• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
tinribmancer said:
Are there CTers that think that "they" have already cloned JFK?
Click to expand...



I do recall a CTer that used to post at alt.conspiracies.jfk that alleged a LHO clone. An actual clone, not just the impostor "doubles" that feature prominently in several theories. He explained that "they" had genetic and medical knowledge decades more advanced than civilian technology, just like some CTer's claim that "they" had digital editing software back in the 1960's to falsify all the photographs and videos. But I don't believe I've ever heard of "them" cloning JFK before.
 
The closest to the cloning I've seen is the "Tippet looked like JFK" stuff, which usually involved them swapping the bodies...or something. It's been 20 years since I read that, so it's a little hazy.
 
Tolls said:
The closest to the cloning I've seen is the "Tippet looked like JFK" stuff, which usually involved them swapping the bodies...or something. It's been 20 years since I read that, so it's a little hazy.
Click to expand...

No clones, just body-swapping with DPD Officer J.D.Tippit.

You probably don't know about the theory that it wasn't JFK but J.D.Tippit that was actually riding in the limo and was shot in Dealey Plaza by a man in a trench coat armed with a submachine gun. You apparently do know of the theory that J.D.Tippit's body was substituted for JFK's at the JFK autopsy.

A man named George Thomson invented that first one in 1964 - https://whoshotjfk.wikispaces.com/The+Mother+of+All+Conspiracy+Theories

Robert Morningstar is the leading proponent of the second one (and the one you're probably thinking of):
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=17710

Hank
 
Last edited:
There used to be a lot of Tippit autopsy photos claiming to be JFK iirc because they matched certain wounds. I think I posted to a link to the Fortean Times clarifying that mess in a padt incarnation of the thread to make a point to Robert Prey. The article was by Robin Ramsey who Prey seemed to be influenced by, even to the use of the word baloney.
 
HSienzant said:
And his being a loner makes it harder to link him to anyone. He had no phone, so good luck connecting him to some conspirator / 'handler' out of town in Dallas or Chicago when he was living with his wife at a succession of rented apartments in New Orleans. What did they use to communicate with him, carrier pigeons?

And he wasn't untraceable. His time was well accounted for. His life is one of the most meticulously documented in history. The FBI determined what jobs he held and when he showed up for work. And according to his wife, he was home almost every night after work when they were living together. Exceptions were for things like a typing class and the night he attempted to kill General Walker, when he showed up very late. When they were living apart, he was living at the rooming house on North Beckley, and according to interviews with some of the patrons, he was there every night as well, except for those times he visited his wife at Mrs. Paine's home.

While the rooming house had a phone for the patrons, he was registered there under the alias of O.H.Lee, and he received no calls. In fact, Mrs. Paine testified she tried to reach him there the weekend before the assassination, and she failed because she asked for Lee Oswald, and she was told there was no such person living there.

