I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.
The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that goesagainst his ideas is lying.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,
Fucking pathetic.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her husband, she
International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was part of the
3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders" she ever
5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.Milton was 5' 2".
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the lineup.
6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.against his ideas is lying.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that goes
He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and theblueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.
Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar, go ahead.
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her husband,
the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was part of
ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders" she
Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the lineup.
against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that goes
blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and the
ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar, go
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her husband, shewas also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported
and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was part of theInternational Communist Conspiracy.
3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut.
That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house.
Which was a lie. The only "boarders" she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.
5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.Milton was 5' 2".
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the lineup.
6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest.
Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
against his ideas is lying.Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that goes
He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and theblueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.
Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar, go ahead.
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life.
She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:25:47 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
How is what she related impossible?First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
And conspiracy folks looking through what she said in order to contrive reasons to ignore the insight she gave into her husband is exactly what I was referring to.
she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deportedShe also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her husband,
Who made this promise? Who told her she would be deported?
and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
I can look at it correctly. Lying out of loyalty to her husband initially and then coming to grips with the futility of that and the necessity to come clean.
The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
What did it matter to him what the room was?
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
It is as I said, contriving reasons to ignore information that goes against your silly ideas.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
She knew it was Oswald an hour before she talked to her son...
Mrs. BLEDSOE - When I got home, first thing I did I went next door and told them the President had been shot, and he said, "Why, he has got killed." Well, I turned on the radio--television--and we heard ambulances and going around and there was alittle boy came in that room in the back and he turned it on, and we listened and hear about the President, only one I was interested in, so, he went on back to work and they kept talking about this boy Oswald and had on a brown shirt, and all of a
the International Communist Conspiracy.2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was part of
You have everybody immediately "in on it", with agendas and such. Why have you ruled out a search for truth?
And again, you support my contention that you only try to contrive reasons to disregard witnesses who against your ideas by contriving reasons to disregard such witnesses, like Bledsoe.
3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut.
It was dangerous to implicate Russia as being behind the murder Oswald committed.
That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
They didn`t "drop it". They had better information.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house.
This is just a childish game where you pile one fantastic thing on top of another.
Which was a lie. The only "boarders" she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.
You only use line-up s to identify strangers. Bledsoe knew Oswald.
Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the lineup.
6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest.You can`t support that the damage was done during the arrest. A hole in the elbow?
Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.Oswald.
So, three for three on contriving reasons to disregard witnesses who give information that is harmful to your silly ideas.
against his ideas is lying.Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that goes
blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and the
Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
Was this an issue at the time?
ahead.I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar, go
So I was correct, and you call Truly a liar and the blueprints forged. And you feel this is less fantastic than it being labeled a vestibule in the blueprints, and people who worked in the building referring to that area by that name.
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life.
Has she said that she was put up to lying against her dead husband by the authorities? Has she recanted the story about her husband`s attempt to kill Walker?
She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
No, that isn`t common sense. The evidence is put in an evidence room. Do you think any cop can just stroll in there?
Just because you choose to ignore obstacles doesn`t mean they don`t exist.I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
I meant what I said. The evidence goes in an evidence room. People watch over this. You just can`t do whatever you like, the people in charge of the room are responsible. What if drugs disappear, or a gun is taken and used somewhere to commit a crime?
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
You ignore that this isn`t a fact. Just because it is accepted in some quarters that this occurred doesn`t make it a fact.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
You are engaged in a childish hobby.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.You pull on threads of the tapestry and pretend it is unraveled.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.
My ass is fine.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her husband,
the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was part of
ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders" she
Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the lineup.
goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that
blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and the
ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar, go
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
I'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.
But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.
But you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.
You may breeze back out now.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:56:39 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:husband, she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:03:54 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her
part of the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was
she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders"
lineup. Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the
goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that
the blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and
go ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar,
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President, and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down. You are the little boy playingI'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.There aren't cold case detectives working on solving the JFK assassination because it's already been solved.
But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt by
you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU. It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't beenBut you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.Shifting the burden and a fringe reset. I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board. JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help,
You may breeze back out now.Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker? Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?
The history was written by the murderers who declared themselves to be innocent of the crime.
This always happens. Only when the regime of the murderers falls can the actual history be written.
You and Greg Parker are perfect for each other. I think you should get married.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:03:54 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:husband, she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her
of the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was part
she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders"
Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the lineup.
goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that
blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and the
ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar, go
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President, and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down. You are the little boy playingI'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.There aren't cold case detectives working on solving the JFK assassination because it's already been solved.
But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt by
you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU. It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't beenBut you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.Shifting the burden and a fringe reset. I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board. JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help,
The history was written by the murderers who declared themselves to be innocent of the crime. This always happens. Only when the regime of the murderers falls can the actual history be written. You and Greg Parker are perfect for each other. I think youYou may breeze back out now.Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker? Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:30:02 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:husband, she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:56:39 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:03:54 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her
part of the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was
she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders"
lineup. Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the
that goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something
the blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and
go ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar,
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President, and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down. You are the little boy playingI'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.There aren't cold case detectives working on solving the JFK assassination because it's already been solved.
But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt by
help, you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU. It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn'tBut you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.Shifting the burden and a fringe reset. I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board. JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN
"To your satisfaction," of course. Nothing can be produced to your satisfaction that doesn't come from your authorities. There's no need to convince brain dead shit bags like you of anything. The old generation of morons needs to be superseded, notYou may breeze back out now.Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker? Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?
The history was written by the murderers who declared themselves to be innocent of the crime.History can change. Produce something better and make sure the bar is as high for your ideas as the ideas you criticize.
This always happens. Only when the regime of the murderers falls can the actual history be written.Babblage.
You and Greg Parker are perfect for each other. I think you should get married.Unfortunately for Parker, I'm not a homo.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:25:47 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
You ignore that this isn`t a fact. Just because it is accepted in some quarters that this occurred doesn`t make it a fact.
History can change. Produce something better and make sure the bar is as high for your ideas as the ideas you criticize.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:40:53?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:25:47?PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
You ignore that this isn`t a fact. Just because it is accepted in some quarters that this occurred doesn`t make it a fact.
Oh, it IS a fact:
19 Wade Convictions overturned on DNA Evidence >https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Wade convinced a jury to execute an innocent man in 1954 >https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:40:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:25:47 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
You ignore that this isn`t a fact. Just because it is accepted in some quarters that this occurred doesn`t make it a fact.Oh, it IS a fact:
19 Wade Convictions overturned on DNA Evidence https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Wade convinced a jury to execute an innocent man in 1954 https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
That`s no answer.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:40:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:25:47 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
You ignore that this isn`t a fact. Just because it is accepted in some quarters that this occurred doesn`t make it a fact.Oh, it IS a fact:
19 Wade Convictions overturned on DNA Evidence https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Wade convinced a jury to execute an innocent man in 1954 https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:31:46?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:40:53?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:25:47?PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:Oh, it IS a fact:
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
You ignore that this isn`t a fact. Just because it is accepted in some quarters that this occurred doesn`t make it a fact.
19 Wade Convictions overturned on DNA Evidence
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Wade convinced a jury to execute an innocent man in 1954
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
Why does that matter since Wade never prosecuted Oswald?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:40:53 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:25:47 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
The door swung the wrong way for her to hold it closed.How is what she related impossible?First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
Even if she could outmuscle her husband lol
And conspiracy folks looking through what she said in order to contrive reasons to ignore the insight she gave into her husband is exactly what I was referring to.And you ignoring all the evidence is what I was referring to. Again - the first insight she gave of her husband. "Lee good man. He no kill no one". Why are you ignoring that?
she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deportedShe also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her husband,
Who made this promise? Who told her she would be deported?Read Hosty's book.
The FBI
wanted to use it as leverage against her but they were gazumped by the Secret Service
who brought in someone from immigration
to assure her she would not be deported - if she co operated with the secret service.
The secret service had some "firemen" (read ONI)
friends sitting in the same room counting her donations. Staying in the country - she got to keep it - deported, she left with the clothes on the back.
What's a poor girl to do except give them what they want to hear.
I took one backyard photo.
We have two.
Okay. I took two.
oops. We found another one.
Okay. I took as many as you say i did.
and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
I can look at it correctly. Lying out of loyalty to her husband initially and then coming to grips with the futility of that and the necessity to come clean.Or... more in line with something I like to call reality....
She told the truth about her husband initially because she took the FBI as similar to the KGB back home and you don't lie to those people - unless they want you to.
She realized they wanted her to lie after the assurances about staying and what that meant in regard to the small fortune that was pouring in for her. None of this started by the way, until AFTER her husband was dead, so her lying was not going to sendhim to the electric chair, but it did mean she could stay in the US and be relatively wealthy.
The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
What did it matter to him what the room was?What room? He never mentioned any room.
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
It is as I said, contriving reasons to ignore information that goes against your silly ideas.And that is called projection.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
She knew it was Oswald an hour before she talked to her son...Absolute bullshit.
She told her son after viewing Oswald on TV that she thought he was the boy on the bus. She added they "-give me his right name".
She had no idea of what his name was was and if Porter had phoned the cops and said my mother's former boarder was on the same bus as her leaving Dealey Plaza and= he looked like a maniac. She thinks he may have been the assassin." They would not haveinitially ignored the call.
little boy came in that room in the back and he turned it on, and we listened and hear about the President, only one I was interested in, so, he went on back to work and they kept talking about this boy Oswald and had on a brown shirt, and all of aMrs. BLEDSOE - When I got home, first thing I did I went next door and told them the President had been shot, and he said, "Why, he has got killed." Well, I turned on the radio--television--and we heard ambulances and going around and there was a
the International Communist Conspiracy.2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was part of
You have everybody immediately "in on it", with agendas and such. Why have you ruled out a search for truth?Why have you stopped beating your wife?
And again, you support my contention that you only try to contrive reasons to disregard witnesses who against your ideas by contriving reasons to disregard such witnesses, like Bledsoe.There is nothing contrived about it, She was a rasping old hag with borderline dementia who had to be provided with notes made by the Secret Service
as well as a lawyer just to get her through her testimony.
She later sold everything "Oswald" left in her house to a collector. This included a fucking ashtray.
3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut.
It was dangerous to implicate Russia as being behind the murder Oswald committed.Yes. You think the case was cinched by midnight. Those calls from Washington were before then and in reality, before anyone knew who or what was behind it. They had not even traced the friggin rifle yet. But omg they had their lone nut.
That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
They didn`t "drop it". They had better information.So you think the aged, half blind and brain-addled Bledsoe was a better witness than a Deputy Sheriff? I thought you had every faith in Dallas law enforcement.
If this were reversed and Bledsoe was a conspiracy witness who I was defending, you'd be screaming like a stuck pig.
In fact, squeal like a pig for me now, bitch!
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house.
This is just a childish game where you pile one fantastic thing on top of another.It wasn't me who sold a heap of shit lying around, claiming it belonged to some historical figure and the items included shit that the historical figure would never have owned.
It wasn't me who could only give one other example of letting out a room - and that being to a "friend" of my rainbow-colored son.
Which was a lie. The only "boarders" she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.
You only use line-up s to identify strangers. Bledsoe knew Oswald.Exactly. It relieved them of the trauma of trying to get a positive ID from her in a lineup.
Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the lineup.
So you now admit that the passenger and Oswald were two separate people.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest.You can`t support that the damage was done during the arrest. A hole in the elbow?
Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.Oswald.
Good. Progress.
So, three for three on contriving reasons to disregard witnesses who give information that is harmful to your silly ideas.Police call it evaluating witnesses. They do it in all cases.
goes against his ideas is lying.Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that
blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and the
Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
Was this an issue at the time?It was a potential issue.
The one person who kept the word in his report was Holmes. He was the one person who was not in their little frame-up club. Fritz made a strategic mistake in bringing him in because he was supposed to stick to question pertaining mail and mail boxes.When he started asking questions that had to do with his alibi, he was straying right out of his designated lane.
ahead.I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar, go
So I was correct, and you call Truly a liar and the blueprints forged. And you feel this is less fantastic than it being labeled a vestibule in the blueprints, and people who worked in the building referring to that area by that name.
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life.
Has she said that she was put up to lying against her dead husband by the authorities? Has she recanted the story about her husband`s attempt to kill Walker?No idea. I do know she has told wildly varying stories on other matters. I traced them from her earliest statements and on through the decades.
She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
No, that isn`t common sense. The evidence is put in an evidence room. Do you think any cop can just stroll in there?It has happened. But in this case, it was jetting back and forth between Dallas and Washington. I doubt it ended up in evidence rooms quickly.
Just because you choose to ignore obstacles doesn`t mean they don`t exist.I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
I meant what I said. The evidence goes in an evidence room. People watch over this. You just can`t do whatever you like, the people in charge of the room are responsible. What if drugs disappear, or a gun is taken and used somewhere to commit a crime?
See above. Case in point - Day finding a print that the best print man in the FBI failed to detect.
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
You ignore that this isn`t a fact. Just because it is accepted in some quarters that this occurred doesn`t make it a fact.The DNA makes it a fact that the person was innocent. A review of the case files show how the wrong person ended up behind bars. Some are through police negligence, some are through police frameups.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
You are engaged in a childish hobby.If so, you joining in when you have no issues with the case, makes you twice as childish.
More progress. You admit the threads I have been posting are indeed starting to unravel the accepted case.they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.You pull on threads of the tapestry and pretend it is unraveled.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.
My ass is fine.Ask you wife what she think, lardarse.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:03:54 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:husband, she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her
of the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was part
she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders"
Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the lineup.
goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that
blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and the
ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar, go
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
I'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.
There aren't cold case detectives working on solving the JFK assassination because it's already been solved.
Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President,But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.
I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt by
But you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.
Shifting the burden and a fringe reset.
I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board.
It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't been endlessly addressed.
You may breeze back out now.
Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker?
Any clues?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:56:39 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:husband, she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:03:54 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her
part of the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was
she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders"
lineup. Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the
goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that
the blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and
go ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar,
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President, and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down. You are the little boy playingI'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.There aren't cold case detectives working on solving the JFK assassination because it's already been solved.
But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt by
you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU. It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't beenBut you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.Shifting the burden and a fringe reset. I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board. JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help,
you should get married.You may breeze back out now.Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker? Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?The history was written by the murderers who declared themselves to be innocent of the crime. This always happens. Only when the regime of the murderers falls can the actual history be written. You and Greg Parker are perfect for each other. I think
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 4:30:02 PM UTC+11, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:husband, she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:56:39 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:03:54 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her
part of the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was
she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders"
lineup. Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the
that goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something
the blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and
go ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar,
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President, and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down. You are the little boy playingI'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.There aren't cold case detectives working on solving the JFK assassination because it's already been solved.
But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt by
help, you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU. It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn'tBut you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.Shifting the burden and a fringe reset. I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board. JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN
you should get married.You may breeze back out now.Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker? Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?The history was written by the murderers who declared themselves to be innocent of the crime. This always happens. Only when the regime of the murderers falls can the actual history be written. You and Greg Parker are perfect for each other. I think
The TrueFlog* is experiencing homoerotic fantasies again. What's new?town and they can actually sing pretty well), a flog's self-image is divorced from reality to a farcical degree (eg. they say the are the best singer in town and they sing completely off-key). A try-hard.
*Flog
An Australian variation of 'wanker'. Like a wanker, a flog is someone who is full of themselves and makes a point of letting everyone know. However, where a wanker's braggadocio may have some small basis in fact (eg. they say the are the best singer in
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:46:53 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:husband, she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:39 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:03:54 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her
part of the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was
she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders"
lineup. Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the
that goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something
the blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and
go ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar,
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.
Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
I'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.
