Thomas Graves Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) I'll ignore the sarcasm, Tommy. I know you're a bit bent out of your 8' 4" shape at the moment... but you'll bounce back. Greg, 8' 4" ? No, it was an 8' 10" Takayama "Noserider" [q.v.] that I used to ride. That was just right for my at-that-time 6' 5", 220 lb., Apollo-like frame. Please do try to get your facts straight. --Tommy PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to the President? Had she been been given that assignment by her manager? Weeks if not months in advance? If so, what was his rationale for choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of personally serving the President his meal? see above Edited January 19, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share Posted January 19, 2016 PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to the President? Had she been been given that assignment by her manager? Weeks if not months in advance? If so, what was his rationale for choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of personally serving the President his meal? Tommy, when was the last time you asked an innocent question? Answer: How the hell do I know how they would ensure it? A rigged lottery for the "honor"? I do know that the Secret Service had zero love for Kennedy and that the ONLY real precaution they took to protect the President was to insist on selecting his steak themselves out of 200. This was allegedly to ensure it could not be poisoned. So the only real opportunity to poison the steak would come via the person serving it - unless of course, the Secret Service poisoned it themselves! Ask yourself how the wife of a listed subversive got that gig to start with! And moreover, who are the investigators going to believe slipped in the poison; her or the Secret Service? There may not have even been a criminal investigation if it mimicked natural causes and was not detectable at autopsy. If that was the intent, Molina's wife would be the fallback patsy if something went wrong and an investigation was actually done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to the President? Had she been been given that assignment by her manager? Weeks if not months in advance? If so, what was his rationale for choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of personally serving the President his meal? Tommy, when was the last time you asked an innocent question? Answer: How the hell do I know how they would ensure it? A rigged lottery for the "honor"? I do know that the Secret Service had zero love for Kennedy and that the ONLY real precaution they took to protect the President was to insist on selecting his steak themselves out of 200. This was allegedly to ensure it could not be poisoned. So the only real opportunity to poison the steak would come via the person serving it - unless of course, the Secret Service poisoned it themselves! Ask yourself how the wife of a listed subversive got that gig to start with! And moreover, who are the investigators going to believe slipped in the poison; her or the Secret Service? There may not have even been a criminal investigation if it mimicked natural causes and was not detectable at autopsy. If that was the intent, Molina's wife would be the fallback patsy if something went wrong and an investigation was actually done. Fine, Greg. Just seems that that would be a weak spot in their Plan C. You know, if they were hoping to blame the poisoned steak on Molina's wife but couldn't ensure that she would be the one serving it. Devil's in the details, as they say. Everything going to be alright, Greg. Take some deep breaths. --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to the President? Had she been been given that assignment by her manager? Weeks if not months in advance? If so, what was his rationale for choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of personally serving the President his meal? Tommy, when was the last time you asked an innocent question? Answer: How the hell do I know how they would ensure it? A rigged lottery for the "honor"? I do know that the Secret Service had zero love for Kennedy and that the ONLY real precaution they took to protect the President was to insist on selecting his steak themselves out of 200. This was allegedly to ensure it could not be poisoned. So the only real opportunity to poison the steak would come via the person serving it - unless of course, the Secret Service poisoned it themselves! Ask yourself how the wife of a listed subversive got that gig to start with! And moreover, who are the investigators going to believe slipped in the poison; her or the Secret Service? There may not have even been a criminal investigation if it mimicked natural causes and was not detectable at autopsy. If that was the intent, Molina's wife would be the fallback patsy if something went wrong and an investigation was actually done. Fine, Greg. Just seems that that would be a weak spot in their Plan C. You know, if they were hoping to blame the poisoned steak on Molina's wife but couldn't ensure that she would be the one serving it. Devil's in the details, as they say. Everything going to be alright, Greg. Take some deep breaths. --Tommy Tommy, it is not a weak spot just because you say so, nor because I do not know the answer. Can you point me to a presidential security manual which might have the waitress selection process? I have to wonder, is it me or everyone else that looks at things backasswards? To me, the question begging to be answered is not how they would ensure she served it (I imagine that part would not be much of a problem), the question is the one I asked you to ask yourself - how did the wife of a listed subversive get the gig to begin with? Edited January 19, 2016 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to the President? Had she been been given that assignment by her manager? Weeks if not months in advance? If so, what was his rationale for choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of personally serving the President his meal? Tommy, when was the last time you asked an innocent question? Answer: How the hell do I know how they would ensure it? A rigged lottery for the "honor"? I do know that the Secret Service had zero love for Kennedy and that the ONLY real precaution they took to protect the President was to insist on selecting