Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Richard Coleman

How Can You Manipulate a Patsy? Easy!

41 posts in this topic

I may be dense, but I don’t understand all the hand-wringing about how Oswald could have been “manipulated” into being a patsy. Oswald wasn’t a military or intelligence officer; his military rank was private! He wasn’t a college graduate, he didn’t have case officer training, he was a grunt. Yes no doubt he got some kind of specialized training (interrogation and the like) and Russian language training, required for his assignment, but that’s it.

Anybody who has been in the military (I was) and brushed up against national security/intelligence stuff, no matter how slightly (I did) understands that you OBEY ORDERS. You are thoroughly INDOCTRINATED as to your patriotism, loyalty and OBEDIENCE. This isn’t an option. Example: when you get a Top Secret clearance, and gain access to Top Secret information or materials, you are bound and agree to observe that secrecy FOR LIFE. If you start blabbing about such matters, even if you have been in civilian life for thirty years, you can still be prosecuted. I promise you there are plenty of people walking around with Top Secret secrets from long ago that they will take to their graves. That goes whether it’s from WW2, Korea, the space program in the 60s, Roswell or anything else.

You do what you’re told, obey your orders to keep your mouth shut or else!

As to being “manipulated” , please! Example: a low-ranking person, say a Lee Harvey Oswald, could be told by his superior, “Lee, take this package to this address in St. Louis and deliver it to Lt. Smith. Take two days off and report back on Monday. You’ll be traveling as a civilian so here are your plane tickets and cash for expenses.” ORDERS. “Yes sir.” Our “Oswald” is intercepted along the way and the package turns out to be a kilo of uncut pure heroin. He protests that he is under orders and didn’t know what was in the package. When the police contact his superior, they are told, “he went over the hill two weeks ago. We haven’t seen him since.”

His records will be altered to show he was UA, and everybody at his duty station will be told to say they haven’t seen him for a couple of weeks. They won’t question why, they will OBEY ORDERS. Top Secret, you know! End of story. And “Oswald” goes off to prison for 5 to 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be dense, but I don’t understand all the hand-wringing about how Oswald could have been “manipulated” into being a patsy. Oswald wasn’t a military or intelligence officer; his military rank was private! He wasn’t a college graduate, he didn’t have case officer training, he was a grunt. Yes no doubt he got some kind of specialized training (interrogation and the like) and Russian language training, required for his assignment, but that’s it.

Anybody who has been in the military (I was) and brushed up against national security/intelligence stuff, no matter how slightly (I did) understands that you OBEY ORDERS. You are thoroughly INDOCTRINATED as to your patriotism, loyalty and OBEDIENCE. This isn’t an option. Example: when you get a Top Secret clearance, and gain access to Top Secret information or materials, you are bound and agree to observe that secrecy FOR LIFE. If you start blabbing about such matters, even if you have been in civilian life for thirty years, you can still be prosecuted. I promise you there are plenty of people walking around with Top Secret secrets from long ago that they will take to their graves. That goes whether it’s from WW2, Korea, the space program in the 60s, Roswell or anything else.

You do what you’re told, obey your orders to keep your mouth shut or else!

As to being “manipulated” , please! Example: a low-ranking person, say a Lee Harvey Oswald, could be told by his superior, “Lee, take this package to this address in St. Louis and deliver it to Lt. Smith. Take two days off and report back on Monday. You’ll be traveling as a civilian so here are your plane tickets and cash for expenses.” ORDERS. “Yes sir.” Our “Oswald” is intercepted along the way and the package turns out to be a kilo of uncut pure heroin. He protests that he is under orders and didn’t know what was in the package. When the police contact his superior, they are told, “he went over the hill two weeks ago. We haven’t seen him since.”

His records will be altered to show he was UA, and everybody at his duty station will be told to say they haven’t seen him for a couple of weeks. They won’t question why, they will OBEY ORDERS. Top Secret, you know! End of story. And “Oswald” goes off to prison for 5 to 10.

