Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Roy Truly gave Oswald on a silver patter to the cops the second he found out he had been in Russia and so on.

He considered it his public duty to nail someone like LHO to the cross.

He changed his observations enough times in interviews to convince any sane person to understand that Truly lied through his teeth when it came to almost every aspect of the second floor encounter.

And for that he got a letter of commendation from the feds.

Enough already.

Bart,

That's an inaccurate portrayal of Roy Truly, by my reading.   It's partly correct, and partly incorrect.

It's quite true that Roy Truly was not the brightest bulb on the tree.

It's also true that Roy Truly was a conformist.  Whatever the boss said must be correct, because as an authoritarian, Roy Truly agreed with Dallas Society.

Insofar as the Dallas Police were ready to nail Lee Harvey Oswald to the cross -- yes, I agree -- Roy Truly would also call for Oswald's Crucifixion.

Yet there is not one single LIE in any of Roy Truly's testimony, Bart.   You make the accusation -- so you should show the EVIDENCE.  You fail to do that.

As for letters of commendation from the Feds, everybody who testified for the Warren Commission was commended warmly.   That's no big thing.

You want me to back up my claims -- so, please -- back up your claims.

 I say Roy Truly told the TRUTH as he knew it.   You say he deliberately LIED.   Show us.   Show some EVIDENCE.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly lied.  He knew after the lineup of employees from the Texas School Book Depository building that Oswald was not the only one missing from it.   Yet he singled him out by calling the personnel office for Oswald's personal information then passed it and the "fact" that he was the "only" missing employee to Officer Lumpkin.  Who in turn ran it immediately up to Captain Fritz.  Less than 20 minutes after the assassination, once again, including the run up to the roof with Baker, supposedly, conveniently, past Oswald in the lunchroom.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, not going down that route with you.

Read my paper, if all that what is in there does not clearly show that Truly was completely full of it then specify were that's the case.

Truly lied during his W.C. testimony and in his statements.

They all lied................

Truly

Baker

Fritz

Shelley

Lovelady

Reid

Bookhout

Hosty

Kelley

Sorrels

Do I need to go on?

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Paul, not going down that route with you.

Read my paper, if all that what is in there does not clearly show that Truly was completely full of it then specify were that's the case.

Truly lied during his W.C. testimony and in his statements.

They all lied................

Truly

Baker

Fritz

Shelley

Lovelady

Reid

Bookhout

Hosty

Kelley

Sorrels

Do I need to go on?

Regards James Hosty ( and Gordon Shanklin ) lying:

Hosty shamelessly admitted purposely holding back telling the Warren Commission about his 11/24/1963 destruction of his office's note (or letter or file papers ) on Oswald that were handed to him by Gordon Shanklin with the instruction  "I don't ever want to see this again" ... or these or them? In other words...get rid of it.

When asked years later why he didn't mention this incredibly important Lee Harvey Oswald note/letter/file and it's destruction order and action to the Warren Commission, Hosty said simply "they didn't ask."

They didn't ask?   

They ( the WC ) whose publicly stated whole and sole purpose was supposedly to get at the full truth of the JFK assassination for the sake of every American citizen, wouldn't want or need to know about this mind blowing super important evidential item and destruction information about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Please!

Apparently the full "truth.whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God." oath Hosty took before his Warren Commission testimony didn't register with or apply to him ( over his FBI and pension saving loyalty oath ) regards every relevant thing Hosty knew about Lee Harvey Oswald ( and Hosty KNEW this Oswald file info was relevant ) when asked to reveal such to this so-called highest integrity "august" investigative commission.

Can you imagine how Hosty telling the "full truth" of this Lee Harvey Oswald letter or file evidence destruction to the WC the day of his testimony would have impacted the WC?

They would have been forced to admit and deal with the reality of their one and only main investigative body purposely withholding and destroying important knowledge and evidence from them.

Which would have compromised the entire effort and it's integrity from that point on.

And does any rational person believe that Hosty's evidence destruction and relevant Lee Harvey Oswald information withholding was the only time this was done?

And Gordon Shanklin denying for years that he gave Hosty the Oswald papers destruction order was just another lie. 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Paul, not going down that route with you.

Read my paper, if all that what is in there does not clearly show that Truly was completely full of it then specify were that's the case.

Truly lied during his W.C. testimony and in his statements.

They all lied................

Truly

Baker

Fritz

Shelley

Lovelady

Reid

Bookhout

Hosty

Kelley

Sorrels

Do I need to go on?

Bart,

Besides backing out of showing Evidence for your claims, you've added a few more errors, by my reading.