his steak themselves out of 200. This was allegedly to ensure it could not be poisoned. So the only real opportunity to poison the steak would come via the person serving it - unless of course, the Secret Service poisoned it themselves! Ask yourself how the wife of a listed subversive got that gig to start with! And moreover, who are the investigators going to believe slipped in the poison; her or the Secret Service? There may not have even been a criminal investigation if it mimicked natural causes and was not detectable at autopsy. If that was the intent, Molina's wife would be the fallback patsy if something went wrong and an investigation was actually done. Fine, Greg. Just seems that that would be a weak spot in their Plan C. You know, if they were hoping to blame the poisoned steak on Molina's wife but couldn't ensure that she would be the one serving it. Devil's in the details, as they say. Everything going to be alright, Greg. Take some deep breaths. --Tommy Tommy, it is not a weak spot just because you say so, nor because I do not know the answer. Can you point me to a presidential security manual which might have the waitress selection process? I have to wonder, is it me or everyone else that looks at things backasswards? To me, the question begging to be answered is not how they would ensure she served it (I imagine that part would not be much of a problem), the question is the one I asked you to ask yourself - how did the wife of a listed subversive get the gig to begin with? I suppose you're right, Greg. They probably could have figured out a way, some way, to pin it on her after the fact, even if she didn't serve lunch to JFK that day, couldn't they. "OK, so she didn't serve him the goddamn steak, but she must have been pretty gosh darn effing close to it, damn it!" Just getting her the "gig" there was the hard part, one would imagine. I mean, they must have done very thorough background checks indeed on all those food servers, and she probably gave them her name as Mrs. Joe Molina and everything, so it's rather amazing isn't it that they were able to get her hired to serve food there on that very special day. Shows you just how powerful the Bad Guys really were, I rekon. --Tommy Edited January 20, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 The problem with conspiracy? Analyzing conspiracy theories requires separating fact from opinion. Fact: JFK was killed in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Opinion: The cause of death was [blank]. Blank: A needle containing poison inserted into JFK's throat by Malcolm Perry. Credit: Ashton Grey. No one here knows the cause of death. Umm, getting the back of one's head blown out is a fairly reasonable cause of death. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 ...FWIW: I believe that Bogard dealt with the real Lee Oswald, and there was no impersonation.... In the case of the test drive of the car, and his intent to purchase one...a fact which is quite relevant: sometime in the first week or two following the assassination, the FBI turned up evidence that Oswald visited an insurance agent, and inquired about buying automobile liability insurance. The fellow's name was--as i recollect--Brand... The notion that there were "two Oswalds" and that this concept has to be invoked to "explain" why Oswald would want to buy a car is unnecessary and, imho, just plain silly. And while I'm on the subject of impersonation: I also believe that Oswald --yes, the real Oswald--visited Odio. ODIO One can't address the Odio situation properly unless one takes into account Oswald's visit to the Austin office Selective Service, where he spent about 30 minutes speaking with Ms. Lee Dannelly. That visit (according to Ms. Dannelly) occurred shortly after noon on Wednesday, September 25th, and...that visit with Oswald establishes that Lee Oswald had airplane transportation on the morning of Wed., 9/25; that he flew from New Orleans to Austin (almost certainly for "other" reasons); and, while there, dropped by the Selective Service office and saw Ms. Dannelly. The Dannelly story was first investigated and reported by Ron Dugger, in the Texas Observer; then she was interviewed, in detail, by the FBI. She most definitely should have been called as a WC witness--but was not. I interviewed her in 1991. And while on the subject of Oswald and "air transportation": Another piece of evidence bearing on Oswald's "itinerary" during this very period was when he called Horace Twiford, of the Socialist Labor Party, on his way back from Dallas to Houston (where he boarded the bus going south). Mr. Twiford, a seaman, was "out at sea," but his wife took the call; and she told the FBI that Oswald said he was "flying to Mexico". Note: ". . . flying to Mexico. . ." No, he didn't go to Mexico by plane; but clearly, "flying" was on LHO's mind. The "traditional" way of interpreting all this data--going back decades to the time of Popkin's "Second Oswald"--is that all of this was the work of an imposter. IMHO: That is flat out wrong. And finally...I also believe that Lee and Marina visited that furniture store. Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Marina says"--that's another canard. Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Ruth or Michael Paine say"--another canard. All of this is the outgrowth of the oversimplified view of Oswald which began in the 1960s--that he was just some ordinary lefty worker, living his ordinary lefty life, while evil forces pounced on his existence, and -- through an evil imposter -- created the false impression that, for example, he was (he thought) coming into money, and might be genuinely looking into buying a car; or buying furniture; or moving into an apartment with his wife... DSL 6/22/15 - 4:10 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California It's good to read your posts, David Lifton. I'm a big fan of your work, especially, Best Evidence (1980) I also agree that Bogard dealt with the real LHO; no impersonation. I maintain that every alleged impersonation of LHO (except for David Morales impersonating LHO at Mexico City on October 1st 1963) was either a case of mistaken identity or an actual sighting of LHO going about his business. It is interesting that LHO sought a car (from Bogard) and sought auto insurance (from Brands) around the same period that the Paines were