Imhotep
Graduate Poster
Okay thanks.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
Okay thanks.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Just an aside, I'd most often give a weight estimate based on the weight of someone I knew who looked about the same size. Significant margin for error there, and rounding to 5 or 10 wouldn't be unusual. Heck, I round my own weight ot the nearest 5, when asked.
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
Alright.
My post doesn't come close to proving anything conspiratorial on its own. I'll try to find some time to post some related details that start to at least form a pattern with a little more weight to it.
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
The Phone Call
Selected excerpts from State Secret by Bill Simpich
An hour after Oswald left the Soviet consulate on the 28th, we have a wiretap transcript of a call on the Soviet line made by Silvia Duran from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet consulate. When Duran put Oswald on the line, he said that he had given the Soviet consulate the wrong address, and that he had returned to the Cuban consulate to obtain the proper address that he had left with them because he had forgotten it. The Soviet officer invited him to come back over and give them the right address. Oswald said that he would. The Soviets said that he did not return.
The Mexican reports about this September 28 call are intriguing. Sylvia Duran, a Mexican national, told the DFS officers who arrested her after the assassination that she never saw Oswald again after the 27th. Her family members said she told them the same thing. Duran’s statements to the Mexican police after the assassination were mis-translated. Her original statement given immediately after JFK’s assassination has never been released, and that even the original transcript of her interrogation may still be in the hands of the Mexican government.
What we do have is a February 1964 translation where Duran says that after September 27th “he never called again”. The Mexico City station’s Cuba desk chief David Phillips arranged for the translation of Duran’s statements at interrogation, and the final translation of the same statement is outrageous. Created in May 1964 and used as a Warren Commission exhibit, the final translation has Duran stating that “she does not recall whether Oswald subsequently called her or not.” A review of these translations reveals that they differ in many other striking ways.
The CIA admitted that the only hard evidence they had of the Oswald visit to Duran on the 28th was the wiretap. That meant that no one at the consulate was able to verify Oswald’s visit, including Duran herself. Her denial is the best available evidence.
We even see that the CIA told the Warren Commission that “we deduce” that Oswald visited the Cuban consulate on September 28, but added “we cannot be certain of this conclusion”. Why wouldn’t the CIA trust its own evidence that Oswald called the Soviet consulate? Such a statement hardly inspires confidence.
The last time Anne Goodpasture (CIA) was interrogated about this phone call, her interrogator referred to the caller on September 28 as “Oswald or an Oswald substitute”. Goodpasture didn’t even argue with him. She herself had referred in the past to “the man calling himself Oswald”, and “the ‘alleged’ Oswald”.
It was reported that two of the monitors said that the American in the Sept 28 call spoke broken Russian and broken English.
Oswald’s Russian was very good. Dallas translator Peter Gregory had written a recommendation for Oswald months earlier, verifying that Oswald was qualified to be a Russian translator and an interpreter. Gregory’s skills were considerable, and he was used by the Secret Service after the assassination.
Selected excerpts from State Secret by Bill Simpich
An hour after Oswald left the Soviet consulate on the 28th, we have a wiretap transcript of a call on the Soviet line made by Silvia Duran from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet consulate. When Duran put Oswald on the line, he said that he had given the Soviet consulate the wrong address, and that he had returned to the Cuban consulate to obtain the proper address that he had left with them because he had forgotten it. The Soviet officer invited him to come back over and give them the right address. Oswald said that he would. The Soviets said that he did not return.
The Mexican reports about this September 28 call are intriguing. Sylvia Duran, a Mexican national, told the DFS officers who arrested her after the assassination that she never saw Oswald again after the 27th. Her family members said she told them the same thing. Duran’s statements to the Mexican police after the assassination were mis-translated. Her original statement given immediately after JFK’s assassination has never been released, and that even the original transcript of her interrogation may still be in the hands of the Mexican government.
What we do have is a February 1964 translation where Duran says that after September 27th “he never called again”. The Mexico City station’s Cuba desk chief David Phillips arranged for the translation of Duran’s statements at interrogation, and the final translation of the same statement is outrageous. Created in May 1964 and used as a Warren Commission exhibit, the final translation has Duran stating that “she does not recall whether Oswald subsequently called her or not.” A review of these translations reveals that they differ in many other striking ways.
The CIA admitted that the only hard evidence they had of the Oswald visit to Duran on the 28th was the wiretap. That meant that no one at the consulate was able to verify Oswald’s visit, including Duran herself. Her denial is the best available evidence.