Mr. JENNER - And you were relating that you inquired as to how you could reach them if you had to reach them, and Mr. Lee Oswald wrote--
Mrs. PAINE - His work, the name of the company and the telephone number.
Mr. JENNER - I take it they did not have a telephone?
Mrs. PAINE - They did not; no.
Mr. JENNER - Did they ever have a telephone even when they were in New Orleans?
Mrs. PAINE - No; they did not.
Mr. JENNER - When they came back again to Dallas, they did not?
Mrs. PAINE - They did not.
...
Mrs. PAINE - Whether he called that Saturday or whether he had called Sunday, I am not certain. Indeed, I am not certain but what he had called the very day, had already called and talked with Marina the very day that I then, at her request, tried to reach him at the number he had given me, with his number in my telephone book.
Junie was fooling with the telephone dial, and Marina said, "Let's call papa" and asked me--
... [discussion of side issue omitted]
Mr. JENNER - You are absolutely clear about that. All right. Now, state, you began to state the circumstances of the telephone call. Would you in your own words and your own chronology proceed with that, please?
Mrs. PAINE - Marina had said, "Let's call papa," in Russian and asked me to dial the number for her, knowing that I had a number that he had given us. I then dialed the number--
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, did you dial the first or the second number?
Mrs. PAINE - The second number.
Mr. JENNER - And that number is?
Mrs. PAINE - WH 3-8993.
Mr. JENNER - When you dialed the number did someone answer?
Mrs. PAINE - Someone answered and I said, "Is Lee Oswald there?" And the person replied, "There is no Lee Oswald here," or something to that effect.
Mr. JENNER - Would it refresh your recollection if he said, "There is nobody by that name here"?
Mrs. PAINE - Or it may have been "nobody by that name" or "I don't know Lee Oswald." It could have been any of these.
Mr. JENNER - We want your best recollection.
Mrs. PAINE - My best recollection is that he repeated the name.
Mr. JENNER - He repeated the name?
Mrs. PAINE - But that is not a certain recollection.
Mr. JENNER - I take it then from the use of the pronoun that the person who answered was a man?
Mrs. PAINE - Was a man.
Mr. JENNER - And if you will just sit back and relax a little. I would like to have you restate, if you now will, in your own words, what occurred? You dialed the telephone, someone answered, a male voice?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - What did he say and what did you say?
Mrs. PAINE - I said, "Is Lee Oswald there." He said, "There is no Lee Oswald living here." As best as I can recall. This is the substance of what he said. I said, "Is this a rooming house." He said "Yes." I said, "Is this WH 3-8993?" And he said "Yes." I thanked him and hung up.
Mr. JENNER - When you hung up then what did you next do or say?
Mrs. PAINE - I said to Marina, "They don't know of a Lee Oswald at that number."
Mr. JENNER - What did she say?
Mrs. PAINE - She didn't say anything.
Mr. JENNER - Just said nothing?
Mrs. PAINE - She looked surprised.
Mr. JENNER - Did she evidence any surprise?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; she did, she looked surprised.
Mr. DULLES - You are quite sure you used the first name "Lee," did you, you did not say just "Mr. Oswald," or something of that kind?
Mrs. PAINE - I would not say "Mr. Oswald." It is contrary to Quaker practice, and I don't normally do it that way.
Mr. JENNER - Contrary to Quaker practice?
Mrs. PAINE - They seldom use "Mister."

Hank
Click to expand...
This is informative, I like this as it highlights Ruth Paine's "memory". LHO is using OH Lee as his alias at the North Beckley address, there is no challenge to this. What is suspect is Ruth Paine's lack of inquiring. The formation of Lee Harvey Oswald's name is interesting as each of his full names can be used as a first name and/or last name. For Ruth Paine not to explore additional questions or the other person on the line not put Lee (the first name that Ruth used) and Lee (the last name of LHO alias) together (at least as a secondary question) is a stretch. I have been asked harder and more prolonged questions from The Taco Bell driver-thru. The whole scenario with the Paine's is froth with inconsistencies and coincidental relationships that are treated more as a side-show and not points of interest.
 
No Other said:
This is informative, I like this as it highlights Ruth Paine's "memory". LHO is using OH Lee as his alias at the North Beckley address, there is no challenge to this. What is suspect is Ruth Paine's lack of inquiring. The formation of Lee Harvey Oswald's name is interesting as each of his full names can be used as a first name and/or last name. For Ruth Paine not to explore additional questions or the other person on the line not put Lee (the first name that Ruth used) and Lee (the last name of LHO alias) together (at least as a secondary question) is a stretch. I have been asked harder and more prolonged questions from The Taco Bell driver-thru. The whole scenario with the Paine's is froth with inconsistencies and coincidental relationships that are treated more as a side-show and not points of interest.
Click to expand...
Huh? My three names could be used in any order as well.
 
