Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

John McAdams takes an incident in or around John Kennedy's life and says it's true and expounds on it without true facts.

Greg Parker solved the Oxnard Call incident, which had Penn Jones saying that actress daughter of Irv Kupcinet, who was murdered, had foreknowledge of the Assassination. And that she made an hysterical call, person to person, that didn't go through right.

To this McAdams made up names to go with the story. The names of employees of the telephone company who heard the call, including the supervisor, are not the names uncovered later by Parker.

Karyn Kupcinet's murder has never been solved. Some even believe she wasn't murdered and possibly committed suicide. But it is odd for a female committing suicide in the nude, with her bathrobe thrown over a chair. A possible accidental overdose? No one knows. Except, of course, McAdams.

Kathy C

Kathy,

I was unaware of what either Jones or McAdams had to say about the Oxnard call. I have just checked what McAdams has on his website. Here is what McAdams has all wrong:

If conspiracists are right about there being a "cleanup squad" that went around killing off assassination witnesses, the first person they got was actress Karin Kupcinet.

Let's look at the logic of this statement. What he is saying (although he is seemingly oblivious to it) is that if there was indeed, a clean up squad, KK was it's first victim. This ASSUMES that KK did indeed have knowledge worth killing her over - otherwise why would any such squad (if one existed) need to "get" her.

I know that is not his intended meaning, but it is the only way to interpret his exact words.

-----------

He then quotes Jones:

As Penn Jones, Jr. tells it in Forgive My Grief II:

A few days before the assassination, Karyn Kupcinet, 23, was trying to place a long distance telephone call from the Los Angeles area. According to reports, the long distance operator heard Miss Kupcinet scream into the telephone that President Kennedy was going to be killed.

Two days after the assassination, Miss Kupcinet was found murdered in her apartment. The case has never been solved.

If he is quoting Jones accurately, Jones made a mess of it, as well. The call was NOT "a few days" before the assassination, but within a half hour of it. Nor was the woman screaming, as I will show below.

He next quotes The Associated Press from Nov 23:

There was an Associated Press dispatch printed in the Chicago Daily News of November 23, 1963, originating from Oxnard, California, which told approximately the same story as we have on Miss Kupcinet. The story read:

A telephone company executive said that 20 minutes before President Kennedy was assassinated a woman caller was overheard whispering:

"The President is going to be killed."

Ray Sheehan, manager of the Oxnard division of General Telephone Co., said the caller "stumbled into our operator's circuits," perhaps by misdialing.

Sheehan said the woman "seemed to be a little bit disturbed." Besides predicting the President's death, he said, she "mumbled several incoherent things."

I never mentioned Sheehan simply because there was no need to. As a company executive, he was the last person you'd want relaying the story because he is several layers of management removed from what transpired "on the ground" so to speak.

The operators gave no opinion that they thought the woman "stumbled" into the operator's circuit. Nor did they opine that she was "disturbed". The story simply built up to those assumptions on its way through the system to him, or he he made those assumptions himself.

Here is what the operators, Mrs Shores and Mrs Bliss said: "Individual on line started to dial and after dialing a few numbers started whispering very faintly, 'The President is going to die at 10:10'" [12:10 pm in Dallas]. As can be seen in the FBI report, after she whispered those words, she began whispering what could only be described as an incantation. The operators described this as sounding like she was reading rapidly. They also believed she had placed the receiver on the table [which means she wanted or needed to be "hands free"] . So -- was she screaming? No. On the contrary, she was reading rapidly in a quiet voice. Was she "disturbed"? When Mrs Bliss asked if she could be of any help, the woman replied in "a clear, normal voice" 'No, I'm using the phone'. In that one sentence, the woman clearly demonstrates that she knows what she is doing and that there is a purpose in what she is doing.

http://www.maryferre...5&relPageId=116

I know some people are allergic to my analysis of this call, either because they feel I have not made the case, or because the case itself is too "out there". Obviously I believe I HAVE made the case and I don't give a rats how "out there" it is. The evidence goes where the evidence goes. I just follow it.