We even see that the CIA told the Warren Commission that “we deduce” that Oswald visited the Cuban consulate on September 28, but added “we cannot be certain of this conclusion”. Why wouldn’t the CIA trust its own evidence that Oswald called the Soviet consulate? Such a statement hardly inspires confidence.
The last time Anne Goodpasture (CIA) was interrogated about this phone call, her interrogator referred to the caller on September 28 as “Oswald or an Oswald substitute”. Goodpasture didn’t even argue with him. She herself had referred in the past to “the man calling himself Oswald”, and “the ‘alleged’ Oswald”.
It was reported that two of the monitors said that the American in the Sept 28 call spoke broken Russian and broken English.
Oswald’s Russian was very good. Dallas translator Peter Gregory had written a recommendation for Oswald months earlier, verifying that Oswald was qualified to be a Russian translator and an interpreter. Gregory’s skills were considerable, and he was used by the Secret Service after the assassination.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Perhaps might now be a good time to recommend you read the thread in its entirety and its predecessor threads.
Or do you think we should recover a lot of ground just because you just got here?
Hank
Hint: Try reading the prior page for starters.
HSienzant
Philosopher
You guys will quibble about anything pretty much, won't you?
Officer Marion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor of the Depository within about 90 seconds of the assassination, right? Is that something beyond dispute?
I trust so, because it destroys your silly argument.
Here's his affidavit.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
Note the age, height, & weight he estimated Oswald at:
The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
What does this establish, except conspiracy theorists quibble over ever little item, mostly for no good reason?
Baker saw Oswald, and estimated his weight at 165lb. The witness saw Oswald in the window and estimated his weight at 165. Someone else saw Oswald and estimated his weight at 165 (as reflected in the cable you cite). You're right, your argument proves nothing, except how desperate you are to have an argument that establishes conspiracy, when all it establishes is Oswald looked like he was about 165 pounds.
What's your source for Oswald's weight being 140? Do you even have one, or is that just your personal favorite guess?
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Have you researched and verified the above, or are you just taking Simpich at his word for all that?
And if you haven't verified any of it, why are your posting it? And why should we bother with it, exactly?
Is it your intent to argue for a conspiracy by simply quoting conspiracy sites repeatedly?
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Well, not much more than 165lbs, I trust.
After all, mistaken estimates should always be deemed to prove conspiracy, right?
Hank
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
No I'll probably just stop and leave you in peace.
Too much sarcasm and nastiness. Later. (Yes I get that you made some valid points amid the sarcasm/nastiness)
I'll just suggest that interested readers check out State Secret for themselves including the footnoted references that I didn't include here. Cheers all.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
No I'll probably just stop and leave you in peace.
Too much sarcasm and nastiness. Later. (Yes I get that you made some valid points amid the sarcasm/nastiness)
I'll just suggest that interested readers check out State Secret for themselves including the footnoted references that I didn't include here. Cheers all.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html
So we can conclude it was your intent to argue for a conspiracy by citing Simpich's 'research' [cough] without validating any of it?
And you realize you were totally wrong about making a big deal of the estimate of the shooter as 165lbs, as Simpich does, given that a total stranger who we know saw Oswald within 90 seconds of the shooting also gave that same precise weight estimate? Did Simpich happen to mention Baker's estimate at any time in his free e-book, by the way? Or did he withhold that info from his readers, including you?
Yeah, and you won't argue any of these points because of my "sarcasm and nastiness"?
Why, because I asked you a few questions and told you to read the thread in its entirety?
Saw that one coming a mile away.
You should realize many of us are old hands at this. I myself have been debating the JFK assassination online for 25 years or so, going back to the old Prodigy and AOL systems in the early 1990's. You're not going to move the needle by quoting some nonsense from a conspiracy site that you read and believed and offer nothing of your own.
We've seen plenty of that. Tell us why you find Simpich convincing, especially if you haven't validated any of his claims by examining the original materials. Have you even read the Warren Report, for starters?
Here's an intro into my background into the case: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11836035&postcount=3433
What's your story?
Hank
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
No I'll probably just stop and leave you in peace.
Too much sarcasm and nastiness. Later. (Yes I get that you made some valid points amid the sarcasm/nastiness)
I'll just suggest that interested readers check out State Secret for themselves including the footnoted references that I didn't include here. Cheers all.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html
I have a suggestion. Start with your comprehensive hypothesiis for how the assassination occurred. Then we can examine all of the evidence and see that it all fits your comprehensive hypothesis.
