Jump to content
The Education Forum

Pat Speer

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5,863
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Pat Speer

  • Rank
    Moderator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

60,948 profile views
  1. Some may remember that I started this up a decade or so ago and it ended up being one of the most contentious threads in the history of the forum, with some denying that anything was done to the photo to make it look more like a foot. In the end, one of the members went out into his garage and tried to reproduce the photo and came back in claiming it must have been Clint Hill's left foot.
  2. I've had this document for 15 years or more. I received it on a CD-rom comprising the thousands of documents released in the early '90's related to the Guatemalan coup. It was created for the para-military trainers of the Guatemalan troops we were training to overthrow Arbenz. (It seems likely , then, that this was used by Rip Robertson and David Sanchez Morales.) In any event, after receiving this document I did quite a bit of reading on its history, and found some articles from the early '90's regarding its release. As a result, I see no reason to question its authenticity. The only "researchers" I have encountered who have questioned its authenticity, moreover, have been gun nuts upset by the manual's discussion of subsonic .22 ammunition, which they consider un-manly. P.S. I just googled it and found that not only does the CIA not deny the authenticity of this manual, they preserve it on their website. Here's the link: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000135832.pdf
  3. You must have me confused with someone else. I was present at the creation of the prayerman theory, and have never found it convincing, in large part because I don't think prayerperson looks the least bit like Oswald. As far as Eddie Piper...you do realize he said he saw Oswald...in the domino room...right? From patspeer.com, chapter 4: Step 3: The 4-8-64 Testimony of Eddie Piper There are questionable conclusions, and there are conclusions so questionable they are suspicious. And the conclusion Oswald never came down for lunch was (and is) the latter. We've already shown how Eddie Piper, within hours of the shooting, swore he talked to Oswald on the first floor around noon. And we showed how he repeated this claim. So it should come as no surprise then that on 4-8-64, Piper testified before the Warren Commission and once again claimed he saw Oswald on the first floor around noon. But that's not all Piper said. Here, in testimony taken 4 1/2 months after the killing of President Kennedy, Piper finally said where on the first floor he saw Oswald. Now, it's not as if anyone asked Piper this incredibly important detail. And it's not as if Piper volunteered it when they didn't. It just kinda...came out. Here, see for yourself. Mr. BALL. What time did you go to work that day? Mr. PIPER. 10 o'clock. Mr. BALL. That was your usual time to go to work? Mr. PIPER. Yes. Mr. BALL. And, did you see Oswald that morning? Mr. PIPER. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Where? Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor filling orders. Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again that day? Mr. PIPER You mean all day---the rest of the day? Mr. BALL. Yes, sir. Mr. PIPER. No. Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him? Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o'clock. Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o'clock? Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor. Mr. BALL. What was he doing? Mr. PIPER. Well, I said to him---"It's about lunch time. I believe I'll go have lunch." So, he says, "Yeah"---he mumbled something---I don't know whether he said he was going up or going out, so I got my sandwich off of the radiator and went on back to the first window of the first floor. (4-8-64 Testimony of Eddie Piper, 10:20 AM, 6H382-386) Piper saw Oswald by a radiator. Now, let's stop right here and point out that Piper is not sure Oswald said he was "going up," as originally reported, and that he now says Oswald could have said "going out." Now, some will claim it makes no difference because no one saw Oswald go up or out. But this is short-sighted. As we've seen, no one saw Oswald between 12:00, when Piper saw him, and a few minutes before 12:15, when Carolyn Arnold thought she saw him on the first floor, near the front door. Well, this suggests the possibility that, after talking to Piper, Oswald went out the back of the building to take a walk. And that he returned 15 minutes later. And that he even considered going out front with his co-workers upon his return, but saw the crowded steps outside, and thought better of it. And no, this isn't pure conjecture. In his 11-22-63 affidavit to the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, William Shelley, Oswald's boss, opted to add a little detail about Oswald that has been largely over-looked. He revealed: "This man stayed by himself most of the time, and would go for a walk at noon time. Lee would bring his lunch and