Thank you Richard Coleman, common sense is in short supply here. Take David Von Pein for example..... a fretter above ALL fretters trapped by the 1964 WCR.... :)

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

1.) OSWALD took OSWALD'S rifle to work on the day of JFK's visit to Dallas.

2.) OSWALD'S prints were all over the place where the assassin of JFK was located (the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor).

3.) OSWALD was identified by a witness as the person who shot Kennedy.

4.) OSWALD shot and killed Officer Tippit.

5.) OSWALD put up a wild fight in the Texas Theater and punched out a cop while drawing a revolver (the same revolver, of course, that was used to murder Tippit 35 minutes earlier).

6.) Bullets and bullet shells from OSWALD'S two guns turn up everywhere where the killer of Kennedy and the killer of Tippit were known to have been (and in KENNEDY'S CAR even!). And I won't even add "CE399" to this list, because CTers hate that bullet so much. But, as can easily be seen, CE399 isn't even really needed to convict OSWALD, because there's so much other stuff besides 399 that convicts him too.

Yeah, that's some innocent and framed "patsy" you've got there. LOL.

Regarding Point #3:

I know you probably think Howard Brennan is worthless as a witness, but shouldn't we also consider the description that Mr. Brennan gave of the assassin in his 11/22 affidavit too? The description in that affidavit, which was written by Brennan within hours of the assassination and months before he ever talked to anybody from the Warren Commission, can, indeed, be considered very "general" in nature, but it also can fit the person who owned the rifle found on the sixth floor, especially when combined with Officer Marrion Baker's description of Oswald. And we KNOW Baker saw OSWALD, not somebody else, on the second floor.

Just look at these two descriptions in these November 22nd affidavits. One of these witnesses (Brennan) is describing the sniper on the sixth floor of the Depository; while the other witness (Baker) is describing a man he himself personally encountered--a person Baker was just inches away from in the second-floor lunchroom just 2 minutes or so after Brennan saw the man he describes in his affidavit. These descriptions are identical in several key respects, right down to each witness thinking the man they were describing was about 30 years old.

Here's a direct comparison (and keep in mind that we KNOW Baker IS describing Lee Harvey Oswald here, not some mystery person whose identity is still unknown):

BRENNAN -- "White man."

BAKER ---- "White man."

BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s."

BAKER ---- "Approximately 30 years old."

BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds."

BAKER ---- "165 pounds."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4oxRP0t5ZBM/Tvw52B7FIGI/AAAAAAAABwU/QbBHYHhIM4Q/s1200-h/Marrion-Baker-Affidavit.gif

Those identical descriptions are an interesting "coincidence", huh? Do conspiracy theorists now want to claim that Marrion L. Baker wasn't really describing Lee Oswald at all in his above affidavit? Or did Marrion decide to just make up those descriptive details out of whole cloth in order to conform perfectly with the only witness in all of Dealey Plaza who actually saw the assassin firing a gun during the shooting of President Kennedy -- right down to the incorrect age and weight estimates?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

...

you've lost the case evidence PR war hon! Best focus on the Nov. 2013 Dallas DP circus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

1.) OSWALD took OSWALD'S rifle to work on the day of JFK's visit to Dallas.

2.) OSWALD'S prints were all over the place where the assassin of JFK was located (the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor).

3.) OSWALD was identified by a witness as the person who shot Kennedy.

4.) OSWALD shot and killed Officer Tippit.

5.) OSWALD put up a wild fight in the Texas Theater and punched out a cop while drawing a revolver (the same revolver, of course, that was used to murder Tippit 35 minutes earlier).

6.) Bullets and bullet shells from OSWALD'S two guns turn up everywhere where the killer of Kennedy and the killer of Tippit were known to have been (and in KENNEDY'S CAR even!). And I won't even add "CE399" to this list, because CTers hate that bullet so much. But, as can easily be seen, CE399 isn't even really needed to convict OSWALD, because there's so much other stuff besides 399 that convicts him too.

Yeah, that's some innocent and framed "patsy" you've got there. LOL.