I've yet to find a CT who will make that mistake more than once. Is this your first time?
Axxman300
Philosopher
I wasted 28 years of my life as a JFK CTist. Let me save you some time by listing the facts that changed my mind, and make a large, convoluted conspiracy impossible:
1. It was an EASY shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. I went to Dallas on vacation, stood in front of the building, and was godsmacked at how close everything is.
2. The Carcano is a capable weapon. Not the best in the world, but accurate up to 1,000 yards. The 6.5x52mm round was larger than standard rifle bullets, and had amazing penetration capability, and devastating effect on a human target. No other round could do the damage done to JFK and Connally. The 6.5x52mm was propitiatory to the Carcano, no other rifle fired it.
3. Oswald owned the Carcano that fired the bullets, he worked in the TSBD on the 6th floor, he fled the scene of the crime, murdered Tippet, and almost murdered a second DPD officer during his arrest.
4. Oswald was a hack. His behavior suggests either bipolar, or Asperger's Syndrome, maybe both. This explains why he could teach himself Russian, but not hold a job, and had unrealistic expectations about the outcomes of his life-choices.
5. Intelligence services are all the same as far as recruiting locals for dirty work. No spy agency in the world would have risked working with Oswald.
My personal view is that Oswald did it all by himself. JFK was nothing more than a target of opportunity. The motorcade passed right under his workplace. He'd already taken a shot at General Walker, and as far as I can tell, the only reason Oswald - a man living paycheck to paycheck, no car, city dweller - would buy a rifle at all was to kill someone.
It might be possible that one other person knew what Oswald was going to do, but that person was just a regular schmoe, and not some spy master/mob fixer/whatever. The reason I hold the door open for this possibility is that someone drove Oswald to those shooting ranges, and that person has never been identified. In fact, the whole shooting range aspect in the weeks leading up to the assassination seemed to be under explored by law enforcement and the Warren Commission. On the other hand I don't think this mystery person is all that important. I've had friends who liked to run their mouths about things they'd like to do, and my guess is that the guy driving Oswald around felt that Oswald - if he said anything at all - was talking out of his butt. Certainly this person would have panicked when he saw Oswald on TV after the assassination out of fear of prosecution, or shame for driving him to the range to sharpen his skills to kill JFK, or both.
Either way, it's not important. All that matters is that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD with his Carcano when JKF passed in the street below.
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
I guess I should have introduced myself properly, explained my level of knowledge and where I stand as far as what I believe happened.
1. I believe Oswald shot Kennedy and was the only active shooter
2. I don't believe Oswald was recruited or paid by any organization to do the deed
3. I think Oswald may have received encouragement to do the deed while in Mexico
4. This encouragement may have been coordinated or just happenstance
5. I think there may have been foreknowledge of the assassination by people connected to the CIA
I find the language used in JFK assassination discussions deplorable. Kooks, idiots, morons. We traditionally would have researchers discussing different possibilities, not this sort of football match. Maybe it's a symptom of the internet. But I don't want anything to do with this brand of discourse and that's why I won't be engaging Hank any more.
1. I believe Oswald shot Kennedy and was the only active shooter
2. I don't believe Oswald was recruited or paid by any organization to do the deed
3. I think Oswald may have received encouragement to do the deed while in Mexico
4. This encouragement may have been coordinated or just happenstance
5. I think there may have been foreknowledge of the assassination by people connected to the CIA
I find the language used in JFK assassination discussions deplorable. Kooks, idiots, morons. We traditionally would have researchers discussing different possibilities, not this sort of football match. Maybe it's a symptom of the internet. But I don't want anything to do with this brand of discourse and that's why I won't be engaging Hank any more.
HSienzant
Philosopher
I see nothing about your level of knowledge, only what you believe or think. How long have you been reading about the case, what got you started, and the question I asked previously, have you ever read the Warren Report?
If you have any problem with my level of discourse, you could report any of my posts to the moderators (it's the little exclamation point button on the bottom left). Maybe you should quote me calling anyone a 'kook', 'idiot' or 'moron'. Especially report those posts, should you find any (you won't). Indeed, the only time the word 'kook' was used in this thread was in relation to a religious zealot, and it wasn't used by me. So your professed reason for not engaging me is less than accurate. And we both know that.
All I did was ask you to read the entire thread (including the predecessor threads to familiarize yourself with the arguments already raised so we don't have to repeat ourselves, ask if you were going to be debating this via conspiracy site quotes (and with the implied assumption that if we don't refute every link you provide, they must be true). I've seen that expectation before in my 25 years debating this online, so I asked if you have that expectation.