What I do find intriguing is that if Joseph David is correct, the motorcade was due to pass the TSBD at 12:10 - the exact time first mentioned by the woman who later amends it to 12:30. Was she "hands free" because she was in touch somehow with people in Dallas updating her on the progress of the motorcade?

Anyone who doesn't factor this call into any search for the "conspirators" is missing a huge lead. She was not "predicting"- she knew. Her incantations were just her way of trying to ensure success.

------

One other slip from McAdams I just noticed:

Karyn Kupcinet was indeed murdered in her West Hollywood apartment, although not two days after the assassination (as Jones asserted), but almost a week later.

Her nude body was discovered on the evening of November 30, 1963, a Saturday. She was laying on her couch with the television turned on, and a coffee pot and a brandy snifter full of cigarette butts overturned on the floor. A cup of coffee, partially consumed, was on a stand across the room.(2)

She had, according to the coroner, been dead about three days.

He appears to be correct that Jones is wrong in pinpointing KK's death at two days after the assassination. But then he gets it wrong himself, despite having the correct answer at his disposal. She was not murdered "almost a week" after the assassination as McAdams asserts. The 30th was merely the day she was found. According to the coroner, she had died about 3 days prior to that. In other words, she died on or about the 27th - that is, 4, 5 or 6 days after the assassination, but most like 5.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1966 S.F. call-in program [LINKED HERE] was excellent (and fascinating). DiEugenio, naturally, has to call ALL THREE of them liars (Ball, Jenner, and Liebeler). When, in fact, they are actually a breath of welcome unpolluted air in this ever-growing morass of conspiracy clowns (like Jim "OSWALD NEVER FIRED A SHOT AT ANYBODY" DiEugenio).

DiEugenio is a joke (even among hard-boiled conspiracists of his own general ilk). He adds more liars and more unsupported conspiracies to the pot (and to the plot) nearly every day, with Jimbo's current plot and "cover-up" consisting of hundreds of people, including Joe Ball, Al Jenner, Jim Liebeler, Earl Warren, David Belin, Arlen Specter, Gerald Ford, John McCloy, Allen Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Robert Frazier, Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, J. Will Fritz, Henry Wade, Harry Holmes, J. Lee Rankin, Norman Redlich, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, the HSCA (as a unit), the Clark Panel, the Dallas Police Department, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, the New York Times, the rest of the "mainstream media", and dozens (if not hundreds) more.

Reality Check:

How many here truly believe that all of the above individuals and entities (and many, many more that I didn't mention, but certainly could have listed) were part of some plot to cover-up the truth of JFK's death?

Just how far deep into the abyss of conspiracy are the members of this forum willing to sink? It might be interesting to lay those facts bare via the above inquiry.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, he points out that there is no such thing as a "left-handed" scope for a rifle.

Comments? ...

Of course there's no such thing as a "left-handed scope," but who ever said there was? Straw man.

The description I recall is that the scope was "set up for a left-handed person," or words to that effect. A different animal entirely, and a definite possibility.

But quite right: there is no such thing as a "left-handed scope." Points for accuracy. And demerits to whomever mischaracterized a scope being "set up for a left-handed person."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McAdams seems to use alt.assassination.jfk as his personal bully playground. Anyone who has spent any time there should realize that whatever McAdams chooses to bring forth is distorted in some way. Since his field is poli sci, he also likes to use propaganda techniques. Here is a link to an article that defines some of them that are also used by Foxnews:

http://www.truth-out.org/14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans/1309612678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is just piffle.

When are you going to answer my question about how many of those WC documents and books you read?

Never?

No investigative panel led by a guy who was afraid of unleashing thermonuclear war was going to investigate the JFK case.

Especially since the guys who designed the plot planted that threat even weeks beforehand.

OK.

Now go hangout at McAdams' forum and argue the SBT.

Sorry to see you behave so ridiculous, Jim. I wonder why it is that almost all discussions on this forum tends to get personal?

But that's your choice.

At least Jim takes the time to think before he writes. That in itself can be refreshing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

The 1966 S.F. call-in program [LINKED HERE] was excellent (and fascinating). DiEugenio, naturally, has to call ALL THREE of them liars (Ball, Jenner, and Liebeler). When, in fact, they are actually a breath of welcome unpolluted air in this ever-growing morass of conspiracy clowns (like Jim "OSWALD NEVER FIRED A SHOT AT ANYBODY" DiEugenio).

DiEugenio is a joke (even among hard-boiled conspiracists of his own general ilk). He adds more liars and more unsupported conspiracies to the pot (and to the plot) nearly every day, with Jimbo's current plot and "cover-up" consisting of hundreds of people, including Joe Ball, Al Jenner, Jim Liebeler, Earl Warren, David Belin, Arlen Specter, Gerald Ford, John McCloy, Allen Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Robert Frazier, Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, J. Will Fritz, Henry Wade, Harry Holmes, J. Lee Rankin, Norman Redlich, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, the HSCA (as a unit), the Clark Panel, the Dallas Police Department, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, the New York Times, the rest of the "mainstream media", and dozens (if not hundreds) more.

Reality Check:

How many here truly believe that all of the above individuals and entities (and many, many more that I didn't mention, but certainly could have listed) were part of some plot to cover-up the truth of JFK's death?

Just how far deep into the abyss of conspiracy are the members of this forum willing to sink? It might be interesting to lay those facts bare via the above inquiry.

Ahhhh....Albert Jenner....wasn't he that hopelessly compromised, due to a myriad of conflicted interests, mob lawyer planted on the WC by Tom Clark and Earl Warren? Didn't Jenner's close ties to the main financial beneficiary of the controversial TFX contract award, Henry Crown, disqualify Jenner from "investigating" Lee Harvey Oswald for the WC, and if not, didn't the following "stuff" make the point that, by itself, the presence of Jenner on the WC disqualified the reliability of the WCR?

....WC investigation and "Report".:

Let the record show that Albert E. Jenner, Jr., was in truth, a "mob lawyer" who worked diligently to protect the Dorfmans from at least as far back as the 1953 hearings documented in thiis post, through his representation of Michael Frank Darling, into the 1970's when he represented Allen Dorfman directly. Jenner had to know, as a result of the 1953 hearing where Jimmy Hoffa and thte Teamster Central States Welfare Fund were directly intertwined with the efforts of Jenner's client, Darling, funneling money from the unions to the Dorfman's, at the direct expense of the union members and their employers, that it was a mistake in 1960 to.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=187543

In The Matter of The Application for Playboy-Elsinore Associates

For a Casino License

Decided: April 7, 1982

.....Page 7

B. Areas of Concern Identified By The Division

....2. The 1963 Loan

On March 15,1960, another Hyatt financing proposal was sent to the PENSION FUND and was directed to the attention of it Executive

Page 7

Secretary, Francis J. Murtha. In this proposal, Hyatt offered to sell to the FUND subordinated debentures in the principal amount of $4,000,000 bearing interest at the rate of 6 1/4 percent per annum and maturing on March 31, 1979. This financing was to be used by Hyatt for the expansion of its hotel chaing and for the acquisition, development, and construction of real estate projects.

Stanford Clinton again withdrew as counsel for the (Teamsters) PENSION FUND and the firm of Thompson, Raymond, Mayer, Jenner and Bloomstein was retained in order to render legal advice to the Trustees of the Fund and to execute the appropriate legal documents. ....

....After difficult negotiations, and Trustees of the PENSION FUND approved a revised proposal....The loan was executed on June 24, 1960.