Regarding Point #3:

I know you probably think Howard Brennan is worthless as a witness, but shouldn't we also consider the description that Mr. Brennan gave of the assassin in his 11/22 affidavit too? The description in that affidavit, which was written by Brennan within hours of the assassination and months before he ever talked to anybody from the Warren Commission, can, indeed, be considered very "general" in nature, but it also can fit the person who owned the rifle found on the sixth floor, especially when combined with Officer Marrion Baker's description of Oswald. And we KNOW Baker saw OSWALD, not somebody else, on the second floor.

Just look at these two descriptions in these November 22nd affidavits. One of these witnesses (Brennan) is describing the sniper on the sixth floor of the Depository; while the other witness (Baker) is describing a man he himself personally encountered--a person Baker was just inches away from in the second-floor lunchroom just 2 minutes or so after Brennan saw the man he describes in his affidavit. These descriptions are identical in several key respects, right down to each witness thinking the man they were describing was about 30 years old.

Here's a direct comparison (and keep in mind that we KNOW Baker IS describing Lee Harvey Oswald here, not some mystery person whose identity is still unknown):

BRENNAN -- "White man."

BAKER ---- "White man."

BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s."

BAKER ---- "Approximately 30 years old."

BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds."

BAKER ---- "165 pounds."

http://2.bp.blogspot...n-Affidavit.gif

http://2.bp.blogspot...r-Affidavit.gif

Those identical descriptions are an interesting "coincidence", huh? Do conspiracy theorists now want to claim that Marrion L. Baker wasn't really describing Lee Oswald at all in his above affidavit? Or did Marrion decide to just make up those descriptive details out of whole cloth in order to conform perfectly with the only witness in all of Dealey Plaza who actually saw the assassin firing a gun during the shooting of President Kennedy -- right down to the incorrect age and weight estimates?

I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. Your "points" are ludicrous and wrong. I suppose to people like you nobody was ever framed by law enforcement. Or could be. You should look up the case of the four black men in Boston who were framed for a murder by the FBI to protect their high-level informant -- gang boss Whitey Bulger. And this was no case where they were too overzealous investigating a suspect they believed was guilty.They knew that Bulger himself was the killer! They fabricated a case against four men they KNEW to be innocent. One died in prison. The others served 25 years. They were finally exonerated and released.

(Source: Deadly Alliance: The FBI's Secret Partnership With the Mob by Ralph Ranalli)

For this and other corruption a couple of FBI agents went to prison but everything the FBI did for Bulger was signed off on up the chain of command to the attorney general.

Don't you suppose there was evidence against those four uh, PATSIES? Of course there was; all manufactured.

Oh, and did you ever hear of a guy named Geronimo Pratt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deadly Alliance: The FBI's Secret Partnership With the Mob by Ralph Ranalli

From the Amazon website:

About the Author

Ralph Ranalli is a veteran legal journalist for the Boston Globe and has written extensively about the FBI's Top Echelon Informant Program for both the Globe and the Boston Herald. His coverage of the Boston FBI scandal spans more than 400 newspaper and magazine articles and earned a 1998 news writing award from the Associated Press. Deadly Alliance is his first book.

************************************

Just didn't want you to think this was dreamed up by a left wing pinko commie anti-FBI conspiracy theorizin' crackpot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose to people like you nobody was ever framed by law enforcement. Or could be.

Oh, good! Now Marrion Baker is on the ever-growing list of people who were out to frame the poor sap named Oswald.

And probably Roy Truly too. Right, Richard?

When a person has to add one plotter on top of another, until the list grows to absurd and outlandish proportions, isn't it just time to admit that Oswald is probably guilty?

After all, how likely is it that the 1,358 suspects that appear in all of the conspiracy theorists' books are actually ALL guilty of framing that snow-white Communist sympathizer named Oswald?

