• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Ian Kingsbury

Members
  • Content count

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ian Kingsbury

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 10/05/1956

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    just far enough north of London
  • Interests
    Coaching football ,reading ,watching West Ham when pos. trying not to comment on West Ham when pos. unhealthy thirst for knowledge any knowledge.
  1. Hey Bill, just a theory but considering witness testimony of there being two men seen in the windows, and the reports of the "fake" SS agents in and around the building and the two unidentified "plain clothes" coming down the stairs. I'm thinking it was a classic sniper team. Shooter and Spotter. The Shooter hides the weapon and the spotter rearranges the boxes to resemble a fighting position and frame "the patsy". This gives them time to complete both actions and then head down the stairs. They split up, one goes out the back and one goes out the front. If they encounter anyone they can show their ID and blend in and walk away. Would you be suspicious if a you encountered a stranger and they flashed a badge and asked for a phone? Brilliant. Chris This is similar in nature to Dougherty's "FBI " man , and only the timing And the oddness of Dougherty's testimony as to when it occured. Also if Baker sticks to his first day affadavit and the brown jacket guy was there This could be connected to Denhams discovery of a man "acting suspiciously" On the 3rd floor, as reported by Trantham in his HSCA report.
  2. Bill If we eliminate all but "strangers" in the TSBD at the time and places We have put them it leaves Jack Edwin Dougherty. And we know very,very little about him! Where do you start? Ian
  3. Theres is no peice of evidence that will convince YOU! And never will be.
  4. Almost correct no proof in 1963 Less proof of Oswalds guilt now And the AARB DID NOT HAPPEN DAVE! Have you found out who pm is yet!
  5. All the kings horses and all the kings men Humpty dumpty sat on a wall Could not put Humty together again Humpty dumpty had a great fall In the correct order is a rhyme Otherwise they are just STATEMENTS Personally i think he was pushed How many people did Truly vouch for?
  6. I think they would have to admit that Bill Hicks was correct "No fkin Oswald in the window"
  7. Robin, Thank you so much for uploading these higher-quality frames from Darnell. I certainly will not be renaming Prayer Man 'Prayer Woman', because the frame above puts the matter pretty much beyond doubt: This is Lee Oswald. The womanly appearance is due to the fact that a ) his sleeves are rolled up; b ) the eye is confusing the back of a woman's head with part of Lee's torso. Here's the woman in question's lower leg and foot: If you place your finger to the screen to cover where her head should be, the chief source of the 'Prayer Woman' illusion becomes apparent. This is Lee Oswald. Just look at the hairline. ** And speaking of hairlines, this frame tells us something else: Buell Wesley Frazier knew--knows--Lee is innocent. Someone urgently needs to show this image to him. Sean Somebody should show this to the public and let them decide? BWF will speak through others from now on or suffer a nasty "accident" Ian
  8. Robert Have you read this thread? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19782&hl=%2Bdesham+%2Bdenham#entry263986 Ian
  9. I have sent Gerda a pm !
  10. Or a camera lens?
  11. Sean Both Baker and Truly knew Oswald was "in the building" therefore they could put him Anywhere they wanted by shift the witness evidence to not conflict too much with thier story. What this does is add more weight to the fact that the 3rd/4th floor "Arrest" by Denham did occur!. This also supports the twin evidence we see with Braden and Florer and the two sets of tramps. Also remember Braden said in his HSCA. Evidence that they were bringing out The rifle holding it by the STRING! A quick shift of evidence can move the time and location or by ommiting it altogether helps their official story. Ian
  12. According to Armstrong and Bakers first day affadavit there was a meeting on the third Or fourth floor involving Truly and a man in a tan jacket. Officer Denham arrested a man on the third/fourth floor acting suspiciously Also seen by sawyer and officer Hill and is in Trenthams report! FLORER/BRADEN were apprehended acter third floor incidents. If they can switch floors how much more difficult to switch buildings? Denham was on traffic at Elm and Houston is there a mix up useful to Confuse like all the double evidence we see right through this case? If prayer man is Oswald then Baker did not recognise him on three occassions The stairs outside ,the lunchroom and sitting next to him when giving his First day affadavit?. And why would Truly run ahead of an officer with gun drawn Whilst he could possibly encounter a gunman coming down. He could have been caught In a crossfire himself. Unless of course he knew something at that time others did not.
  13. In absence of a veiw at other research on this matter. Are some assuming its not Oswald because :- He has to get to the lunchroom so Baker can avoid the man on the 3rd/4th floor? He could not be there and on the 6th floor as the same man is seen just after the shots He had just arrived from the grassy knoll?. Oswald mentions guiding someone to a payphone?
  14. Ray Thankfully you are right. But this does not exclude those characters from attacking this site or its members I see it as a indication of the green eyed monster in themselves. Ian
  15. Moderators As there are no "aliases here" we all have to use our real names. Would it be prudent to discuss the matter of those pseuds That do exist. If this type of discussion is banned here please remove this post. Thank you Ian kingsbury