There aren't cold case detectives working on solving the JFK assassination because it's already been solved.
lay out your plotline for the events that day?Learn to read. I never said there was.Learn to read. I didn't write that you wrote that. But you did suggest that if you were a cold case detective in Dallas you'd "be happy" to make a case for conspiracy. What's stopping you? Do you literally need to be a cold case detective before you
Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President,You keep answering points not made. Why is that?What point didn't you make that I answered?
But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.
I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt by
fantasy that you're doing something important vis-a-vis the JFK assassination.There you go again. YOU want me to say that so you can make the above point. But I have never said it. Oswald was innocent. That is my only claim.Liar. You believe in some combination that the CIA, FBI, LBJ and others were all "in" on it, and that they had the motives, means, and opportunity to murder JFK for nefarious purposes. You can't even be honest about what you believe.
But hey, you recently came close to murdering your own Vice President, so you know... so never say never...I follow the news, but I am unaware of any recent attempt on the life of Kamala Harris. I had to search online to find a threat by an obviously disturbed woman from two years ago, if that's what you mean.
and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down.
Appeals to own incredulity do not trump evidence. Your appeals are a logical fallacy.This your logical fallacy, not mine. I'm highlighting what you must necessarily believe for your Dealey Plaza fairy tale to blossom.
You are the little boy playing with toy soldiers who pretends to be Dwight D. Eisenhower. Harmless with little boys daydreaming while they play, but perhaps a bit disturbing when an old, dope-smoking, incel Boomer like yourself can't let go of the
in November taken by Gallup or some other outfit, and the headline for the inevitable stories it generates will read, "Sixty Years After JFK's Assassination Americans are Still Skeptical Oswald Acted Alone."LOL. Nice slam. And you got the Boomer bit right at least.Of course. We're all Boomers, whether we fall on the Oswald Alone side or Oswald was innocent, and a cast of thousands ended Camelot side. No one else is really interested in this on any deep level except aging white men. Yes, there will be a new poll
Bank on it..motorcade from the grassy knoll. Don Willis thinks Oswald shot JFK from the fifth floor and that the evidence was for some reason shuttled up to the sixth floor. You guys are all over the map but can't take the time to knock down each others'
But you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.
Shifting the burden and a fringe reset.
Nope. I have laid out a logical sequences of evidence based on solid evidence.Nope. You've never laid out the basics for your own unique fantastic conspiracy. Gil says Oswald was totally innocent. Ben can't think for himself and goes along with whatever Gil says. The poster known as Sky/Flags/Toilet thinks Oswald fired at the
evidence. DVP is over on the Ed Forum pulling the same stunt as your are here. Is there is a school you go to learn this shit?You (and others on both sides) try and counter it with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Ho hum. So it goes for 60 years. But I am here as the Grim Reaper to tell you that the end is nigh.The end is nigh for you. Unless you come up with something better, history will forever record Oswald as JFK's killer, no known help.
I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board.
Zaniness that you only seem to be able to counter with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Whatever gets you up in the morning, I guess. Sane people might actually show why it is zaniness by taking the evidence apart or providing counter
It's called critical thinking. The scientific method. Occam's Razor. Making a positive case for something as opposed to expecting others to answer your hobby nit-picks. The Oswald alone side has consilience in the evidence. You have NOTHING.rebuttal. creative writing exercises.
JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help, you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU.
Not asking you to explain anything. I am asking you to directly respond to what you are replying to. If you want to show it is zany - fine - go ahead. But just calling it zany and acting all incredulous doesn't replace a thoughtful and evidence-based
Conspiracies happen, but you haven't produced one to exam. Will you? Can you? You are afflicted with conspiracism, which is a sort of social malady involving the belief that large, powerful forces control world events.Why is the bar set so low for you?
It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't been endlessly addressed.
Too funny. I have not had a rebuttal to anything here from you, or your confreres. Again, your replies can be categorized in three groups.
1. Shooting the messengerYou haven't delivered a message other than Oswald was innocent. That doesn't cut it.
2. Answering what you WISH had been saidOr inferring what I know you to believe but are too embarrassed to put forth because deep down you know how silly it is.
3. Appeals to incredulity or authority.Asking you to produce a case that has fewer holes in it than the case produced by the WC (the "authority" in this instance) isn't an appeal to incredulity or authority. It's a reminder to you that one side HAS produced a case, and Team Oswald? Nothing.
things that perplex you as part of the conspiracy you refuse to detail. You SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF as well when you do this. Until you can PRODUCE something for your critics to examine, you will forever be looked down upon as a kook with an internetYou may breeze back out now.
Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker?
Sure do!
-Your president was murdered.How? Be specific.
-A man was arrested soon after.For no reason?
-Said man protested his innocence.Guilty people often claim they didn't do something.
-Said man was murdered in custody before obtaining legal counsel and way before any trialI wish he'd had his trial.
-Said man was then tried post-mortem without any of the usual safeguards of the legal system that protect (albeit sometimes imperfectly), the rights of the accused to mount a defense.We don't try dead people.
-Evidence discovered over recent years shows that the accused had an alibi which the authorities sort to distort and bury after his deathWhat evidence is this? Let your little light shine and share this blockbuster information with us.
-Other evidence shows his alibi was most likely validYou leave the door open a crack that it wasn't?
-A major US corporation refuses to part with film that could verify the alibi, despite said film meeting all the criteria of being a bona fide "assassination record" under the JFK ACT which should be held in the national archives.Point me to this story.
-There are legal actions pending on obtaining said films.
-There are other actions pending.
So nothing? No idea who did it? How many shots? I figured as much.
Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?
LOL. Yes! I have laid out many here. You know... all that zaniness that you can't ever seem to respond to directly?You never have laid anything out. You never will.
All of your hobby points are a serious of begged questions and assorted other logical fallacies that can be all dealt with in one fell swoop. You BEG THE QUESTION with your embedded assumptions there was a conspiracy and then ask us to address the
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:39 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:husband, she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:03:54 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her
part of the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was
she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "boarders"
lineup. Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the
goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something that
the blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar and
go ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a liar,
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.
Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
I'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.
There aren't cold case detectives working on solving the JFK assassination because it's already been solved.
Learn to read. I never said there was.
You keep answering points not made. Why is that?
Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President,But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.
I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt by
There you go again. YOU want me to say that so you can make the above point. But I have never said it. Oswald was innocent. That is my only claim.
But hey, you recently came close to murdering your own Vice President, so you know... so never say never...
and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down.
Appeals to own incredulity do not trump evidence. Your appeals are a logical fallacy.
You are the little boy playing with toy soldiers who pretends to be Dwight D. Eisenhower. Harmless with little boys daydreaming while they play, but perhaps a bit disturbing when an old, dope-smoking, incel Boomer like yourself can't let go of thefantasy that you're doing something important vis-a-vis the JFK assassination.
LOL. Nice slam. And you got the Boomer bit right at least.
But you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.
Shifting the burden and a fringe reset.
Nope. I have laid out a logical sequences of evidence based on solid evidence.
You (and others on both sides) try and counter it with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Ho hum. So it goes for 60 years. But I am here as the Grim Reaper to tell you that the end is nigh.
evidence. DVP is over on the Ed Forum pulling the same stunt as your are here. Is there is a school you go to learn this shit?I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board.
Zaniness that you only seem to be able to counter with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Whatever gets you up in the morning, I guess. Sane people might actually show why it is zaniness by taking the evidence apart or providing counter
JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help, you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU.rebuttal. creative writing exercises.
Not asking you to explain anything. I am asking you to directly respond to what you are replying to. If you want to show it is zany - fine - go ahead. But just calling it zany and acting all incredulous doesn't replace a thoughtful and evidence-based
It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't been endlessly addressed.
Too funny. I have not had a rebuttal to anything here from you, or your confreres. Again, your replies can be categorized in three groups.
1. Shooting the messenger
2. Answering what you WISH had been said
3. Appeals to incredulity or authority.
You may breeze back out now.
Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker?
Sure do!
-Your president was murdered.
-A man was arrested soon after.
-Said man protested his innocence.
-Said man was murdered in custody before obtaining legal counsel and way before any trial
-Said man was then tried post-mortem without any of the usual safeguards of the legal system that protect (albeit sometimes imperfectly), the rights of the accused to mount a defense.
-Evidence discovered over recent years shows that the accused had an alibi which the authorities sort to distort and bury after his death
-Other evidence shows his alibi was most likely valid
-A major US corporation refuses to part with film that could verify the alibi, despite said film meeting all the criteria of being a bona fide "assassination record" under the JFK ACT which should be held in the national archives.
-There are legal actions pending on obtaining said films.
-There are other actions pending.
Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?
LOL. Yes! I have laid out many here. You know... all that zaniness that you can't ever seem to respond to directly?
Learn to read. I didn't write that you wrote that.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 1:07:49 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:husband, she was also capable of changing her story on the promise she would not be deported and would get to keep all the donations coming in for her. You can't have it both ways with her - which is what you begging for.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:46:53 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:39 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:03:54 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:36:20 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:26:08 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
I`ve observed some things in the forum, so I decided to make a post about them.
First off, Conspiracy folk will always find reasons to discount the best witnesses in order to use lesser witnesses. The best witness to get insight into LHO was his wife, but she is ignored.Marina was noted by the WC and HSCA as a terrible witness who changed her story, was inconsistent and made claims that were frankly impossible, such as holding Lee in the bathroom.
She also said at the outset that "Lee is a good man", there was only one backyard photo and that Lee never went to Mexico. You may claim she said those things to protect him, but if she was capable of lying to federal agents to protect her
part of the International Communist Conspiracy.The best witnesses to where the encounter between Baker and Oswald took place was Truly, since he knew the building, but they contrive reasons to disregard him.So what you are saying is that Baker could not recognize a lunch room because he was unfamiliar with the building. Great cop!
It is not a matter of "disregarding" anyone. It is about evaluating all of the evidence - which includes evidence ignored by or unknown to the WC.
The best witness on the bus was Bledsoe, because she knew Oswald prior to this encounter, but they contrive reasons to disregard her. They like to get past the best evidence so they can focus on weaker evidence.
If you were familiar with how Bledsoe came to the attention of the police, you would know how and why this unfolded.
1. When she got home, she told her son Porter that she believed the assassin was on her bus because he lad laughed when news came of the assassination and looked like a maniac.
2. Porter did what he thought was the right thing and phoned the police with this information. At that time, they were not interested. They had a witness to Oswald leaving in a car - and that fit with their preferred narrative that this was
boarders" she ever took in were actually her sons boyfriends - one of whom would later murder him with an axe. Having her as his former landlady negated the need to give her a lineup.3. Washington told Dallas police to drop the conspiracy stuff and treat him as a lone nut. That meant they had to drop looking for the Rambler Lee allegedly got into and find another way to get him to Oak Cliff.
4. The evening they remembered the call from Porter. They got Mary in the next day and, realizing she was a terrible witness for them, concocted the story that Oswald had been a former boarder at her house. Which was a lie. The only "
lineup. Milton was 5' 2".5. Meanwhile on the Friday evening, they stopped the bus she had been on and took the driver for a statement and a lineup.
5. That driver testified that the boy involved in the assassination conversation was a 17 year old named Milton Jones and he believed he was there to identify him. He picked number 2 only because he was the youngest and the shortest in the
that goes against his ideas is lying.6. Mary identified the shirt because before her testimony, the FBI had taken Oswald's shirt to her to view. This was his arrest shirt and had rips in it from the arrest. Mary claimed these rips were in the shirt of the passenger.
Another thing I noticed about the desire to nullify evidence that goes against their ideas is Greg Parker. He does the usual, boring go-to that any evidence that goes against his ideas is manufactured, and any witness that says something
and the blueprints forged. Apparently with amazing foresight the plotters headed off an idea someone was going to have almost 60 years later.He did this recently in a give and take with Brian, about the word "vestibule" being used on blueprints of the TSBD to describe the area outside the lunchroom, the same word Truly used to describe it. His response is to call Truly a liar
liar, go ahead.Spin.
They were simply backstopping Truly's claim. Nothing to do with foresight. Everything to do with CYA.
I happen to have an architect who is a member of my forum. He has confirmed that the word is strictly used in regard to front entrances and that no architect would draw plans with a vestibule above the first floor. You want to call him a
I also if you recall, gave some examples from the WC volumes of others talking about vestibules in office buildings and apartments. All at the front entrance.
Lastly, since I`m only putting ideas down that have been rattling around, this observation about the crooked games the hobbyists set up. They give themselves all the advantages.Translation. They actually drill down into the evidence, look for other evidence missed or ignored in past investigations and reconstruct events using ALL known sources, not the just the WC cherry-picked ones.
They say (without showing) that Fritz can make any officer do or say anything he needs them to do or say, and they will comply.Where does that come from? Sounds like you're doing a Brian and making shit up. Give an example - and when you do, please take into account that he was indeed in charge of the investigation.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can make any witness say anything they require (and stick to it for life).Marina has not stuck to everything for life. She is all over the place. She doesn't give a fuck. She knows it doesn't matter what she says.
They say (without showing) that the authorities can tamper with any evidence at any time.Why does that need to be shown? Common sense tells you since they had control of the evidence, they could tamper with it.
I think in your usual clumsy way, what you meant to say was that "they have not shown that tampering actually occurred".
Maybe not, but there are certainly indicators that it occurred.
And you ignore the fact that the Dallas police and DA are now notorious for framing innocent people.
Yet with all these advantages that they are kind enough to bestow upon themselves,Yes, digging deeper into the case, reexamining new evidence and discovering previously unknown evidence, is certainly advantageous. You're stuck in 1964.
they still can`t put an explanation for the event on the table for examination. This is like fishing into a deck and taking whatever cards you like and still being unable to make a winning hand.
Not my job to solve the case. Showing that the previous investigations failed to do that, on the other hand, has not been that difficult, though painstakingly slow from the other side of the world.
Fucking pathetic.
Your hot take? Agreed. A very honest self-assessment and an admission you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter.
Parker breezes in and engages in exactly the same behavior that Bud noted is so prevalent among Team Oswald.
When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?
I'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that.
There aren't cold case detectives working on solving the JFK assassination because it's already been solved.
lay out your plotline for the events that day?Learn to read. I never said there was.Learn to read. I didn't write that you wrote that. But you did suggest that if you were a cold case detective in Dallas you'd "be happy" to make a case for conspiracy. What's stopping you? Do you literally need to be a cold case detective before you
by Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President,You keep answering points not made. Why is that?What point didn't you make that I answered?
But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.
I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt
fantasy that you're doing something important vis-a-vis the JFK assassination.There you go again. YOU want me to say that so you can make the above point. But I have never said it. Oswald was innocent. That is my only claim.Liar. You believe in some combination that the CIA, FBI, LBJ and others were all "in" on it, and that they had the motives, means, and opportunity to murder JFK for nefarious purposes. You can't even be honest about what you believe.
But hey, you recently came close to murdering your own Vice President, so you know... so never say never...I follow the news, but I am unaware of any recent attempt on the life of Kamala Harris. I had to search online to find a threat by an obviously disturbed woman from two years ago, if that's what you mean.
and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down.
Appeals to own incredulity do not trump evidence. Your appeals are a logical fallacy.This your logical fallacy, not mine. I'm highlighting what you must necessarily believe for your Dealey Plaza fairy tale to blossom.