trying to interest LHO in learning to drive and buying a cheap car. The Paines wanted LHO to get a decent job so that he could take care of his family (so they wouldn't have to) and in Texas, owning a car multiplied one's prospects several times. As for your take on Silvia Odio, David, and the truth of her sighting of LHO at her apartment in Dallas, I'm intrigued by your theory of an airplane ticket to Dallas. Where can I read more about this? Wouldn't there be records? Would LHO have used his Alek J. Hidell ID for this airplane ticket? Also, you don't believe that LHO flew to Mexico City -- do you agree that he was a passenger in an automobile, as Mexican Immigration papers state? Best regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to the President? Had she been been given that assignment by her manager? Weeks if not months in advance? If so, what was his rationale for choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of personally serving the President his meal? Tommy, when was the last time you asked an innocent question? Answer: How the hell do I know how they would ensure it? A rigged lottery for the "honor"? I do know that the Secret Service had zero love for Kennedy and that the ONLY real precaution they took to protect the President was to insist on selecting his steak themselves out of 200. This was allegedly to ensure it could not be poisoned. So the only real opportunity to poison the steak would come via the person serving it - unless of course, the Secret Service poisoned it themselves! Ask yourself how the wife of a listed subversive got that gig to start with! And moreover, who are the investigators going to believe slipped in the poison; her or the Secret Service? There may not have even been a criminal investigation if it mimicked natural causes and was not detectable at autopsy. If that was the intent, Molina's wife would be the fallback patsy if something went wrong and an investigation was actually done. Fine, Greg. Just seems that that would be a weak spot in their Plan C. You know, if they were hoping to blame the poisoned steak on Molina's wife but couldn't ensure that she would be the one serving it. Devil's in the details, as they say. Everything going to be alright, Greg. Take some deep breaths. --Tommy Tommy, it is not a weak spot just because you say so, nor because I do not know the answer. Can you point me to a presidential security manual which might have the waitress selection process? I have to wonder, is it me or everyone else that looks at things backasswards? To me, the question begging to be answered is not how they would ensure she served it (I imagine that part would not be much of a problem), the question is the one I asked you to ask yourself - how did the wife of a listed subversive get the gig to begin with? I suppose you're right, Greg. They probably could have figured out a way, some way, to pin it on her after the fact, even if she hadn't served lunch to JFK that day, couldn't they? "OK, so she didn't serve him the goddamn steak, but she must have been pretty effing close to it, damn it! And anyway, her husband was a no-good Communist, wasn't he? See there, that proves it! -- She killed Kennedy!" Just getting her the "gig" there was the hard part, one would imagine. I mean, they must have done very thorough background checks indeed on all those food servers, and she probably gave them her name as Mrs. Joe Molina and everything, so it's rather amazing isn't it that they were able to get her hired to serve food there on that very special day. Shows you just how powerful the Bad Guys really were, I rekon. --Tommy Humor added for Greg Parker Edited January 19, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) OK, here's the elephant in the room, as far as the Problem with Conspiracy: IMHO, in 2014 Bill Simpich overturned the entire literature of the JFK assassination by proving that the CIA high-command started a Mole-Hunt in response to the October 1st, 1963 IMPERSONATION of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, calling from the Cuban Consulate to the USSR Embassy -- the most wire-tapped phone on the planet at the time. I read Bill Simpich's book as soon as it was released, and I posted my opinion about his book on this Forum as soon as I could. Bill Simpich just proved that the CIA-didn't-do-it!! Over the many months since then I've asked Bill Simpich for his opinion on my interpretation of his, IMHO, very clear data. He has not, to my knowledge, directly responded to my post. Yet nobody else has a better interpretation of Bill Simpich's data, as far as I can see. IMHO, HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE: the CIA-did-it theory has been laid to rest in 2014. IMHO, we are observing the silence before the storm. This FORUM is really wondering just how the rug has been pulled out from the predominant JFK CT of the 1990's. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 20, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Humor added for Greg Parker A bit too close to reality to be funny, Tommy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 He has not, to my knowledge, directly responded to my post. Would you like to phone a friend, buy a clue, take a hint, or pick door 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Cracked me up Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Humor aside, I think that since Bill Simpich revolutionized JFK research in 2014, turning it upside down, y'all should take it seriously and comment on Bill Simpich's groundbreaking work. Also -- if somebody knows from Bill Simpich himself why he refuses to comment on my interpretation -- that he has ENDED the CIA-did-it theory for all time, then please let me know. Humor aside. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 If I were Bill Simpich I wouldn't respond to your rabid conclusion of his important work either. I think that this marks the year Paul Trejo's opinions are put to rest by simple silence. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 If I were Bill Simpich I wouldn't respond to your rabid conclusion of his important work either. I think that this marks the year Paul Trejo's opinions are put to rest by simple silence. BK My interpretation of Bill Simpich's work is RABID, Bill? RABID? Care to explain that? Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now