Jump to content
The Education Forum

Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

19 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Document it, or it didn't happen.

Michael,

Do you read the Warren Commission volumes yourself, or do you hope that others will read it for you and tell you what it said?

LHO was out of work for weeks in New Orleans and never told Marina for WEEKS.

Also, LHO was working with Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street for MONTHS in New Orleans, and Marina Oswald never had any clue at all.

Those are only TWO of many examples.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Do you read the Warren Commission volumes yourself, or do you hope that others will read it for you and tell you what it said?

 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I read them and quote them when I make claims. To be sure, I have had made claims without posting my proof; but almost always say that that is the case.

With regard to your claims, Paul, it has become the custom to follow you around the forum with a shovel and bags to maintain a semblance of dignity in order to maintain the burden of free speech.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I read them and quote them when I make claims. To be sure, I have had made claims without posting my proof; but almost always say that that is the case.

With regard to your claims, Paul, it has become the custome to follow you around the forum with a shovel and bags to maintain a semblance of dignity in order to maintain the burden of free speech.

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

At one point I thought you were a worthy conversationalist -- but now you're only trying to look clever, with clever turns of phrase and insults.

I've decided to set all your posts on IGNORE and to converse with people who at least TRY to carry on a conversation.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I meant just what I said above.  Paul stated such as fact.

Ok, why does he say that if Bill just stated that it was a theory?  

Fine, then leave it at that.

Dear James,

Do you believe Morales might have impersonated Oswald over the phone, or that it was impossible?

If you think it was impossible, do you think that simply because Trejo is pushing it, or do you have your own reasons?

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

At one point I thought you were a worthy conversationalist -- but now you're only trying to look clever, with clever turns of phrase and insults.

I've decided to set all your posts on IGNORE and to converse with people who at least TRY to carry on a conversation.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

We'll see how that works for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Trejo likes to play Mr. Von Pein's game.  "[Name of individual] MUST have done it; if they didn't who did?"  Then suddenly, "MUST have done it" becomes "did it," not because supporting evidence has been found, but because they can no longer imagine an alternative scenario. And thus, in their minds, they have "solved" that aspect of the case.

This "investigative" technique overlooks "innocent until proven guilty," and instead turns to "guilty until proven innocent."

Thus, Trejo arrives at the "Morales absolutely, positively without a doubt impersonated Oswald in MC" position.

Now...regarding the alleged Mexico City bus trip...

If Oswald was CONVINCED he could use his scrapbook as a resume to enter Cuba...WHY ON EARTH would he have purchased a ROUND-TRIP TICKET?

The round-trip ticket theory fails the logic test.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Trejo likes to play Mr. Von Pein's game.  "[Name of individual] MUST have done it; if they didn't who did?"  Then suddenly, "MUST have done it" becomes "did it," not because supporting evidence has been found, but because they can no longer imagine an alternative scenario. And thus, in their minds, they have "solved" that aspect of the case.

This "investigative" technique overlooks "innocent until proven guilty," and instead turns to "guilty until proven innocent."

Thus, Trejo arrives at the "Morales absolutely, positively without a doubt impersonated Oswald in MC" position.

Now...regarding the alleged Mexico City bus trip...

If Oswald was CONVINCED he could use his scrapbook as a resume to enter Cuba...WHY ON EARTH would he have purchased a ROUND-TRIP TICKET?

The round-trip ticket theory fails the logic test.

 

Mark,

You have no bus ticket in evidence. You have hearsay.  And you accuse me of stating opinion as FACT.

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never, ever claimed there was a bus ticket, because I have never, ever claimed that Oswald was in Mexico City.

The evidence that the real Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City is not conclusive.  Notice I used the term "alleged" when referring to the bus trip.

Do you have a problem comprehending what you read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Walton said:

Regarding the IGNORE button, I think it's an incredibly lazy way to dodge others' posts on this forum.  ANY forum should not have that capability; otherwise, the whole purpose of a forum is defeated.  I think it should be removed by the admins.

Michael,

I am happy to address anybody's questions on this FORUM -- unless they are deliberately rude.   Why should I reward rude behavior?  Do you?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

I have never, ever claimed there was a bus ticket, because I have never, ever claimed that Oswald was in Mexico City.

The evidence that the real Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City is not conclusive.  Notice I used the term "alleged" when referring to the bus trip.

Do you have a problem comprehending what you read?

Mark,

Do you believe that LHO entered Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963?

Because if you don't --- then why would you raise the issue about the bus ticket at all?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul - I know it gets heated here.  We're all human and get frustrated when people don't agree with our stated beliefs.  I'll admit I've posted stuff here that's borderline "not nice" and I know others have, too.  But in the grand scheme of things, having that button is way too easy to just ignore others.

Remember when they were arguing for the 13th amendment in Congress?  Remember how nasty it got?  That's how I look at forums. Can you imagine if there was some kind of IGNORE button down on the floor and you'd just be able to not listen to your opponent?  Then what's the point of having a forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Paul - I know it gets heated here.  We're all human and get frustrated when people don't agree with our stated beliefs.  I'll admit I've posted stuff here that's borderline "not nice" and I know others have, too.  But in the grand scheme of things, having that button is way too easy to just ignore others.

Remember when they were arguing for the 13th amendment in Congress?  Remember how nasty it got?  That's how I look at forums. Can you imagine if there was some kind of IGNORE button down on the floor and you'd just be able to not listen to your opponent?  Then what's the point of having a forum.

Michael,

You're a considerate writer, so I'll bend to your diplomacy here.

If Michael Clark will re-phrase his rude question to me, in a considerate manner like yours, then I'll be glad to answer it. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

You're a considerate writer, so I'll bend to your diplomacy here.

If Michael Clark will re-phrase his rude question to me, in a considerate manner like yours, then I'll be glad to answer it. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

While my scatalogical allusions have a solid foundation in literary sources (Jonathan Swift, Chaucer), I realize it is not everyone's cup of tea and it often fails to amuse as it is meant to do. To be sure, it has gotten me in trouble before. I'll avoid such references going forward.

Cheers,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...