usually eat with us in the lounge and read the paper." (CD87, p273) So, there you have it. Oswald's going "out" at noon, and then returning to sit by himself in the domino room, while sipping on a drink and reading the paper, would not have been a deviation from his usual routine. It WAS his routine. We now return to Ball's questioning of Piper... Mr. BALL. The first window on the first floor? Mr. PIPER. No, not the first window---but on the first floor about the second window on the first floor. I was intending to sit there so I could see the parade because the street was so crowded with people---I didn't see anything. It's curious, to say the least, that Ball failed to follow-up on Piper's claim he saw Oswald at 12 by a radiator by asking him the precise location of this radiator, and that he oped instead to change the subject from the relevant issue of Piper's discussion with Oswald to the barely relevant issue of which window Piper chose to sit behind while watching the motorcade. But if Ball was trying to lure Piper to sleep so he could circle back and undermine Piper's testimony he saw Oswald on the first floor around 12:00, he was in for a surprise. Mr. BALL. What time was it that you spoke to Oswald and said you thought you would have your lunch? Mr. PIPER. Just about 12 o'clock. Mr. BALL. And do you remember exactly what he said? Mr. PIPER. No, sir; I don't remember exactly. All I remember him was muttering out something---I didn't know whether he said he was going up or going out. Mr. BALL. He said something like that? Mr. PIPER. Yes--something like that. Now, apparently, this ticked Ball off. If he gets Piper to say Oswald said he was going "up", the Commission can conclude Oswald did just that--went back "up"...to the sixth floor. Piper's refusal to specify "up" as opposed to "out", then, could only have been seen as a set-back for Ball. Now, look how he responds. Mr. BALL. Now, that day, you went over to the sheriff's office and made a statement, didn't you? Mr. PIPER. Yes, sir---no, sir; not that day. Mr. BALL. Did you the next day? Mr. PIPER. Saturday. Mr. BALL. Did you go to the sheriff's department? Mr. PIPER. I went to the county---yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And did you tell them at any time that you saw Lee about 12 o'clock? Mr. PIPER. Yes. Mr. BALL. And that Lee said, "I'm going up to eat?" Mr. PIPER. He said either "up" or "out"---that's the way I reported it. Mr. BALL. That's what you told them? Mr. PIPER. Yes, sir. (4-8-64 10:20 AM, 6H382-386) Now, this is important in light of subsequent developments... When Piper didn't testify in the manner most damaging to Oswald, and most supportive of what we can only assume was Ball's presumption Oswald acted alone, Ball reminded Piper of his previous statements, and undermined Piper's credibility to the Commissioners tasked with studying Piper's testimony. And he did this, moreover, at the expense of asking the far more relevant question of where it was on the first floor Piper saw Oswald. It wasn't until 2017, for that matter, that I realized Piper's claim he got his "sandwich off of the radiator"(after briefly talking to Oswald) had actually answered the question Ball had failed to ask. Here's an FBI photograph of the domino room, entered into evidence as Kaiser Exhibit B. (20H334) The radiator is on the left. Note that Oswald's jacket was later discovered by this radiator. And here's another FBI photo of the radiator. Note that the window sill is used to store found items and lunch bags. Presumably, Piper brought a hot sandwich for lunch and placed it on the radiator to keep warm. Note also that this version of the photo was marked with an X by depository employee Frankie Kaiser, to show where he found Oswald's jacket weeks after the shooting. This version of the photo was entered into evidence as Kaiser Exhibit C (20H335). While some might prefer to believe Ball had no idea what Piper was telling him when he said he picked his sandwich off the radiator and went back to the front window after talking to Oswald, and that it was just an oversight on Ball's part that he failed to put on the record that Piper was thereby confirming Oswald's claim he came down for lunch and went to the domino room... there's no good reason for us to do so. Kaiser Exhibits B and C, photos of the domino room in which the radiator is obvious, were entered into evidence on 4-8-64, roughly 4 hours after Piper testified. Kaiser's testimony, as Piper's, was taken by Joe Ball. Ball personally handled Kaiser Exhibits B and C. As a consequence one can only assume these photos were in Ball's briefcase when he took Piper's testimony. So, yeah, you can bet you bippy Ball knew full well that the radiator discussed by Piper was the radiator in the domino room. And that it was no coincidence Ball failed to put this on the record. Suspicious Omission #5 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Eddie Piper where on the first floor he saw Oswald at 12:00, and thereby conceals from the Commission and public that Piper felt certain he saw Oswald just where Oswald said he was during the lunch period--in the domino room.
  4. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never said Jarman and Norman said they ate lunch with Oswald. They admitted walking by the door around the time Oswald indicated he saw them. It is extremely unlikely that Oswald could have been correct about this, should he have just pulled this from thin air. As far as what Oswald actually said about them--we'll never know. The police failed to take detailed notes, with exact quotes. As a result, it may very well have gone down like this... FRITZ: So you say you ate lunch in the domino room, huh? Was there anyone else in there at the time? Is there anyone who can vouch for you? OSWALD: Uh, I saw Junior and Shorty walk by while I was in there. They may have noticed me. I don't know. Fritz then makes a mental note that Oswald said Junior and Shorty might have seen him during lunch and conflates it into Oswald's saying he had lunch with them. This kinda thing happens all the time. All day long. It's why the tape recorder was invented.
  5. You still won't address the elephant in the room, Lance. Oswald cited two people as possible witnesses to his being in the domino room. And these were the only two people to admit walking by the domino room within ten minutes or so of the shooting. What are the odds? I mean, there must have been 10 regulars who used the domino room, right? And Eddie Piper admitted seeing Oswald at the beginning of the lunch period. But Oswald didn't mention any of them, did he? No, he mentioned Jarman and Norman--the only two men to walk by the domino room in the minutes leading up to the shooting. Let me make an analogy. Snoopy's been accused of stealing Linus' blanket from the pumpkin patch. But he says he was at Violet's house watching Lucy make goo-goo eyes at Schroeder, while Schroeder played the piano. Now, neither Lucy nor Schroeder remember seeing Snoopy at Violet's party. But they both admit they were at Violet's party when Linus' blanket was stolen, and that Schroeder was playing the piano at the time. I mean, seriously, was this just a lucky guess on Oswald's part? Really? Would you expect a jury to believe this? I mean, I'd love to have seen Bugliosi tackle this. "You see, jury, how Oswald claimed Jarman and Norman as witnesses to his being downstairs, and how they were, in fact, the only people walking past the domino room when Oswald said he was in there. Well, disregard this. We all know he was really up on the sixth floor at this time, quiet as a mouse, putting his rifle together with a dime while a clueless Bonnie Ray Williams ate his chicken sandwich but yards away." It just doesn't hold together, Lance. Whether or not he was the shooter, whether or not he was part of a conspiracy, the evidence is quite strong that Oswald came downstairs during his lunch hour--and that Joe Ball and David Belin tried to conceal this from the public. (They claimed Givens was the last to see Oswald before the shooting--and that he saw him on the sixth floor--when it was actually Eddie Piper who last saw Oswald--on the first floor).