You are the little boy playing with toy soldiers who pretends to be Dwight D. Eisenhower. Harmless with little boys daydreaming while they play, but perhaps a bit disturbing when an old, dope-smoking, incel Boomer like yourself can't let go of the
poll in November taken by Gallup or some other outfit, and the headline for the inevitable stories it generates will read, "Sixty Years After JFK's Assassination Americans are Still Skeptical Oswald Acted Alone."LOL. Nice slam. And you got the Boomer bit right at least.Of course. We're all Boomers, whether we fall on the Oswald Alone side or Oswald was innocent, and a cast of thousands ended Camelot side. No one else is really interested in this on any deep level except aging white men. Yes, there will be a new
motorcade from the grassy knoll. Don Willis thinks Oswald shot JFK from the fifth floor and that the evidence was for some reason shuttled up to the sixth floor. You guys are all over the map but can't take the time to knock down each others'Bank on it..
But you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.
Shifting the burden and a fringe reset.
Nope. I have laid out a logical sequences of evidence based on solid evidence.Nope. You've never laid out the basics for your own unique fantastic conspiracy. Gil says Oswald was totally innocent. Ben can't think for himself and goes along with whatever Gil says. The poster known as Sky/Flags/Toilet thinks Oswald fired at the
evidence. DVP is over on the Ed Forum pulling the same stunt as your are here. Is there is a school you go to learn this shit?You (and others on both sides) try and counter it with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Ho hum. So it goes for 60 years. But I am here as the Grim Reaper to tell you that the end is nigh.The end is nigh for you. Unless you come up with something better, history will forever record Oswald as JFK's killer, no known help.
I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board.
Zaniness that you only seem to be able to counter with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Whatever gets you up in the morning, I guess. Sane people might actually show why it is zaniness by taking the evidence apart or providing counter
based rebuttal. creative writing exercises.It's called critical thinking. The scientific method. Occam's Razor. Making a positive case for something as opposed to expecting others to answer your hobby nit-picks. The Oswald alone side has consilience in the evidence. You have NOTHING.
JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help, you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU.
Not asking you to explain anything. I am asking you to directly respond to what you are replying to. If you want to show it is zany - fine - go ahead. But just calling it zany and acting all incredulous doesn't replace a thoughtful and evidence-
Nothing. Why is the bar set so low for you?Conspiracies happen, but you haven't produced one to exam. Will you? Can you? You are afflicted with conspiracism, which is a sort of social malady involving the belief that large, powerful forces control world events.
It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't been endlessly addressed.
Too funny. I have not had a rebuttal to anything here from you, or your confreres. Again, your replies can be categorized in three groups.
1. Shooting the messengerYou haven't delivered a message other than Oswald was innocent. That doesn't cut it.
2. Answering what you WISH had been saidOr inferring what I know you to believe but are too embarrassed to put forth because deep down you know how silly it is.
3. Appeals to incredulity or authority.Asking you to produce a case that has fewer holes in it than the case produced by the WC (the "authority" in this instance) isn't an appeal to incredulity or authority. It's a reminder to you that one side HAS produced a case, and Team Oswald?
things that perplex you as part of the conspiracy you refuse to detail. You SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF as well when you do this. Until you can PRODUCE something for your critics to examine, you will forever be looked down upon as a kook with an internetYou may breeze back out now.
Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker?
Sure do!
-Your president was murdered.How? Be specific.
-A man was arrested soon after.For no reason?
-Said man protested his innocence.Guilty people often claim they didn't do something.
-Said man was murdered in custody before obtaining legal counsel and way before any trialI wish he'd had his trial.
-Said man was then tried post-mortem without any of the usual safeguards of the legal system that protect (albeit sometimes imperfectly), the rights of the accused to mount a defense.We don't try dead people.
-Evidence discovered over recent years shows that the accused had an alibi which the authorities sort to distort and bury after his deathWhat evidence is this? Let your little light shine and share this blockbuster information with us.
-Other evidence shows his alibi was most likely validYou leave the door open a crack that it wasn't?
-A major US corporation refuses to part with film that could verify the alibi, despite said film meeting all the criteria of being a bona fide "assassination record" under the JFK ACT which should be held in the national archives.Point me to this story.
-There are legal actions pending on obtaining said films.
-There are other actions pending.
So nothing? No idea who did it? How many shots? I figured as much.
Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?
LOL. Yes! I have laid out many here. You know... all that zaniness that you can't ever seem to respond to directly?You never have laid anything out. You never will.
All of your hobby points are a serious of begged questions and assorted other logical fallacies that can be all dealt with in one fell swoop. You BEG THE QUESTION with your embedded assumptions there was a conspiracy and then ask us to address the
Chucky the Schuy proves that even a lazy ass Retard Nutter can wipe the floor with kangaroo fucker Greg Parker. They'll be married by Christmas!
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:07:49 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
lay out your plotline for the events that day?Learn to read. I never said there was.Learn to read. I didn't write that you wrote that. But you did suggest that if you were a cold case detective in Dallas you'd "be happy" to make a case for conspiracy. What's stopping you? Do you literally need to be a cold case detective before you
Oh dear. You can't keep anything straight. It is no wonder you open up wide and accept whatever sit the government feeds you.problem."
You said: "When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?"
Nothing in your question about a conspiracy.
I replied:
"I'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that. But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the
You seem awfully frustrated that I won't behave like a good little CT and provide you with some whacky theory.
But I will repeat - it is NOT UP TO CITIZENS to solve cases. Those who claim to have done so with a pet theory a living in as big a fantasy world as you are.
by Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President,Answering as if I said I would be happy to construct a conspiracy if I was a cold case detective for a start.You keep answering points not made. Why is that?What point didn't you make that I answered?
But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.
I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt
fantasy that you're doing something important vis-a-vis the JFK assassination.There you go again. YOU want me to say that so you can make the above point. But I have never said it. Oswald was innocent. That is my only claim.
Liar. You believe in some combination that the CIA, FBI, LBJ and others were all "in" on it, and that they had the motives, means, and opportunity to murder JFK for nefarious purposes. You can't even be honest about what you believe.You are so frustrated I can see the veins almost popping from here.
But hey, you recently came close to murdering your own Vice President, so you know... so never say never...
I follow the news, but I am unaware of any recent attempt on the life of Kamala Harris. I had to search online to find a threat by an obviously disturbed woman from two years ago, if that's what you mean.Yeah. Nice bit of dodging.
and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down.
Appeals to own incredulity do not trump evidence. Your appeals are a logical fallacy.
This your logical fallacy, not mine. I'm highlighting what you must necessarily believe for your Dealey Plaza fairy tale to blossom.I appeal to incredulity? Give me an example of where I have. I could write a book on examples from you and other nutters.
You are the little boy playing with toy soldiers who pretends to be Dwight D. Eisenhower. Harmless with little boys daydreaming while they play, but perhaps a bit disturbing when an old, dope-smoking, incel Boomer like yourself can't let go of the
research both sides and write a paper on their findings.LOL. Nice slam. And you got the Boomer bit right at least.
Of course. We're all Boomers, whether we fall on the Oswald Alone side or Oswald was innocent, and a cast of thousands ended Camelot side. No one else is really interested in this on any deep level except aging white men.You think?
You may be surprised to learn that it is taught in high schools here - not just some - all - as a lesson in both modern history and in critical thinking. Students are given the official version, and several of the better known theories and told to
I am also a regular on podcasts hosted by 20 and 30 year olds talking about the case. Maybe it matters little in the US because you have your hands full trying to stop the empire from collapsing.motorcade from the grassy knoll. Don Willis thinks Oswald shot JFK from the fifth floor and that the evidence was for some reason shuttled up to the sixth floor. You guys are all over the map but can't take the time to knock down each others'
Yes, there will be a new poll in November taken by Gallup or some other outfit, and the headline for the inevitable stories it generates will read, "Sixty Years After JFK's Assassination Americans are Still Skeptical Oswald Acted Alone."
Bank on it..Okay. I believe you.
But you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.
Shifting the burden and a fringe reset.
Nope. I have laid out a logical sequences of evidence based on solid evidence.
Nope. You've never laid out the basics for your own unique fantastic conspiracy. Gil says Oswald was totally innocent. Ben can't think for himself and goes along with whatever Gil says. The poster known as Sky/Flags/Toilet thinks Oswald fired at the
Dear oh bloody dear. What has what anyone else says or thinks, got to do with me? It is not a united effort. You know that. I know that. You are replying to me, so keep your focus on what I have said. You want to argue with their ideas, go elsewhereand do it.
evidence. DVP is over on the Ed Forum pulling the same stunt as your are here. Is there is a school you go to learn this shit?That's the beauty of being alive. Anything could be just around the corner.You (and others on both sides) try and counter it with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Ho hum. So it goes for 60 years. But I am here as the Grim Reaper to tell you that the end is nigh.The end is nigh for you. Unless you come up with something better, history will forever record Oswald as JFK's killer, no known help.
I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board.
Zaniness that you only seem to be able to counter with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Whatever gets you up in the morning, I guess. Sane people might actually show why it is zaniness by taking the evidence apart or providing counter
based rebuttal. creative writing exercises.It's called critical thinking. The scientific method. Occam's Razor. Making a positive case for something as opposed to expecting others to answer your hobby nit-picks. The Oswald alone side has consilience in the evidence. You have NOTHING.There is no Oswald alone side. There are hundreds of individuals pushing individual theories.
Then there is me and my ROKC friends finding new evidence and pushing for a new inquiry.
JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help, you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU.
Not asking you to explain anything. I am asking you to directly respond to what you are replying to. If you want to show it is zany - fine - go ahead. But just calling it zany and acting all incredulous doesn't replace a thoughtful and evidence-
simple concept, long accepted in the realms of justice and law.Conspiracies happen, but you haven't produced one to exam. Will you? Can you? You are afflicted with conspiracism, which is a sort of social malady involving the belief that large, powerful forces control world events.You really are clutching at straws now, Chucky.
It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't been endlessly addressed.
Too funny. I have not had a rebuttal to anything here from you, or your confreres. Again, your replies can be categorized in three groups.
1. Shooting the messengerYou haven't delivered a message other than Oswald was innocent. That doesn't cut it.
2. Answering what you WISH had been saidOr inferring what I know you to believe but are too embarrassed to put forth because deep down you know how silly it is.
3. Appeals to incredulity or authority.
Asking you to produce a case that has fewer holes in it than the case produced by the WC (the "authority" in this instance) isn't an appeal to incredulity or authority.I never gave that as an example. You really do have trouble keeping up, don''t you!
It's a reminder to you that one side HAS produced a case, and Team Oswald? Nothing. Why is the bar set so low for you?
People like me, Bart, Sean Murphy, Stan Dane among a small group of others, have produced a case. The case is for Oswald's innocence. Proving who did it is not necessary to prove someone else is innocent. Why do you have so much trouble with that
comment.You may breeze back out now.
Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker?
Sure do!
Doesn't matter in showing the accused is innocent.-Your president was murdered.How? Be specific.
He gave the reason. He had lived in the Soviet Union. His saying that is a good indicator that the first interrogation was dominated by their pursuit of making this an International Communist Conspiracy case. That is the only logical reason for the-A man was arrested soon after.For no reason?
assumptions. Which is why I have said that had it not been for showing Oswald's alibi was a valid one, I may well have been a nutter. I was going to say like you. But god no. I would need to keep some self-respect.-Said man protested his innocence.
Guilty people often claim they didn't do something.Another logical fallacy. An appeal to generalizations. I thought you said you believed in critical thinking? You are not showing, I am sorry to say.
So do I. If he had his trial, one way or another, we would not be here now.-Said man was murdered in custody before obtaining legal counsel and way before any trialI wish he'd had his trial.
Nor apparently afford them the dignity of a defense. You want to successfully pin a murder on someone? Frame them, then kill them before a trial takes place - but only necessary if the case is generating national and international scrutiny.-Said man was then tried post-mortem without any of the usual safeguards of the legal system that protect (albeit sometimes imperfectly), the rights of the accused to mount a defense.We don't try dead people.
-Evidence discovered over recent years shows that the accused had an alibi which the authorities sort to distort and bury after his death
What evidence is this? Let your little light shine and share this blockbuster information with us.I'm sure you know I am referring to Hosty's notes.
-Other evidence shows his alibi was most likely valid
You leave the door open a crack that it wasn't?I wasn't there to witness it all unfold, so yes, the door is open a crack. Just as it is when you find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Go do some searching.-A major US corporation refuses to part with film that could verify the alibi, despite said film meeting all the criteria of being a bona fide "assassination record" under the JFK ACT which should be held in the national archives.Point me to this story.
-There are legal actions pending on obtaining said films.
-There are other actions pending.
So nothing?
On who did it? I have some persons of interest, but they are not part of showing Oswald was innocent.
No idea who did it?Not who pulled the trigger, no. And I don't care who it was.
How many shots?
No idea. Not an expert in that field and again - not necessary to show Oswald was innocent.
I figured as much.
Good. I trust that means the penny has finally dropped and you will stop asking immaterial questions that should be directed at theorists.
Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?
Yeah, Chucky - I have - over many years here on and off, I have laid out the case for Oswald's innocence.LOL. Yes! I have laid out many here. You know... all that zaniness that you can't ever seem to respond to directly?You never have laid anything out. You never will.
All of your hobby points are a serious of begged questions and assorted other logical fallacies that can be all dealt with in one fell swoop. You BEG THE QUESTION with your embedded assumptions there was a conspiracyThat is YOUR assumption.
I decided long ago to dump everything I had read and start looking at the case from scratch and reconstruct t it based on all the evidence I could find - which included a lot of stuff buried by the authorities. So... I started again with ZERO
rhetorical, ill-advised and utter bullshit snipped.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:40 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:07:49 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
you lay out your plotline for the events that day?Learn to read. I never said there was.Learn to read. I didn't write that you wrote that. But you did suggest that if you were a cold case detective in Dallas you'd "be happy" to make a case for conspiracy. What's stopping you? Do you literally need to be a cold case detective before
problem."Oh dear. You can't keep anything straight. It is no wonder you open up wide and accept whatever sit the government feeds you.
You said: "When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?"
Nothing in your question about a conspiracy.
I replied:
"I'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that. But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the
You seem awfully frustrated that I won't behave like a good little CT and provide you with some whacky theory.
But I will repeat - it is NOT UP TO CITIZENS to solve cases. Those who claim to have done so with a pet theory a living in as big a fantasy world as you are.So you send countless hours looking into an event, and you have no idea what happened, and little apparent curiosity.
lay out your plotline for the events that day?Learn to read. I never said there was.Learn to read. I didn't write that you wrote that. But you did suggest that if you were a cold case detective in Dallas you'd "be happy" to make a case for conspiracy. What's stopping you? Do you literally need to be a cold case detective before you
You keep answering points not made. Why is that?What point didn't you make that I answered?
Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President,But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.
I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt by
There you go again. YOU want me to say that so you can make the above point. But I have never said it. Oswald was innocent. That is my only claim.
Liar. You believe in some combination that the CIA, FBI, LBJ and others were all "in" on it, and that they had the motives, means, and opportunity to murder JFK for nefarious purposes. You can't even be honest about what you believe.
But hey, you recently came close to murdering your own Vice President, so you know... so never say never...
I follow the news, but I am unaware of any recent attempt on the life of Kamala Harris. I had to search online to find a threat by an obviously disturbed woman from two years ago, if that's what you mean.
and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down.
Appeals to own incredulity do not trump evidence. Your appeals are a logical fallacy.
This your logical fallacy, not mine. I'm highlighting what you must necessarily believe for your Dealey Plaza fairy tale to blossom.
fantasy that you're doing something important vis-a-vis the JFK assassination.You are the little boy playing with toy soldiers who pretends to be Dwight D. Eisenhower. Harmless with little boys daydreaming while they play, but perhaps a bit disturbing when an old, dope-smoking, incel Boomer like yourself can't let go of the
LOL. Nice slam. And you got the Boomer bit right at least.