Or, to put it another way, here are some excellent quotes that I've culled from the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet Newsgroup over the last several years (all written by a very astute LNer named Bud). He's hit the nail right squarely on the head too:

"[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

"Keep heaping those witnesses on. A cast of thousands, cutting across all walks of life, all working against the poor patsy, all quiet to this day. Just because it can't happen won't stop kooks from insisting it did." -- Bud; August 11, 2007

"When you are desperate enough, and you scour the evidence thinking real hard how each thing could be fishy or suspicious, you will come to the conclusion that everything you look at is fishy and suspicious. It's inevitable." -- Bud; June 21, 2010

"To kooks, all the Dallas Police are suspects in the conspiracy also. The world vs. the patsy." -- Bud; April 27, 2006

Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BRENNAN -- "White man."

BAKER ---- "White man."

BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s."

BAKER ---- "Approximately 30 years old."

BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds."

BAKER ---- "165 pounds."

http://2.bp.blogspot...n-Affidavit.gif

http://2.bp.blogspot...r-Affidavit.gif

Those identical descriptions are an interesting "coincidence", huh? Do conspiracy theorists now want to claim that Marrion L. Baker wasn't really describing Lee Oswald at all in his above affidavit? Or did Marrion decide to just make up those descriptive details out of whole cloth in order to conform perfectly with the only witness in all of Dealey Plaza who actually saw the assassin firing a gun during the shooting of President Kennedy -- right down to the incorrect age and weight estimates?

You forgot to add Rowland, and other descriptions from Brennan and Baker

Rowland. White or light Latin male - in his 30's - 140 to 150 pounds - dark hair, no receding hairline - light colored shirt (thought white or light blue) over tee shirt.

Brennan - couldn't remember hair color - light colored cloths (thought possibly khaki)

Baker - dark hair - light brown jacket

I agree - all three of these witnesses saw the same person. Trouble is, the person they describe doesn't sound like Oswald and as has been pointed out to people like you innumerable times over the years - Baker had the chance to point the finger at Oswald while his own affidavit was being taken and say "That's him! That's the guy I saw in the building!" But he did not. Oswald was sitting right there in the same small office, and he failed to finger him. It took Marvin Johnson to bail Baker out by claiming in his own statement that Baker did ID Oswald.

Uh huh.... just point to that identification in Baker's statement please.

http://jfkassassinat...ny/baker_m3.htm

Here's Baker admitting he saw Oswald while his affidavit was being taken:

Representative BOGGS -Let me ask one other question. You later, when you recognized this man as Lee Oswald, is that right, saw pictures of him?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. I had occasion to see him in the homicide office later that evening after we got through with Parkland Hospital and then Love Field and we went back to the City Hall and I went up there and made this affidavit.

Representative BOGGS -After he had been arrested?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.

Repeat after me. This man seen by Baker, Brennan and Rowland was not Oswald. Too old, too much hair, too heavy, wrong clothing, too not on the 6th floor...

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

You REALLY want to be on the record saying Marrion Baker did NOT see Lee Harvey Oswald in the lunchroom on 11/22/63?? Really?? Geesh.

Repeat after me -- That's absolute craziness.

The man Baker saw in the TSBD was positively Oswald. There's not even a shred of a doubt about that fact. Roy Truly is the proof. (Is Truly another plotter/xxxx, Greg? That suspects list is getting longer.)

And it doesn't matter one bit that Baker didn't finger Oswald at City Hall. The fact remains that the man Baker encountered in the lunchroom was, in fact, Lee Oswald, because LHO was identified DURING THE ENCOUNTER by Roy S. Truly.*

* I don't mean that Truly said to Baker: "That man is Lee Oswald." I mean Truly told Baker that the man was an employee of the building, with Truly, of course, later verifying in his official statements that the man WAS Oswald. As early as his 11/23/63 affidavit, Roy Truly IDed the man in the lunchroom as OSWALD when Truly wrote these words in that affidavit -- "Lee Oswald was in there [lunchroom]. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee."