I also pointed out why Simpich's argument about the CIA / FBI documentation from 1960 being the source of the reported weight of the gunman was nonsense -- a police officer who indisputably saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom within about 90 seconds of the shooting also estimated Oswald's weight as 165 pounds. He filed his report on 11/22/63, so unless you're going to argue Baker is now part of the conspiracy, that cuts Simpich (and your) argument right off at the legs.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
Simpich also pretends there is some mystery about who this witness is that reported this weight of 165 pounds. There isn't. It was Howard Brennan.
Mr. BELIN. Could you describe the man you saw in the window on the sixth floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.
Mr. BELIN. About what weight?
Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.
Mr. BELIN. A white man?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do after that? Or what did you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. I observed to my thinking that they were directing their search towards the west side of the building and down Houston Street.
Mr. BELIN. When you say "they", who do you mean?
Mr. BRENNAN. Law-enforcement officers.
Mr. BELIN. By the west side of the building, you mean towards the underpass or railroad tracks?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. After you saw that, what did you do?
Mr. BRENNAN. I knew I had to get to someone quick to tell them where the man was. So I ran or I walked--there is a possibility I ran, because I have a habit of, when something has to be done in a hurry, I run. And there was one officer standing at the corner of the Texas Book Store on the street. It didn't seem to me he was going in any direction. He was standing still.
[The position of the white car at the corner in this image shows where Brennan spoke with the officer]:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce477.jpg
Mr. BELIN. What did you do or what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. I asked him to get me someone in charge, a Secret Service man or an FBI. That it appeared to me that they were searching in the wrong direction for the man that did the shooting.
And he was definitely in the building on the sixth floor.
I did not say on the sixth floor. Correction there.
I believe I identified the window as one window from the top.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. Because, at that time, I did not know how many story building it was.
Representative FORD. But you did say to the policeman it was a window on the second floor from the top?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right.
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. BRENNAN. He --
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask there. By the second floor from the top, do you mean the one directly underneath the top floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. Underneath the top floor, excluding the roof, yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened, sir?
Mr. BRENNAN. He said, "just a minute." And he had to give some orders or something on the east side of the building on Houston Street. And then he had taken me to, I believe, Mr. Sorrels, an automobile sitting in front of the Texas Book Store.
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened there?
Mr. BRENNAN. I related my information and there was a few minutes of discussion, and Mr. Sorrels had taken me then across the street to the sheriff's building.
Mr. BELIN. Did you describe the man that you saw in the window?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; I believe I did.
Sorrels confirms Brennan was already known to the police as an eyewitness by the time he arrived back at the Depository (about 20-25 minutes after the assassination):
Mr. STERN - Then you got inside the building and what did you do?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked for the manager, and I was directed to Mr. Truly. He was standing there.
I went up and identified myself to him. I said, "I want to get a stenographer, and we would like to have you put down the names and addresses of every employee of the building, in the building."
And I then walked on out the front door and asked, "Did anyone here see anything?"
And someone pointed to Mr. Brennan.
Mr. STERN - What was your purpose in asking for a list of the employees of the building?
Mr. SORRELS - Because I knew that they would have to be interviewed. I was trying to establish at that time without any delay, who all was in that building or was employed there, because I knew they would have to be talked to later.
In other words, I was looking for someone that saw something.
Mr. STERN - You were looking for potential witnesses?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN - And at that time you had no basis for suspecting any employee might be involved one way or the other?
Mr. SORRELS - No, sir; and I did not know at that time that the shots came from the building.
When I was--when Mr. Brennan was pointed out to me, I went up and told him who I was and asked him if he saw anything. And he told me what he had seen. And, at that time, that is the first time that I knew definitely that any shots had come from the building.
Mr. STERN - Now, what precisely did Mr. Brennan tell you?
Mr. SORRELS - Mr. Brennan said that he was standing across the street, watching the parade, and that he, of course, was looking in the direction where the President was, and he heard a sound which he thought at first was a backfire of an automobile. And that shortly afterwards there was another sound, and that he thought that somebody might be throwing firecrackers out of the building.
And he glanced up to the building, and that he saw a man at the window on the right-hand side, the second floor from the top.
And he said, "I could see the man taking deliberate aim and saw him fire the third shot," and said then he just pulled the rifle back in and moved back from the window, just as unconcerned as could be.
Mr. STERN - How did you happen to talk to Mr. Brennan?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked--I don't know who, someone there "Is there anyone here that saw anything?" And someone said, "That man over there."
He was out in front of the building and I went right to him.
Mr. STERN - Did Mr. Brennan tell you anything else?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked him whether or not he thought he could identify the person that he saw, and he, of course, gave me a description of him, said that he appeared to be a slender man, he had on what appeared to be a light jacket or shirt or something to that effect, and that he thought he could identify him--said he was slender build. Because I was definitely interested in someone that had seen something that could give us some definite information.
Sawyer confirms he was out front when a witness reported the sighting of the man in the window to him shortly after the assassination:
Mr. BELIN. Now after you got down and you issued these orders, then what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. I set up a command post in front. The various officers were bringing up different witnesses who had seen various things, and I saw that this was quite an involved situation. It was so many of these people that had information, that I knew I didn't have time to take this information down, and by this time several deputy sheriffs were standing there, and one of them, I think he was a supervisor, I had his name at one time, I can't think of it now, was there, and he offered the use of an interrogation room of Sheriff Decker's office, I think he said, for interrogating these people.
Mr. BELIN. That is located down the street a little bit there?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, it is catty-corner across the street.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. SAWYER. It is southeast across the street from the Texas School Book Depository, at least from the corner, and so we set up a group of officers and deputy sheriffs who were to take charge of the witnesses and take them over to see that affidavits were taken from them. They were more or less an escort service so the witness wouldn't get away.
And then as our detectives began to show up, I sent them over to the Sheriff's Office to assist in taking these depositions or affidavits.
Mr. BELIN. How many witnesses were there around there during this period of time that you talked to?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, during the entire period of time that I was there, I would venture to say between 25 to 50 different people had come up with information of one kind or another.
...
Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears [#9 is Sawyer's call number in the police radio log] is at what time?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45.
Mr. BELIN. What did you say then?
Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?"
Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle."
Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description?"
Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made sometime before 12:45 p.m., and after the 12:43 p.m., call, "Attention all squads, description was broadcast and no further information at this time."
Does that mean the description you made was rebroadcast?
Mr. SAWYER. I rebroadcast that description. That is what that means.
...
Mr. BELIN. We will call this Sawyer's Deposition Exhibit B.
I see here that you go on at 12:45 p.m., with this statement by your No. 9. You want to read it?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. "From this building it is unknown if he is still there or not. Unknown if he was there in the first place."
Mr. BELIN. Then it reads back here, "All the information we have received, indicates it did come from the fifth or fourth of that building." That is the central headquarters back to you, is that it?
Mr. SAWYER. That's right.
Mr. BELIN. That is at least after 12:45 p.m., and before 12:48 p.m.?
Simpich (and you, by citing him) remark on Sawyer's questioning of the witness, finding it perculiar that Sawyer would say "Unknown if he was there in the first place." In context, Sawyer was saying, "I have this eyewitness report, but given that witnesses are often wrong in one or more particulars, I cannot personally vouch for the correctness of any of this information I was passed and am reporting here."
And the dispatcher tells him he's getting info from other sources, and those sources are also indicating an upper floor of the Depository as the source of the shots, and ergo, your witness appears to be reporting information we can corroborate.
How much of that info did Simpich share to aid his readership in making up their mind, or did he simply conceal all that information from his readers to make his 'mysterious witness' appear more sinister, as if it wasn't just a normal citizen reporting what he saw and instead was part of a CIA operation to frame Oswald?
Simpich shared none of the info that makes it appear less sinister, and none of the info about Brennan, except in a footnote, and then only to dismiss it.
There is so much wrong with Simpich's chapter six alone it would take a book to refute it.
Hank
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Simple explanation: LHO was a fantasist. Not much different from the clowns in this video:
There is a whole subculture of people who make false claims wrt their background, experience and qualifications. It is nothing new. LHO fits that bill to a T.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
No I'll probably just stop and leave you in peace.
Too much sarcasm and nastiness. Later. (Yes I get that you made some valid points amid the sarcasm/nastiness)
Wow. Simply disagreeing is somehow sarky and nasty.
Get a grip. Had your claims any traction, you would be able to dismiss any counter claims on the basis of facts and evidence. As things stand, you resort to insult.
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
I really don't want to go on an ignore spree here. So you missed where he used sarcasm, and missed where he was nasty?
Let's test out our viewpoints here.
Do you think "Get a grip" is nasty?
My claims do have traction, most of what I posted can be linked straight to the evidence archive at the Mary Ferrell site. I would have taken the time to provide those if it was requested in a normal, polite way.
