of fact I'm happy that you idiots are
> compiling it)
>
> If you want to read about the phone call...get Henry Hurt's book
> Reasonable Doubt......
Hey moron, YOU said this about books!
“This is a common retort from you unthinking LNer's..... You think
that because you lack the ability to THINK for yourselves that CT's
need a book like the Warren Report which they can cling to.
I'm not surprised that you think that CT's need some book to stand
on..... because without the WR you wouldn't know what to believe.
Books that tell an unthinking idiot what to believe are only necessary
for a LNer...... “ (Walt)
Why do you need a book moron?? Are you admitting you are a "unthinking
idiot" and a LNer?
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard....Information can be found in books. That
doesn't mean the ideas offered in the books are valid. A good example
is The Warren Report ...The WR is chock full of information.....but
that doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn are valid.... Ya Stupid
Bastard.
Walt
wrote:
This account of the call doesn't even make sense.....
A couple of "federal agents" inform Mrs Swinney that Oswald will
probably be making a phone call and they want to listen in on the
conversation. ( were they tipped off by captain fritz who told Oswald
he could use the phone in the jail?? Very likely..... Capt Fritz
later asked Oswald if he'd placed his call and Lee replied that he had
and thanked Fritz for the use of the phone. )
So here's a couple of Feds awaiting to hear oswald talking to
"someone" ....but instead Mrs swinney simply disconnects the line and
tells Oswald that his party didn't answer....RIIIIIIGHT!!
If you believe that...perhaps I can sell you a nice piece of seashore
property in arizona.........
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message news:fuO_m.99251$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...