The following is my opinion:

1.  Truly did not lie
2.  Baker did not lie
3.  Shelly did not lie
4.  Lovelady did not lie

You have no material evidence that these men lied.

I do agree with you this far -- those few men that you named who were present during Lee Harvey Oswald's final interview of his life -- they all lied to the Warren Commission, and it is easy to demonstrate those lies by contradictions in their own words.

Yet let's stick to the topic at hand -- Roy Truly.   If you -- or anybody -- claims he lied, then step up to the plate and show your work.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bart, I can't get the read my paper link to work.  It keeps saying this page can't be displayed when I refresh it.  Not that what's his name would read it.

Tried it again just a bit ago and it took 3-4 minutes to load but did.  Don't have time to read much tonight but I look forward to doing so, it looks very interesting.  Congratulations on the award.

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to Jim Marrs "Crossfire", the 2013 revised edition, on page 309 this is found.

"A relative of depository superintendent Roy Truly recently told researchers that due to intimidation by federal authorities Truly was fearful until his death.  Truly's wife, Mildred, refused to discuss the assassination-even with family members."   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Who is Paul?

Lol,

 

Paul, no offense, but I am reading this with a very neutral point of view.

I do not mind if someone has a different view than I do on this event- the other night one of my good friends and I briefly discussed the subject and he has taught on the the assassination and he is a W.C. supporter and an ex. Secret Service agent. 

So, if I was sitting here as a judge listening to the arguments between you and the other writers, there is one thing I keep noticing.

Respectfully, you present your view-without any citation to proof-and then attack others views by demanding they provide proof.

Reading a book is not proof.

Have you directly interviewed individuals and recorded their thoughts?

Have you obtained documentary evidence that directly shows Walker was in on a plot or is this just your theory based on your speculation?

Do you have direct evidence, not books written by authors, that support your conclusions which trump others?

If not, respectfully, you have a theory not fact.

I have had very well known individuals tell me fascinating things about this event-which I would never repeat out of respect for them and their position.  To me this is first hand proof which I use for my theory formation.

However, for you to attack others on this site and demand they show proof, I must sustain any objection to your argument.

Proof, where is your proof Walker was involved.  Not speculation or books, proof.  Receipts, testimony, checks, documents of any kind, stating he was involved. 

If not, I understand the exhaustion many are expressing about your posts.

Thanks.

 

 

 

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly hired Oswald after a call from the Quaker lady from Pennsylvania in Irving with the sister who worked for the CIA.

Truly singled out Oswald among other employee's missing in a roll call/lineup of them done just a few minutes after his run up, and down, 7 flights of stairs.  He called and got Oswald's description and an address from the TSBD personnel office and gave it to DPD Officer Lumpkin less than 20 minutes after the assassination.

Combined with his dubious statements and testimony his veracity is questionable.

Which leads me to wonder if Oswald didn't shoot anybody as he said and was out front with Bill Shelly, who was on the sixth floor, how did they get there and how did they get away?  Somebody let them in to scout the place in advance though they may have been deceived as to purpose.  Likely not Truly but a subordinate?        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Lol,

 

Paul, no offense, but I am reading this with a very neutral point of view.

I do not mind if someone has a different view than I do on this event- the other night one of my good friends and I briefly discussed the subject and he has taught on the the assassination and he is a W.C. supporter and an ex. Secret Service agent. 

So, if I was sitting here as a judge listening to the arguments between you and the other writers, there is one thing I keep noticing.

Respectfully, you present your view-without any citation to proof-and then attack others views by demanding they provide proof.

Reading a book is not proof.

Have you directly interviewed individuals and recorded their thoughts?

Have you obtained documentary evidence that directly shows Walker was in on a plot or is this just your theory based on your speculation?

Do you have direct evidence, not books written by authors, that support your conclusions which trump others?

If not, respectfully, you have a theory not fact.

I have had very well known individuals tell me fascinating things about this event-which I would never repeat out of respect for them and their position.  To me this is first hand proof which I use for my theory formation.

However, for you to attack others on this site and demand they show proof, I must sustain any objection to your argument.

Proof, where is your proof Walker was involved.  Not speculation or books, proof.  Receipts, testimony, checks, documents of any kind, stating he was involved. 

If not, I understand the exhaustion many are expressing about your posts.

Thanks.

 

 

 

Jeez. He said he believes his testimony. What more proof is required?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh thanks Cory.

I did not know it was that Paul since I have him on ignore now.

Am enjoying the site a lot more.

Have you started something Jim?

The "Paul who" movement?

Edited by Cory Santos

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

×