  6. Why I believe Oswald was in the domino room. From chapter 4 at patspeer.com Agent Bookhout's report on Oswald's interrogation, let's recall, did not claim Oswald had said he'd eaten lunch with Jarman and Norman, as presented by Capt. Fritz. It said: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two negro employees walking through the room in this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall, but whom he would be able to recognize." Perhaps, then, Oswald had seen Jarman and Norman not when most assume he claimed he'd seen them--when he first came down for lunch--but later, when they came back in the building and went back upstairs. I mean, that only makes sense. If the police ask you who can vouch that you weren't at the scene of a crime, you tell them the names of the LAST people who might remember seeing you somewhere else, and not those who saw you 30 minutes or more before the crime occurred. With this in mind, then, it seems a bit of a coincidence that, according to Jarman's testimony, there were "too many people standing on the stairway" in front of the building when he and Norman decided to go back inside and view the motorcade from an upstairs window, and that he and Norman had thereuponre-entered the building by its north entrance. In doing so, by golly, they would have passed directly in front of the open door to the domino room, where Oswald claimed he was sitting at the time of the shooting. Here, see for yourself. The diagram below has been cropped from Warren Commission Exhibit 1061, the Warren Commission's diagram for the first floor of the school book depository. The domino room is on the right, in the northwest corner of the building. A toilet is to its left. The north entrance from the loading dock is the door to the left of this toilet. From the street, one can reach this entrance in two ways. There are steps from the sidewalk on the east side of the building that lead up onto the dock and then an overhead door just a few feet from the entrance by the toilet. And there are steps from where the trucks park that lead to a door cut at an angle to the loading dock, that is also quite close to the entrance by the toilet. Should that not suffice, moreover, there's an FBI photo taken for the specific purpose of depicting the relationship between the north entrance and domino room. (I've searched in vain for a memo indicating who, specifically, ordered this picture, and can only assume it was Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball and David Belin, the men tasked with establishing Oswald's guilt. Now, if this is so, well, then, it more than suggests they knew full well that Jarman and Norman passed right in front of the open door to the domino room.) In any event, this photo is presented below. (It can be found in the commission's records in CD496, p 19) The rear entrance from the loading dock is the door on the left and the door to the domino room is the door on the right. Let's now note that Jarman, in his 3-24-64 testimony, claimed that he and Norman re-entered the building via its north or rear entrance "about 12:20...between 12:20 and 12:25"... Well, then, who's to say that Oswald wasn't sitting in the domino room when Jarman and Norman came in the back door? And that he wasn't still sitting there five to ten minutes later, as shots were being fired upstairs? Certainly not the Warren Commission... They were supposed to get at the facts. And reveal them to the public. And yet right here is a total major fact that (if we are to give them the benefit of the doubt) eluded them, and went unreported... Let this soak in... Jarman and Norman were the only two depository employees to admit coming in the north entrance when Oswald claimed he was sitting right by this entrance, and they were the only two depository employees Oswald recalled seeing while he was sitting there. What are the odds? I'll tell you the odds. The odds are that Oswald was indeed where he said he was, when he said he was.
  7. I must be missing something. Do you think she's lying? And that she saw Oswald in the lunchroom (which is on the second floor)? The evidence, IMO, points to Oswald being in the domino room (which is on the first floor) at the time of the shooting. While the fact there were two lunch rooms is confusing to some, it makes perfect sense to me. Having worked in both the warehouse and the offices of a large music distributor, I know firsthand the culture of a place like the TSBD. And the fact is that the warehouse workers, no matter their race, would be expected to eat together. And leave the office workers alone. It largely comes down to this...warehouse workers are sweaty and have B.O. And cuss. And make the ladies and gentlemen...uncomfortable. When you take into account that a number of the TSBD's workers had brown skin, and that this was 1963 Texas, for that matter, it's easy to see how the office workers and warehouse workers would barely know each other. Let's remember as well that a number of the office workers said they had little to no recollection of ever seeing Oswald. If he had swam against the tide, and had eaten lunch with the ladies, well, they would most certainly have noticed him, and talked to him, and discovered he'd just had a baby, etc. That they knew so little about him, then, is clear evidence to me that he did not frequent the lunch room, outside of perhaps buying a coke.