So, is this affidavit a lie too, Greg?:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-djogMaF_-g0/Tvw-eAI5W5I/AAAAAAAABxg/hFmp8gCMmRo/s1200-h/Roy-Truly-Affidavit.gif

Unless Truly is yet another conspirator and a xxxx, it was Oswald that Baker saw. Period.

"[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard Brennan's 11/22 affidavit ends with the confident assertion:

"I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again."

Well, Mr. Brennan did see an individual by the name of Lee Oswald later that day and--refused point-blank to identify him as the man he had seen firing from the sixth floor window.

It's also most probable that Brennan would have seen Oswald exiting the TSBD by the front entrance just minutes after the assassination. Again, no identification.

If I were as naive as David von Pein, these simple facts would not trouble me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were as naive as David von Pein [sic], these simple facts would not trouble me.

And if I were an Anybody-But-Oz CTer, the tons of evidence that proves Brennan DID see Oswald in that window wouldn't bother me at all. I'd just say that Brennan had bad eyesight on 11/22 (which he didn't) and I'd simply say that all of the evidence was faked to frame Oswald. Done deal.

And if I were a conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't wonder why the fingerprints of Oswald were all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located, which just happened to be the exact same window where Howard Brennan says he saw Oswald.

Meh. Just more fake stuff. And a lying witness named Howard. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were as naive as David von Pein [sic], these simple facts would not trouble me.

And if I were an Anybody-But-Oz CTer, the tons of evidence that proves Brennan DID see Oswald in that window wouldn't bother me at all. I'd just say that Brennan had bad eyesight on 11/22 (which he didn't) and I'd simply say that all of the evidence was faked to frame Oswald. Done deal.

And if I were a conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't wonder why the fingerprints of Oswald were all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located, which just happened to be the exact same window where Howard Brennan says he saw Oswald.

Meh. Just more fake stuff. And a lying witness named Howard. Right?

On the contrary, Brennan told the truth when he was shown Oswald: No, I cannot identify that man as the man who shot at the President.

You're the one who's saying he lied when he said that. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The quotes from Mike Griffith:

Typical conspiracy monger's approach -- Instead of casting ANY suspicion whatsoever on Lee Oswald (whose prints WERE on two of the boxes that were DEEP WITHIN the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest (exactly where the killer of President Kennedy must have been located, per Brennan, Couch, Jackson, and Euins) -- the conspiracy monger instead wants to know why MORE of Oswald's prints weren't on the boxes.

That backward approach to the known evidence is kind of like asking this:

Why in the world was Officer Tippit only shot FOUR times by Lee Harvey Oswald on Tenth Street? He had 11 more rounds of ammunition with him when the shooting occurred, so why didn't he plug Tippit with still more bullets?

IOW -- Even though the evidence against Oswald is very powerful (and the fingerprint evidence on those boxes IS powerful, even though the conspiracy theorists treat that evidence like it EXONERATES Oswald instead of incriminates him in any way), what the conspiracists require is still MORE evidence to even BEGIN to suspect that Lee H. Oswald was anywhere near the 11/22/63 crime scenes on the sixth floor AND on Tenth Street. Pa-thet-ic.

Footnote:

I just got through watching a vomit-inducing video featuring JFK conspiracy theorist Richard Belzer (the video below). And I realized while watching it that Belzer would feel perfectly at home here on this Anybody-But-Ozzie forum, with Belzer belching out one false conspiracy myth after another -- from Oswald not having enough time to get to the lunchroom after the shooting....to the myth that refuses to die about Oswald drinking a Coke in the lunchroom during the Baker/Truly encounter....to the myth about the Mauser....to the myth about JFK being shot twice in the head simultaneously....and on and on. In short, Belzer believes ANYTHING--as long as he doesn't have to come within a country mile of accusing Lee Harvey Oswald of any wrong-doing. In short (again), Belzer is "Dead Wrong".

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean knows why Brennan failed to positively I.D. Oswald at City Hall on Nov. 22. But Sean wants to pretend not to know (or care) about Brennan's perfectly understandable reason for not IDing LHO. Don't you, Sean?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0