No Other said:
This is informative, I like this as it highlights Ruth Paine's "memory". LHO is using OH Lee as his alias at the North Beckley address, there is no challenge to this. What is suspect is Ruth Paine's lack of inquiring. The formation of Lee Harvey Oswald's name is interesting as each of his full names can be used as a first name and/or last name. For Ruth Paine not to explore additional questions or the other person on the line not put Lee (the first name that Ruth used) and Lee (the last name of LHO alias) together (at least as a secondary question) is a stretch. I have been asked harder and more prolonged questions from The Taco Bell driver-thru. The whole scenario with the Paine's is froth with inconsistencies and coincidental relationships that are treated more as a side-show and not points of interest.
Click to expand...

Why? The whole point of her testimony here is that she called the number to the rooming house Oswald had given them, and that neither she nor Marina had any reason to think he would be going by a different name. So she calls, verifies the number is correct and that it is to a rooming house; what else do you think she should have asked? "Well, is there an Oswald Harvey Lee there? A Harvey Lee Oswald? A Lee Oswald Harvey?" How do you think the conversation should have gone beyond the way it did? Try to re-construct it without the benefit of hindsight, ok?

As for the guy on the other end of the line not going beyond "there's no Lee Oswald here"- why should he? "Oswald" is a fairly unusual name,* and, in saying there was no one there by that name, that's probably what he keyed on and answered what was asked with what he knew. Of course, I suppose there's the possibility that he was in on the conspiracy, and was cleverly covering it up by not going beyond the basics with a fellow-conspirator in a conversation that only the two of them could hear. :rolleyes:

*I have a pretty unusual name (in fact, I'd just about bet I'm the only one in the U.S. with it), but my middle name is fairly common- oddly enough, it's "Lee." If I took a room using "Lee" as my last name and my others only as initials, and someone called asking for "Farglebargle Lee Gruntsenheimer," whoever answered would be perfectly reasonable in saying "sorry, there's no Gruntsenheimers here." (Not my real name, so don't bother looking ;))
 
HSienzant said:
And his being a loner makes it harder to link him to anyone. He had no phone, so good luck connecting him to some conspirator / 'handler' out of town in Dallas or Chicago when he was living with his wife at a succession of rented apartments in New Orleans. What did they use to communicate with him, carrier pigeons?

And he wasn't untraceable. His time was well accounted for. His life is one of the most meticulously documented in history. The FBI determined what jobs he held and when he showed up for work. And according to his wife, he was home almost every night after work when they were living together. Exceptions were for things like a typing class and the night he attempted to kill General Walker, when he showed up very late. When they were living apart, he was living at the rooming house on North Beckley, and according to interviews with some of the patrons, he was there every night as well, except for those times he visited his wife at Mrs. Paine's home.

While the rooming house had a phone for the patrons, he was registered there under the alias of O.H.Lee, and he received no calls. In fact, Mrs. Paine testified she tried to reach him there the weekend before the assassination, and she failed because she asked for Lee Oswald, and she was told there was no such person living there.
Click to expand...

Oswald met in person.

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/ugFgaNq.gif[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/jutSYwy.jpg[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]http://image.newsinc.com/30578590.sfxl.jpg[/IMGw]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
turingtest said:
Why? The whole point of her testimony here is that she called the number to the rooming house Oswald had given them, and that neither she nor Marina had any reason to think he would be going by a different name. So she calls, verifies the number is correct and that it is to a rooming house; what else do you think she should have asked? "Well, is there an Oswald Harvey Lee there? A Harvey Lee Oswald? A Lee Oswald Harvey?" How do you think the conversation should have gone beyond the way it did? Try to re-construct it without the benefit of hindsight, ok?
Click to expand...
Marina Oswald did not speak conversational english; Ruth Paine called on her behalf. If Ruth goes no further, as in the manner of her testimony, then Marina is left with the thought that her husband did not live there... Ruth offered, it is not as if Marina asked her to do so.

As for the guy on the other end of the line not going beyond "there's no Lee Oswald here"- why should he? "Oswald" is a fairly unusual name,* and, in saying there was no one there by that name, that's probably what he keyed on and answered what was asked with what he knew. Of course, I suppose there's the possibility that he was in on the conspiracy, and was cleverly covering it up by not going beyond the basics with a fellow-conspirator in a conversation that only the two of them could hear. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This is a straw man. Actually, we have no idea what happened as this is testimony and there is no record of any conversation ever taking place. Nobody, outside of you, is suggesting the person on the other side of the line is on some sort of conspiracy.
 