  8. More from chapter 4 On June 25, 1967, CBS News debuted part 1 of a 4 part investigation of the Warren Commission’s findings. As to whether or not Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting CBS relied on the statements of one man: Charles Givens. Eddie Barker of CBS introduced Givens as the “last man known to have seen Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination.” Givens then told Barker a new and improved story of his seeing Oswald "standing about middle ways of the building on the sixth floor...just standing there looking with his orders in his hand" and of Oswald asking him to close the door on the elevator when he got to the bottom, so that Oswald could call it when needed. Well, this was a change from Givens' 1964 testimony, in which he claimed he saw Oswald walking back from the sniper's nest in the southeast corner of the building. But a bigger change was a-coming. When Barker asked Givens “This would be about what time?” Givens’ gave a new response, indicating that someone, somewhere, had alerted Givens to Piper’s testimony. Givens told Barker “Well, about one or two minutes after twelve.” Not surprisingly, CBS failed to alert their viewers that Givens had thereby changed his story, yet AGAIN, and that Bonnie Ray Williams, cited elsewhere on their program, had testified he was on the sixth floor from about noon to 12:20 and had seen neither Givens nor Oswald.
  9. I once had the privilege of spending some time with Mark Lane. I didn't want to push him, but I had to know what he really thought of Lorenz. He told me the point was not that HE believed her story about Sturgis, Oswald, and Hunt, but that she had been used as an informant by a number of agencies, and they had believed her. She remains an enigma. Perhaps a John Newman-esque researcher will tackle that enigma, and expose the underlying truth. One can only hope.
  10. From another section of chapter 4: Still, let's not pretend. The likelihood is and has been (since this issue was first explored by researcher Sylvia Meagher) that Givens flat out lied when he said he'd went back up to the sixth floor after he came down for lunch. The 11-23-63 FBI teletype reporting on its interview of Givens, after all, claimed that after coming down for lunch "Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass." The 12-7-63 Secret Service Report summarizing an interview with Givens, for that matter, not only failed to mention that he'd went back upstairs and encountered Oswald, it actually had him stating that he saw Oswald with the clipboard and heard him yell out before he came down for lunch. (CD87 p780) So how can he suddenly change his story to his not staying on the first floor after first coming down for lunch, and to his hearing Oswald yell out after going back up for his cigarettes? He can't. Or at least shouldn't. Now this raises a question. Did someone pressure or pay Givens to change his story? A 2-9-64 article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram gives us reason to believe this occurred. According to the article, written by Thayer Waldo, a Secret Service agent had boasted that a negro witness, who "had been arrested in the past by the Special Services office of the Dallas Police for gambling" had come forward, and had claimed to have seen Oswald actually fire the shots that killed Kennedy. According to Waldo, who claimed to have sat in on a conversation between this agent and another man, the agent said "Wait till that old black boy gets up in front of the Warren Commission and tells his story. That will settle everything. Yes, sir. He was right there on the same floor, looking out the next window; and, after the first shot, he looked and saw Oswald, and then he ran. I saw him in the Dallas Police station. He was still the scaredest n I ever seen. I heard him tell the officer, 'Man you don't know how fast fast is, because you didn't see me run that day.' He said he ran and hid behind the boxes because he was afraid that Oswald would shoot him." As Givens was the only school book depository employee with a notable police record, and was also one of the very few to have seen Oswald in the hour before the shooting, the "negro witness" described in the article is most certainly Givens. Since Givens never signed a statement or offered testimony describing these events, however, it suggests that either Givens had lied to the police, the agent was lying to Waldo, or that Waldo himself had embellished his story. Perhaps the agent, who Waldo would later reveal to be Mike Howard, had merely indicated that Givens' story was damaging to Oswald, and Waldo had filled in the blanks. On 2-13-64 the FBI looked into this story. They contacted Jack Revill, a Lieutenant