Of course. We're all Boomers, whether we fall on the Oswald Alone side or Oswald was innocent, and a cast of thousands ended Camelot side. No one else is really interested in this on any deep level except aging white men.
Bank on it..
motorcade from the grassy knoll. Don Willis thinks Oswald shot JFK from the fifth floor and that the evidence was for some reason shuttled up to the sixth floor. You guys are all over the map but can't take the time to knock down each others'But you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.
Shifting the burden and a fringe reset.
Nope. I have laid out a logical sequences of evidence based on solid evidence.
Nope. You've never laid out the basics for your own unique fantastic conspiracy. Gil says Oswald was totally innocent. Ben can't think for himself and goes along with whatever Gil says. The poster known as Sky/Flags/Toilet thinks Oswald fired at the
You (and others on both sides) try and counter it with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Ho hum. So it goes for 60 years. But I am here as the Grim Reaper to tell you that the end is nigh.The end is nigh for you. Unless you come up with something better, history will forever record Oswald as JFK's killer, no known help.
evidence. DVP is over on the Ed Forum pulling the same stunt as your are here. Is there is a school you go to learn this shit?I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board.
Zaniness that you only seem to be able to counter with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Whatever gets you up in the morning, I guess. Sane people might actually show why it is zaniness by taking the evidence apart or providing counter
It's called critical thinking. The scientific method. Occam's Razor. Making a positive case for something as opposed to expecting others to answer your hobby nit-picks. The Oswald alone side has consilience in the evidence. You have NOTHING.
rebuttal. creative writing exercises.JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help, you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU.
Not asking you to explain anything. I am asking you to directly respond to what you are replying to. If you want to show it is zany - fine - go ahead. But just calling it zany and acting all incredulous doesn't replace a thoughtful and evidence-based
Conspiracies happen, but you haven't produced one to exam. Will you? Can you? You are afflicted with conspiracism, which is a sort of social malady involving the belief that large, powerful forces control world events.
It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't been endlessly addressed.
Too funny. I have not had a rebuttal to anything here from you, or your confreres. Again, your replies can be categorized in three groups.
1. Shooting the messengerYou haven't delivered a message other than Oswald was innocent. That doesn't cut it.
2. Answering what you WISH had been saidOr inferring what I know you to believe but are too embarrassed to put forth because deep down you know how silly it is.
3. Appeals to incredulity or authority.
Asking you to produce a case that has fewer holes in it than the case produced by the WC (the "authority" in this instance) isn't an appeal to incredulity or authority.
You may breeze back out now.
Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker?
Sure do!
-Your president was murdered.How? Be specific.
-A man was arrested soon after.For no reason?
-Said man protested his innocence.
Guilty people often claim they didn't do something.
-Said man was murdered in custody before obtaining legal counsel and way before any trialI wish he'd had his trial.
-Said man was then tried post-mortem without any of the usual safeguards of the legal system that protect (albeit sometimes imperfectly), the rights of the accused to mount a defense.We don't try dead people.
-Evidence discovered over recent years shows that the accused had an alibi which the authorities sort to distort and bury after his death
What evidence is this? Let your little light shine and share this blockbuster information with us.
-Other evidence shows his alibi was most likely valid
You leave the door open a crack that it wasn't?
-A major US corporation refuses to part with film that could verify the alibi, despite said film meeting all the criteria of being a bona fide "assassination record" under the JFK ACT which should be held in the national archives.Point me to this story.
-There are legal actions pending on obtaining said films.
-There are other actions pending.
So nothing?
No idea who did it?
How many shots?
I figured as much.
Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?
LOL. Yes! I have laid out many here. You know... all that zaniness that you can't ever seem to respond to directly?You never have laid anything out. You never will.
All of your hobby points are a serious of begged questions and assorted other logical fallacies that can be all dealt with in one fell swoop. You BEG THE QUESTION with your embedded assumptions there was a conspiracy
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:07:49 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
lay out your plotline for the events that day?Learn to read. I never said there was.
Learn to read. I didn't write that you wrote that. But you did suggest that if you were a cold case detective in Dallas you'd "be happy" to make a case for conspiracy. What's stopping you? Do you literally need to be a cold case detective before you
Oh dear. You can't keep anything straight. It is no wonder you open up wide and accept whatever sit the government feeds you.problem."
You said: "When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?"
Nothing in your question about a conspiracy.
I replied:
"I'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that. But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the
You seem awfully frustrated that I won't behave like a good little CT and provide you with some whacky theory.
But I will repeat - it is NOT UP TO CITIZENS to solve cases. Those who claim to have done so with a pet theory a living in as big a fantasy world as you are.
You keep answering points not made. Why is that?
What point didn't you make that I answered?
Answering as if I said I would be happy to construct a conspiracy if I was a cold case detective for a start.
by Team Oswald to paint history to show the United States of America murdered its own President,But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are the problem.
I don't have a problem with anyone taking a stand against injustice, but you are delusional if you attribute any of the silliness you are engaged in here as a blow against injustice. If anything, the injustice falls on your side with the attempt
There you go again. YOU want me to say that so you can make the above point. But I have never said it. Oswald was innocent. That is my only claim.
Liar. You believe in some combination that the CIA, FBI, LBJ and others were all "in" on it, and that they had the motives, means, and opportunity to murder JFK for nefarious purposes. You can't even be honest about what you believe.
You are so frustrated I can see the veins almost popping from here.
But hey, you recently came close to murdering your own Vice President, so you know... so never say never...
I follow the news, but I am unaware of any recent attempt on the life of Kamala Harris. I had to search online to find a threat by an obviously disturbed woman from two years ago, if that's what you mean.
Yeah. Nice bit of dodging.
and that his own political party and closest allies and even family have conspired to keep the "truth" of that day tamped down.
Appeals to own incredulity do not trump evidence. Your appeals are a logical fallacy.
This your logical fallacy, not mine. I'm highlighting what you must necessarily believe for your Dealey Plaza fairy tale to blossom.
I appeal to incredulity? Give me an example of where I have. I could write a book on examples from you and other nutters.
fantasy that you're doing something important vis-a-vis the JFK assassination.You are the little boy playing with toy soldiers who pretends to be Dwight D. Eisenhower. Harmless with little boys daydreaming while they play, but perhaps a bit disturbing when an old, dope-smoking, incel Boomer like yourself can't let go of the
research both sides and write a paper on their findings.LOL. Nice slam. And you got the Boomer bit right at least.
Of course. We're all Boomers, whether we fall on the Oswald Alone side or Oswald was innocent, and a cast of thousands ended Camelot side. No one else is really interested in this on any deep level except aging white men.
You think?
You may be surprised to learn that it is taught in high schools here - not just some - all - as a lesson in both modern history and in critical thinking. Students are given the official version, and several of the better known theories and told to
I am also a regular on podcasts hosted by 20 and 30 year olds talking about the case. Maybe it matters little in the US because you have your hands full trying to stop the empire from collapsing.
Yes, there will be a new poll in November taken by Gallup or some other outfit, and the headline for the inevitable stories it generates will read, "Sixty Years After JFK's Assassination Americans are Still Skeptical Oswald Acted Alone."motorcade from the grassy knoll. Don Willis thinks Oswald shot JFK from the fifth floor and that the evidence was for some reason shuttled up to the sixth floor. You guys are all over the map but can't take the time to knock down each others'
Bank on it..
Okay. I believe you.
But you know full well that what you're saying is just a bullshit diversion from having to give any sort of direct responses to what I've said. The very definition of needing grow a set.
Shifting the burden and a fringe reset.
Nope. I have laid out a logical sequences of evidence based on solid evidence.
Nope. You've never laid out the basics for your own unique fantastic conspiracy. Gil says Oswald was totally innocent. Ben can't think for himself and goes along with whatever Gil says. The poster known as Sky/Flags/Toilet thinks Oswald fired at the
Dear oh bloody dear. What has what anyone else says or thinks, got to do with me? It is not a united effort. You know that. I know that. You are replying to me, so keep your focus on what I have said. You want to argue with their ideas, go elsewhereand do it.