I should have posted them right away.
Let me ask you this also. If we were having this discussion right now at say a coffee shop, would you say to me in person, "Get a grip"?
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
I'm going to do my best to create an environment here that's conducive to good discussion. So let's move past this stuff if we can.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
It's commonly referred to as SWAG - scientific wild-ass guess.
Folks use all sorts of descriptive tools and terms when estimating age/height/weight and in many cases get things wrong, sometimes horribly so.
I can't tell you how many times there would be a criminal incident where security camera footage was eventually made available and that footage directly contradicted the accounts of witnesses - mismatched color or type of clothing being very common.
You'd think that somebody interviewed by an officer within minutes of an incident would be able to accurately describe a suspect, but in many cases they'd be way off from the evidence shown on camera.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Take an honest look at Oswald, and what the Russians and Cubans would have made out of him when he dropped into their respective embassies talking about immigrating, or asylum in their countries.
First, the Russians already knew Oswald from his defection. They knew he was a mental case, they knew he was a sad-sack, and they sure as heck didn't want him back.
The Cubans would have called the Russians, or vice versa. They are looking at a guy with limited Spanish ability and NO SKILLS to offer them. Had he been a doctor, mechanic, engineer he would have been welcomed with a visa.
The CIA station wouldn't have known Oswald. They would have heard him say his name at either embassy, and then put it on a list to send back to Langley to cross reference with their files there, and maybe the FBI. If they thought he was important they'd have sent a priority cable asking for ID and background. I doubt that happened.
So why would anyone fake phone conversations pretending to be Oswald? Who else knew he was in Mexico City? If such fake phone conversations occurred then what was the motive? To warn the US? To frame Cuba for the assassination?
Let's take the last one first:
Say some anti-Castro Cuban had posed as a pro-Castro guy, and had sold Oswald on the wonders of Cuba, and all he had to do was kill JFK, and he would live like the Marxist rebel he pretended to be. This mystery man calls friends in Mexico City to alert them of LHO's visit, and they plan their fake phone calls for the CIA to record...why stop there? Why not plant evidence in his room linking him to Castro? Why not wire money into his bank account on 11/22/63 from a Mexico City bank the Cubans also used?
A fake phone call for the benefit of CIA eavesdroppers is not enough.
Now, if the fake phone calls were a way for the Cubans to warn the US, the fact is the better move would have been to call the US State Department and warn them directly. The side benefit would have been an easing of tensions between the Kennedys and Cuba (maybe).
Remember, the world was only 13 months past the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nobody wanted to go through that again, not the Soviets, not the Cubans, and not the US. However, had a direct link between Oswald and Cuba or the Soviets been established it would have meant war.
First, the Russians already knew Oswald from his defection. They knew he was a mental case, they knew he was a sad-sack, and they sure as heck didn't want him back.
The Cubans would have called the Russians, or vice versa. They are looking at a guy with limited Spanish ability and NO SKILLS to offer them. Had he been a doctor, mechanic, engineer he would have been welcomed with a visa.
The CIA station wouldn't have known Oswald. They would have heard him say his name at either embassy, and then put it on a list to send back to Langley to cross reference with their files there, and maybe the FBI. If they thought he was important they'd have sent a priority cable asking for ID and background. I doubt that happened.
So why would anyone fake phone conversations pretending to be Oswald? Who else knew he was in Mexico City? If such fake phone conversations occurred then what was the motive? To warn the US? To frame Cuba for the assassination?
Let's take the last one first:
Say some anti-Castro Cuban had posed as a pro-Castro guy, and had sold Oswald on the wonders of Cuba, and all he had to do was kill JFK, and he would live like the Marxist rebel he pretended to be. This mystery man calls friends in Mexico City to alert them of LHO's visit, and they plan their fake phone calls for the CIA to record...why stop there? Why not plant evidence in his room linking him to Castro? Why not wire money into his bank account on 11/22/63 from a Mexico City bank the Cubans also used?
A fake phone call for the benefit of CIA eavesdroppers is not enough.
Now, if the fake phone calls were a way for the Cubans to warn the US, the fact is the better move would have been to call the US State Department and warn them directly. The side benefit would have been an easing of tensions between the Kennedys and Cuba (maybe).
Remember, the world was only 13 months past the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nobody wanted to go through that again, not the Soviets, not the Cubans, and not the US. However, had a direct link between Oswald and Cuba or the Soviets been established it would have meant war.
- Status