in the Dallas PD's Special Service Bureau. Revill told them the man described in the article was most logically Charles Givens. Revill told them that Givens had a history of drug use and “would change his story for money”.Revill told them, furthermore, that although he thought the character in the story was Givens, "that when Givens was interviewed immediately after the assassination, he stated he was not in the building at the time of the assassination." The FBI report then recounts Givens' earlier story that he came down for lunch around 11:30, and that, as he came down, he heard Oswald yell out and ask to have the elevator sent back up. (CD735, p295-296). Months later, after Waldo's story was dredged up by Mark Lane as an indication the Secret Service had been planting false stories in the press, the FBI re-investigated. On May 28, 1964, the FBI wrote a report after talking with agent Mike Howard. (25H844-845). While Howard admitted that he and his brother, Deputy Sheriff Pat Howard, had had a conversation with Waldo, he claimed they did not know he was a reporter, and that they'd never discussed a negro witness to the shooting. On this same day Waldo signed a sworn statement backing his published version of the story. (25H846-848). A few days later, the Bureau contacted Pat Howard, and he admitted that he and his brother had told Waldo about a negro employee with a criminal record who had fled the building after the shots, for fear he would be implicated. (25H849-850) This is clearly a reference to Givens. If the Howards were telling the truth, and they just mentioned Givens because they thought his flight was an "amusing incident," it seems an incredible coincidence that Givens would shortly thereafter change his story and help the Warren Commission put the rifle in Oswald's hand. Yes, you read that right...I wrote shortly thereafter. You see there is reason to believe that, although Givens first officially told his tale on 4-08-64, that he began to change his story within days of Howard's talking to Waldo. The February 21, 1964 cover story of Life Magazine, which treated Oswald's sole guilt as a proven fact, revealed "A few minutes after noon, as the President and his wife were pulling away from the airport in the open presidential limousine, an employee in the school book building, Charles Givens, saw Oswald on the sixth floor and said 'Let's go down and watch the President go by.' 'Not now,' Oswald responded. 'Just send the elevator back up.'" So, hmmm...a story sneaks out that a black man with a criminal record is gonna implicate Oswald; a report is then written indicating that this man is Charles Givens, that he will change his story for money, and that he really doesn't know anything; a thoroughly-biased article then appears in a prominent magazine citing Givens as the source of previously undisclosed information, and that this information is extremely damaging to Oswald; this info, furthermore, is inconsistent with Givens' sworn testimony months later. Well, from this one might gather Life paid Givens for his story, and that he lied to them, or that someone paid or pressured Givens to lie to them, and that he then told a different lie to David Belin. One can not reasonably assert or assume his cloudy memory suddenly became clear.
  11. I discuss Givens and his jacket in great detail in chapter 4: Pinning the Tale on the Oswald Here's part of it. Step 4: The 4-8-64 Testimony of Charles Givens We now arrive at the 4-8-64 testimony of Charles Givens (6H345-356). There are four problems with Givens' testimony that would almost certainly have come to light should Oswald have been provided a defense, or even if Ball (and his junior partner Belin) had found his testimony at odds with the Oswald-did-it conclusion. The first problem bubbles up near the beginning of his testimony. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what time you got to work that day? Mr. GIVENS. Yes; I got to work around about a quarter to eight. Mr. BELIN. Where did you go when you got to work? Mr. GIVENS. I went in a little lunchroom that we have downstairs. Mr. BELIN. Is that what you call the domino room? Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. You carry your lunch with you? Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. You put your lunch there? Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. Did you wear a jacket to work that day? Mr. GIVENS. I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning. Mr. BELIN. Did you hang up your coat in that room, too? Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. Now, this is clear, right? Belin asked Givens about a jacket, and Givens corrected Belin and told him he'd wore a raincoat, and that he'd hung it up in the domino room. Belin then asked Givens about his seeing Oswald on the morning of the 22nd. Givens said he saw Oswald on the first floor around 8:30. Belin then asked Givens about the next time he saw Oswald. Here is his response: “Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he (Oswald) was standing at the gate on the fifth floor. I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it." Well, wait a second. This bit about the jacket is not only in conflict with Givens' earlier testimony he hung up his raincoat (not jacket) in the domino room, it's in conflict with a statement Givens provided the FBI on 3-18-64, in which he asserted that he was a block away from Dealey Plaza when the President was shot, but that "After the President was shot I returned to the Texas School Book Depository Building, and was told by a Dallas policeman that I could not enter the building. About an hour later, I went to the Dallas Police Department and was questioned by the police for about forty-five minutes. Then I returned to the Book Depository Building about 5 o'clock that same afternoon to pick up my hat and coat. I left the building a few minutes after I picked up my hat and coat." (22H649) Okay. Let's get this straight. Givens said he went to the sixth floor to get cigarettes from his jacket. No jacket was found on the sixth floor. It follows then that Givens took his jacket with him when he went to lunch. Now, he also claimed he returned to the building to get his coat. Well, the only way Givens' statements and testimony can make any sense, then, is if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wore both a coat and jacket to work on 11-22-63. Now, should we give him that benefit? Absolutely not. Givens was a warehouse worker. He did not work in a jacket. So, why should we believe he wore a raincoat to work over a jacket, removed this raincoat in the domino room, and then removed the jacket up on the sixth floor? I repeat, he was a warehouse worker. He would know, upon entering the building, that he wasn't gonna need a jacket while working up on the sixth floor. It follows, then, that he would have left his jacket (if he was even wearing a jacket) with his coat in the domino room. I mean, think about it. The order pullers and floor crew with access to the sixth floor were not allowed to return to that floor after the shooting. Some of them--Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Billy Lovelady come to mind--were captured in photographs during or just after the shooting. And yet none of them were wearing jackets when photographed. And yet none of their jackets were found on the sixth floor. Givens' claim he left a jacket on the sixth floor is simply not credible. Belin's failure to clarify Givens' testimony regarding his raincoat and/or jacket is also strange, if not suspicious... Suspicious Omission #6 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin fails to follow-up and clarify the record when Charles Givens testifies to leaving his coat in the domino room upon his arrival at work, but then going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket after everyone else had left for lunch--a brand new addition to Givens' story that allowed Belin and the Commission to place Oswald in the proximity of the sniper's nest shortly before the shooting. This brings us to the second problem with Givens' testimony.
  12. This forum was conceived as a place where people can share ideas about the assassination...and have them read by people from all over the world. When it was set up, there were a number of "private" forums, where people shared ideas with a small group of people. Most of those forums have since disappeared, along with the vast majority of the posts on these forums. Those wishing to join private forums now join Facebook groups, and have their posts read by perhaps as many as 20 or 30 people, as opposed to the 100 to 1,000 that are likely to read a post on this forum. Taking this forum private so no one can copy the words of those uncomfortable with the idea someone might copy and paste their words elsewhere on the internet would be silly, IMO. It's one of the reasons this forum was founded, for crying out loud. John Simkin used posts from this forum to fill in blanks on his Spartacus website. He never asked for permission to quote posts on his website. It was John's hope this website would become a Spartacus-like resource used by people around the world. So he contacted a number of researchers, writers and witnesses, asked them to join, and allowed newbies like myself to join in the discussion. Thankfully, the vast majority of these posts are still available for study. Feel free to copy and paste this post anywhere you like.