No Other said:
Marina Oswald did not speak conversational english; Ruth Paine called on her behalf. If Ruth goes no further, as in the manner of her testimony, then Marina is left with the thought that her husband did not live there... Ruth offered, it is not as if Marina asked her to do so.

This is a straw man. Actually, we have no idea what happened as this is testimony and there is no record of any conversation ever taking place. Nobody, outside of you, is suggesting the person on the other side of the line is on some sort of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

So why even bring it up? The whole thing goes nowhere and is no good for anything but the usual CTist insinuation that something seems suspicious, based on no evidence but CTist expectation.
 
turingtest said:
So why even bring it up? The whole thing goes nowhere and is no good for anything but the usual CTist insinuation that something seems suspicious, based on no evidence but CTist expectation.
Click to expand...
Suspicious should not be equated with being a CT. This is why it is difficult to bring up anything, in this forum, that is remotely counter to what the general public has been fed. I find the Paines suspect as they have a deep background yet the majority of the time the word "Quaker" is used to describe Ruth while her husband happens to have a job at Bell Helicopter.
 
No Other said:
Suspicious should not be equated with being a CT. This is why it is difficult to bring up anything, in this forum, that is remotely counter to what the general public has been fed. I find the Paines suspect as they have a deep background yet the majority of the time the word "Quaker" is used to describe Ruth while her husband happens to have a job at Bell Helicopter.
Click to expand...

This assertion comes up so often that it's become a article of faith amongst the CT community that individuals that reject common JFK assassination nonsense (impossible shots by LHO, et al) have somehow only agreed with the governments version of events and haven't any foundation for their pov's based on their own knowledge, training or experience.

I grew up on a shooting range. The minute I read accounts of events with details and heard various folks describe the shooting as somehow being beyond the range of mortals I knew I was reading absolute ******** - The WC report didn't bring anything to light wrt the facts that changed my opinion, and when I got myself to the scene of the crime my pov was set - the shooting performed by LHO was no one in a million shot by any means.

CTists might want to consider that certain folks in the world have first hand experience in various subject matters that refute common CT fantasy constructs and they need no go-ahead from usgov.org to state those opinions.
 
No Other said:
Suspicious should not be equated with being a CT. This is why it is difficult to bring up anything, in this forum, that is remotely counter to what the general public has been fed. I find the Paines suspect as they have a deep background yet the majority of the time the word "Quaker" is used to describe Ruth while her husband happens to have a job at Bell Helicopter.
Click to expand...

It isn't; suspicious for the sake of suspicion is the mark of one. This is why it's difficult for CTists to gain any ground here- you bring up suspicions that go nowhere and are disconnected from anything but the need for suspicion. Suspect the Paines all you want, but until you tie them into a sensical narrative of conspiracy, it's useless "whoa, dude, this is weird, huh?" pipe-talk.
 
BStrong said:
This assertion comes up so often that it's become a article of faith amongst the CT community that individuals that reject common JFK assassination nonsense (impossible shots by LHO, et al) have somehow only agreed with the governments version of events and haven't any foundation for their pov's based on their own knowledge, training or experience.
I grew up on a shooting range. The minute I read accounts of events with details and heard various folks describe the shooting as somehow being beyond the range of mortals I knew I was reading absolute ******** - The WC report didn't bring anything to light wrt the facts that changed my opinion, and when I got myself to the scene of the crime my pov was set - the shooting performed by LHO was no one in a million shot by any means.

CTists might want to consider that certain folks in the world have first hand experience in various subject matters that refute common CT fantasy constructs and they need no go-ahead from usgov.org to state those opinions.
Click to expand...

And it's an assertion usually made by folks without their own relevant knowledge, training, or experience, and based on what they've been fed by the CT books/articles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom