Escape from the 6th Floor

[David Von Pein]

Michael Clark said:

Deprecating Officer Craig is shameful. I hope it makes you queasy when you make such claims.

You're too funny. Pot meets Kettle (yet again) in the JFK world.

Conspiracy theorists, of course, don't feel "queasy" at all and don't feel that it's "shameful" in the least when they constantly accuse all kinds of innocent people of despicable crimes and misdeeds -- people such as: Earl Warren, Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, James J. Humes, Buell Frazier, Ruth Paine, the whole FBI, the DPD, the whole Warren Commission, etc., etc.

Nice double standard there indeed.

Thanks for today's ironic laugh, Michael.

Edited April 16, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You're too funny. Pot meets Kettle (yet again) in the JFK world.

Conspiracy theorists, of course, don't feel "queasy" at all and don't feel that it's "shameful" in the least when they constantly accuse all kinds of innocent people of despicable crimes and misdeeds -- people such as: Earl Warren, Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, James J. Humes, Buell Frazier, Ruth Paine, the whole FBI, the DPD, the whole Warren Commission, etc., etc.

Nice double standard there indeed.

Thanks for today's ironic laugh, Michael.

Hey Dave, did Roger Craig commit suicide by shooting himself with a rifle?

[Jim Hargrove]

On 4/15/2017 at 0:01 AM, Glenn Nall said:

It absolutely boggles my mind that - after "they" had spent so many years and so much effort cultivating such a person - there was any conceivable reason to risk all that by putting two indistinguishable people - one of whom was about to take the blame for murdering the President - in the same building, even for but those few minutes.

makes NO sense to me whatsoever (unless it was simply to confuse testimony? - there are easier ways to do THAT). if just ONE person - like Roy Truly - happened to see BOTH of them within a few minutes, wearing different clothing - then THE ENTIRE MISSION (I can't believe i'm using that word) WOULD HAVE BEEN FLUSHED.

JUST LIKE THAT.

Truly: "I saw Oswald on 2 wearing a brown shirt and drinking a Coke and i also saw Oswald on 1 wearing a white shirt - all while the President of the US was being murdered in our front yard."

Operation destroyed, just like that.

Risk/reward insanity. No?

Lee Oswald took the risk of going to the Book Depository so he could parade around with a rifle on the sixth floor and be seen minutes before the assassination.  He looked enough like Harvey that it was assumed some witnesses would be confused.

It surprises me that any critic of the Warren Commission would make a comment like Glenn’s above.  If we have learned ANYTHING over the years, it is that there were many witnesses on 11/22/63 who saw things that undermined the Official Story®, but that these views were totally suppressed in a number of different ways.

Some witness observations were merely altered.  The three minute video below shows how the FBI altered the statements of three Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw evidence of shooters outside the Book Depository.

 

Sworn testimony before the Warren Commission was altered, as the example below shows, in this case to hide the secret transfer of “Oswald’s” possessions to Washington, D.C. the very night of the assassination.  That evidence was altered and then expanded before being secretly returned to Dallas and then being publicly sent to Washington.
 

Some witnesses were browbeaten by the FBI to change their stories.  When that didn’t work, some witnesses were even dumped into insane asylums.   Ralph Leon Yates comes to mind.  And, of course, many were simply killed.

As far as we know, someone at the TSBD may well have noticed two similar looking “Oswalds” were in the building.  But we can hardly expect they would be in a position to tell us about it.

[George Sawtelle]

Jim

You are so right. Testimony was altered from many witnesses and if the FBI couldn't persuade a witness to testify in favor of the FBI's version the witness was simply eliminated.

I don't think it's helpfull to our cause to put much trust in witness testimony. After a witness completed his testimony before the Warren Commission he/she was asked to sign their testimony. If they noticed later that their testimony had been altered and complained to the commission about it, the lawyer for the commission said, ... hey you signed your testimony you can't change it now.

Yet there are many researchers and LN's who religiously believe witness testimony as gospel. We must remember that the CIA is in the business of deception. They even admit it. If anyone who is familiar with the CIA and the WC believes in the veracity of witness testimony with regard to the WC hearings they are living in fantasyland. If some is tainted, you can't trust any of it. 

[David Von Pein]

9 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Hey Dave, did Roger Craig commit suicide by shooting himself with a rifle?

What does that have to do with this whopper of a lie that Craig told in circa 1974, which totally contradicts his 1968 statement?....

1968:

QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?"

ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."

CIRCA 1974:

ROGER CRAIG: "Stamped right on the barrel of the rifle was '7.65 Mauser'."

Edited April 16, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Hey Dave, did Roger Craig commit suicide by shooting himself with a rifle?

yes, very much like Henry Marshall did. what disappoints me is that Roger Craig didn't possess the commitment to pull the trigger more than once and secure its success with CO1 poisoning.

what a pu***.

right, Dave?

[Glenn Nall]

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Lee Oswald took the risk of going to the Book Depository so he could parade around with a rifle on the sixth floor and be seen minutes before the assassination.  He looked enough like Harvey that it was assumed some witnesses would be confused.