  13. I am of two minds on this subject. 1. Yes, DVP's extracts were edited to help his arguments. That is annoying. But at least he quoted his discussions accurately. As a result, a number of his extracts showed his short-mindedness, to the extent even that a newbie stumbling on his site would undoubtedly side against him. 2. The idea that one can not quote public statements without the approval of the person making these statements is short-sighted, IMO. And extremely damaging to the goals of the members of this forum. If someone writes something outrageous, or dead wrong, these statements should not be withheld as personal property, or any such thing. I make dozens if not hundreds of references to online discussions on my website. I quote online discussions with LNers and CTs alike. Some of the quotes involve eyewitnesses (I met so and so and they told me such and such). But most of them reveal mind-set. I use McAdams' own words against him. I use DVP's own words against him. And yes, I use the words of CT's like Fetzer against them. It should be noted, moreover, that among the best quotes I've been able to get via the various JFK forums are quotes from Dale Myers, in which he (badly, IMO) defends his SBT animation. I received these quotes via a middleman who took my complaints about Myers' animation to the source, begged for a response, and then posted Myers' response on the forums. This middleman--David Von Pein. It should be noted, furthermore, that at least one blogger who is not a member of the forums picked up on my online discussion (via DVP) with Myers, and exposed Myers' questionable methodology to thousands of readers who presumably never read the forums. So...to my way of thinking, this is how it should work. Anyone who is a public figure (which perhaps should be defined as anyone who has written a published book on the subject, made a TV appearance on the subject, or even, written extensively on a personal website on the subject) is fair game, and has no real gripe when they are accurately quoted extensively. But anyone who is not a public figure (i.e. the majority of those on this forum) is not fair game, and should only be quoted by name with permission, should they ask this to be the case. This does not, to be clear, prevent someone such as DVP from quoting them anonymously, moreover. In such case, an extract or article could be written exposing inaccurate CT thinking or inaccurate LN thinking by attributing the quote to "anonymous CT" or "anonymous LN." My two cents.
  14. FWIW, I studied the media's response to the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination very closely, and came to realize that Fox News was by far the most open-minded major news agency regarding the assassination. I was a bit perplexed by this but then came to understand that Fox--as a right-wing newcomer--had no dog in the hunt. The Warren Commission, after all, was the illegitimate offspring of that New Deal lovin', Great Society pushing, Lyndon B. Johnson, overseen by the by-current-standards RINO Earl Warren. And the HSCA was a Carter-era, Demo-run circus. So, in the mind of Ailes, etc, why not take a whack at these guys? In the process you could remind everyone that JFK had had some affairs, and that Bobby had overseen some assassination attempts on Castro, etc. It's a win-win, as far as Fox and its viewers are concerned. This becomes apparent, moreover, in some of the recent thinking I've come across in which TRUMP is presented as the latest JFK--a mover and shaker who shook the wrong tree--and was subsequently attacked by the "deep state". Vomit.
  15. I met Titovets at the 2014 Bethesda conference. As I recall he travelled to the U.S. at his own expense to tell those in attendance that his friend was innocent--that Oswald was not the glum Marxist assassin depicted in the Warren Report. His most effective weapon in this quest was the comedy tapes he'd made with Oswald, in which Oswald adopted a goofy Stan Freeborn-ish voice and riffed on various subjects. It was improv-type stuff, the kind of stuff one might see on a comedy show at the time. It was, more importantly, the kind of stuff no one raised on the Warren Report would associate with Oswald. I take Titovets at face value. He was a friend, who wanted his friend to be accurately presented in the history books. I think it's a mistake to take much from Titovets' story about the stolen item. Oswald could have been testing Titovets. Or he could have been testing the KGB. Or he could have actually had an interest in bomb-making. I've known straight-laced guys who have miniature and not so miniature cannons with which they blow stuff up on their back forty. It doesn't mean they plan on using it on people. There was little chance the KGB would arrest Oswald for such a minor infraction. They were using his presence in Russia as propaganda, and would be extremely hesitant to burst their own bubble of b.s. I mean, really--"Newsflash: that Marine who came here to live a better life was a plant, which we should have suspected all along, seeing as we all know this country is an armpit, and no Marine would ever come to live here!" This was and is a country that lies to its people all day and all night. They won't admit it when they've had a nuclear accident, for crying out loud. So what were the chances they'd arrest Oswald as a possible spy after letting him stay, and using his "defection" for PR purposes? Next to nothing, right?
×
×
  • Create New...