You (and others on both sides) try and counter it with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Ho hum. So it goes for 60 years. But I am here as the Grim Reaper to tell you that the end is nigh.The end is nigh for you. Unless you come up with something better, history will forever record Oswald as JFK's killer, no known help.
That's the beauty of being alive. Anything could be just around the corner.
evidence. DVP is over on the Ed Forum pulling the same stunt as your are here. Is there is a school you go to learn this shit?I don't need to do a damn thing, except enjoy the zaniness that is this discussion board.
Zaniness that you only seem to be able to counter with personal attacks and appeals to incredulity. Whatever gets you up in the morning, I guess. Sane people might actually show why it is zaniness by taking the evidence apart or providing counter
It's called critical thinking. The scientific method. Occam's Razor. Making a positive case for something as opposed to expecting others to answer your hobby nit-picks. The Oswald alone side has consilience in the evidence. You have NOTHING.
There is no Oswald alone side. There are hundreds of individuals pushing individual theories.
Then there is me and my ROKC friends finding new evidence and pushing for a new inquiry.
based rebuttal. creative writing exercises.JFK is dead and the history has been written. If you want to CHANGE the verdict of history--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help, you need to STOP ASKING US TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU.
Not asking you to explain anything. I am asking you to directly respond to what you are replying to. If you want to show it is zany - fine - go ahead. But just calling it zany and acting all incredulous doesn't replace a thoughtful and evidence-
Conspiracies happen, but you haven't produced one to exam. Will you? Can you? You are afflicted with conspiracism, which is a sort of social malady involving the belief that large, powerful forces control world events.
You really are clutching at straws now, Chucky.
It's all been explained, BUT NEVER TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Asking "us" to answer "you" is a fringe reset; you are resetting the entire discussion from the fringe and acting as if this stuff hasn't been endlessly addressed.
Too funny. I have not had a rebuttal to anything here from you, or your confreres. Again, your replies can be categorized in three groups.
1. Shooting the messenger
You haven't delivered a message other than Oswald was innocent. That doesn't cut it.
2. Answering what you WISH had been said
Or inferring what I know you to believe but are too embarrassed to put forth because deep down you know how silly it is.
3. Appeals to incredulity or authority.
Asking you to produce a case that has fewer holes in it than the case produced by the WC (the "authority" in this instance) isn't an appeal to incredulity or authority.
I never gave that as an example. You really do have trouble keeping up, don''t you!
It's a reminder to you that one side HAS produced a case, and Team Oswald? Nothing. Why is the bar set so low for you?
People like me, Bart, Sean Murphy, Stan Dane among a small group of others, have produced a case. The case is for Oswald's innocence.
Proving who did it is not necessary to prove someone else is innocent.
Why do you have so much trouble with that simple concept, long accepted in the realms of justice and law.
You may breeze back out now.
Any idea what happened that day Greg Parker?
Sure do!
-Your president was murdered.
How? Be specific.
Doesn't matter in showing the accused is innocent.
comment.-A man was arrested soon after.
For no reason?
He gave the reason. He had lived in the Soviet Union. His saying that is a good indicator that the first interrogation was dominated by their pursuit of making this an International Communist Conspiracy case. That is the only logical reason for the
-Said man protested his innocence.
Guilty people often claim they didn't do something.
Another logical fallacy. An appeal to generalizations. I thought you said you believed in critical thinking? You are not showing, I am sorry to say.
-Said man was murdered in custody before obtaining legal counsel and way before any trial
I wish he'd had his trial.
So do I. If he had his trial, one way or another, we would not be here now.
-Said man was then tried post-mortem without any of the usual safeguards of the legal system that protect (albeit sometimes imperfectly), the rights of the accused to mount a defense.
We don't try dead people.
Nor apparently afford them the dignity of a defense. You want to successfully pin a murder on someone? Frame them, then kill them before a trial takes place - but only necessary if the case is generating national and international scrutiny.
-Evidence discovered over recent years shows that the accused had an alibi which the authorities sort to distort and bury after his death
What evidence is this? Let your little light shine and share this blockbuster information with us.
I'm sure you know I am referring to Hosty's notes.
-Other evidence shows his alibi was most likely valid
You leave the door open a crack that it wasn't?
I wasn't there to witness it all unfold, so yes, the door is open a crack. Just as it is when you find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
-A major US corporation refuses to part with film that could verify the alibi, despite said film meeting all the criteria of being a bona fide "assassination record" under the JFK ACT which should be held in the national archives.
-There are legal actions pending on obtaining said films.
-There are other actions pending.
Point me to this story.
Go do some searching.
So nothing?
On who did it? I have some persons of interest, but they are not part of showing Oswald was innocent.
No idea who did it?
Not who pulled the trigger, no. And I don't care who it was.
How many shots?
No idea. Not an expert in that field and again - not necessary to show Oswald was innocent.
I figured as much.
Good. I trust that means the penny has finally dropped and you will stop asking immaterial questions that should be directed at theorists.
Care to outline something? Anything? WHAT HAPPENED in Dealey Plaza at 1230pm CST in Dallas, Texas, 11/22/63?
Any clues?
LOL. Yes! I have laid out many here. You know... all that zaniness that you can't ever seem to respond to directly?
You never have laid anything out. You never will.
Yeah, Chucky - I have - over many years here on and off, I have laid out the case for Oswald's innocence.
All of your hobby points are a serious of begged questions and assorted other logical fallacies that can be all dealt with in one fell swoop. You BEG THE QUESTION with your embedded assumptions there was a conspiracy
That is YOUR assumption.
I decided long ago to dump everything I had read and start looking at the case from scratch and reconstruct t it based on all the evidence I could find - which included a lot of stuff buried by the authorities. So... I started again with ZEROassumptions. Which is why I have said that had it not been for showing Oswald's alibi was a valid one, I may well have been a nutter. I was going to say like you. But god no. I would need to keep some self-respect.
rhetorical, ill-advised and utter bullshit snipped.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:26:55 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:40 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:07:49 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
you lay out your plotline for the events that day?Learn to read. I never said there was.Learn to read. I didn't write that you wrote that. But you did suggest that if you were a cold case detective in Dallas you'd "be happy" to make a case for conspiracy. What's stopping you? Do you literally need to be a cold case detective before
the problem."Oh dear. You can't keep anything straight. It is no wonder you open up wide and accept whatever sit the government feeds you.
You said: "When are any of you guys going to grow a pair and make a case for what happened on 11/22/63?"
Nothing in your question about a conspiracy.
I replied:
"I'd be happy to. If I was a cold case detective in Dallas tasked with doing that. But it is not up to citizens to solve cases - only to keep authorities honest and to make a stand against any injustice. You got a problem with that, then YOU are
You seem awfully frustrated that I won't behave like a good little CT and provide you with some whacky theory.
It's like chatting to CHATGPD... you often miss the main issues.But I will repeat - it is NOT UP TO CITIZENS to solve cases. Those who claim to have done so with a pet theory a living in as big a fantasy world as you are.So you send countless hours looking into an event, and you have no idea what happened, and little apparent curiosity.
I have not spent countless hours Looking into an "event" (otherwise known as the assassination). I have spent countless hours looking into Oswald and his background and into his movements on that day.
Likewise, countless hours looking into the backgrounds of other individuals who had influence on Oswald's life.
Likewise into the backgrounds of those closest to him during 1963.
I have spent a fraction of that time looking at the actual assassination. I have no interest or expertise in ballistics, or film, or trajectories, or whether it was possible for pre-autopsy surgery to have occurred - although I reject that out of handas ludicrous.
I have also spent countless hours debunking the Two Oswald bullshit, the Judyth Baker bullshit, and other various slices of bullshit on toast. You should be grateful.
You literally wrote that almost verbatim.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:24:37 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
You literally wrote that almost verbatim.You're literally a liar.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:09:17 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,422 |