It surprises me that any critic of the Warren Commission would make a comment like Glenn’s above.  If we have learned ANYTHING over the years, it is that there were many witnesses on 11/22/63 who saw things that undermined the Official Story®, but that these views were totally suppressed in a number of different ways.

Some witness observations were merely altered.  The three minute video below shows how the FBI altered the statements of three Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw evidence of shooters outside the Book Depository.

 

Sworn testimony before the Warren Commission was altered, as the example below shows, in this case to hide the secret transfer of “Oswald’s” possessions to Washington, D.C. the very night of the assassination.  That evidence was altered and then expanded before being secretly returned to Dallas and then being publicly sent to Washington.
 

Some witnesses were browbeaten by the FBI to change their stories.  When that didn’t work, some witnesses were even dumped into insane asylums.   Ralph Leon Yates comes to mind.  And, of course, many were simply killed.

As far as we know, someone at the TSBD may well have noticed two similar looking “Oswalds” were in the building.  But we can hardly expect they would be in a position to tell us about it.

I SIMPLY stated that if a person who really knew Oswald, like Truly, were to have happened to run into BOTH Oswald's within a matter of minutes, this person would have 1) recognized a REAL problem, and 2) blown the whole thing.

that's all i proposed.

it was really just a suggestion of a potential problem, not soliciting ridicule - except from those prone to ridicule, of course.

[Glenn Nall]

6 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Yet there are many researchers and LN's who religiously believe witness testimony as gospel.

You say this as if there is nothing in-between "gospel" and flat out "rejection," which is obviously not the case.

everyone knows that singular eye-witness testimony is automatically suspect; multiple, unacquainted witnesses' testimonies which agree are a totally different animal, and cannot be ignored.

sure, witnesses may have been mistaken on slack color, or hair color, or height - but when the testimonies agree in a broader spectrum, to suggest that they're all insignificant because it's "eye-witness" testimony is, well...

 

there's singular testimony, and then there's a conglomerate of testimonies which agree in certain, important, aspects.

two different things.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

12 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Lee Oswald took the risk of going to the Book Depository so he could parade around with a rifle on the sixth floor and be seen minutes before the assassination.  He looked enough like Harvey that it was assumed some witnesses would be confused.

this is conjecture and speculation. nothing more.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Glenn Nall said:

yes, very much like Henry Marshall did. what disappoints me is that Roger Craig didn't possess the commitment to pull the trigger more than once and secure its success with CO1 poisoning.

what a pu***.

right, Dave?

Again, what's that got to do with the blatant "7.65 Mauser" lie uttered by Roger D. Craig in nineteen hundred & seventy-four??

You DO agree that he lied, don't you? How could you possibly deny it, with these two quotes staring you in the face?....

1968:

QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [that was pulled from the boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?"

ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."

CIRCA 1974:

ROGER CRAIG: "Stamped right on the barrel of the rifle was '7.65 Mauser'."

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_YygHvgJjo6UTV5a2t6ZnBrbXc/view

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Glenn Nall said:

I SIMPLY stated that if a person who really knew Oswald, like Truly, were to have happened to run into BOTH Oswald's within a matter of minutes, this person would have 1) recognized a REAL problem, and 2) blown the whole thing.

Glenn,

The whole point of John's article was to show how the men on the sixth floor might escape from the Book Depository while being seen by the fewest witnesses.

http://harveyandlee.net/TSBD_Elevator/TSBD_elevator.html

[Glenn Nall]

4 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Glenn,

The whole point of John's article was to show how the men on the sixth floor might escape from the Book Depository while being seen by the fewest witnesses.

http://harveyandlee.net/TSBD_Elevator/TSBD_elevator.html

yes, and as 99.9% of the threads here, this took a diversion.

hatin' it for ya, but it seems unavoidable.

I responded to an earlier statement/theory/claim. i didn't write that out of clear, blue sky.

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

yes, and as 99.9% of the threads here, this took a diversion.

hatin' it for ya, but it seems unavoidable.

I responded to an earlier statement/theory/claim. i didn't write that out of clear, blue sky.

Glenn,

This movement of the sixth floor shooter and his accomplice(s) up and down the TSBD passenger elevator shaft did NOT require a diversion.  Have you even bothered to read John's article?

http://harveyandlee.net/TSBD_Elevator/TSBD_elevator.html

Jim

[Glenn Nall]

9 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Glenn,

This movement of the sixth floor shooter and his accomplice(s) up and down the TSBD passenger elevator shaft did NOT require a diversion.  Have you even bothered to read John's article?

http://harveyandlee.net/TSBD_Elevator/TSBD_elevator.html

Jim

Jim.

I meant a diversion in this thread. you know what a thread is, right? these threads RARELY stay on topic.

THAT's what I meant.

damn.

and yes, I've read John's material and in fact subscribe to about half of his opinions.

please reread the comments to which I replied - in context...?

[Jim Hargrove]

51 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Jim.

I meant a diversion in this thread. you know what a thread is, right? these threads RARELY stay on topic.

THAT's what I meant.

damn.

and yes, I've read John's material and in fact subscribe to about half of his opinions.

please reread the comments to which I replied - in context...?

A point well taken, Glenn.  I'll read your comments again in the morning.  Thank you for responding.