The Division in its summation noted some compliamentary language used by James R. Hoffa in referring to the Pritzker family at a Board of Trustees meeting of the PENSION FUND. This reference was to the fiscal responsibility of the Pritzkers....

...3. 1966-1970 Loans

http://books.google.com/books?ei=NQD_TfGPIMeBgAelyITwCg&ct=result&id=TATVOZiNAKYC&dq=%22Mr.+Darling.+I+was%2C+%2442000+for+advertising.+mr.*%22&q=%22adjourned%2C+and+the+committee+hearings+will+resume+at+10+o%27clock+tomorrow+morning.%22#search_anchor

...Mr. Darling. I don't recall ever paying one.

Mr. Smith. In other words, you never paid any claims after they had been turned down by the Union Casualty Co. ?

Mr. Darling. Not that I can recall, Congressman. I don't know why we should.

Mr. Smith. You said that you spent a lot of this money for general welfare that came back to you in rebates. Didn't you say that ?

Mr. Darling. No, I said that the cost of administering, with as high as six people handling these claims as they come in, compiling the data, sending it on to the insurance company, writing letters to the people, answering — one girl does nothing but sit on a telephone all day long and gets $85 a week, and she is complaining if she doesn't get a raise she is going to quit — the cost just for that, for the people is more than we received from Union Casualty. How much more I couldn't say. We have never tried to make a cost of how many letters we mailed or the letters that go out in the regular mail, and the calls that come in and go out over the switchboard.

Mr. Landrum.Would the $42000 that you received personally for the sponsorship of the baseball team offset that loss?

Mr. Darling. Probably.

Mr. Jenner. You did not testify you received that personally.

Mr. Darling. I never got it personally, of course not. I am sorry, I misunderstood it. You said I received. I did not receive it, I got $3000 salary in 1953.

Mr. Landrum. You are going to get what is left of it.

Mr. Darling. I will get part of what is left, not all of it.

Mr. Smith. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Landrum. I do not have any.

Mr. McKenna. No.

Mr. Jenner. Mr. Chairman, I think there were a couple of statements made, I think it was Monday by Mr. Dorfman who refused to answer your question, or maybe it was Mr. McKenna's question as to part of $100000 or $101000, , was any of that paid to Mr. Darling, and 40479—54 17

I think he refused to answer that question. Would you like to ask Mr. Darling anything about it ?

Mr. Smith. Yes, I will ask him. Mr. Darling, have you ever received any money or thing of value from the Dorfman Insurance Agency, run by the Dorfman's in Chicago, other than what you have stated here tonight ?

Mr. Darling. I have never received one penny in money, and on one Christmas, and I believe it was 2 years ago, Allen gave me a wrist- watch which I would guess it would be worth about $40. When he got married I gave him a television set that I bought wholesale. That is the only thing.

Mr. Landrtjm. So $42000 is all you received ?

Mr. Jenner. He has not testified, if you please, that he received $42000 or any amount.

Mr. Landrum. Did you receive $42000 from Allen Dorfman ?

Mr. Darling. Did I personally? No, sir.

Mr. Landrum. Were you president and owner of 80 percent of the stock of a corporation which received $42000 from him ?

Mr. Darling. I was, $42000 for advertising.

Mr. Landrum. That is all.

Mr. Smith. Are there any other questions? If not, the executive session is now adjourned, and the committee hearings will resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 10:15 p.m., the committee was recessed to be re-convened in open session at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 25, 1953.)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22granted+night+hearing%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#hl=en&ds=n&sugexp=gsih&pq=%22granted%20night%20hearing%22&xhr=t&q=darling+granted+night+hearing%22&cp=8&qe=ZGFybGluZyBncmFudGVkIG5pZ2h0IGhlYXJpbmci&qesig=_MjwVh2QK-lxip7lnz8I_w&pkc=AFgZ2tm3wVeHgqTa7r05MDO8Vr1-kyDFm4stA_jJekUA7hX6tpBrAo34zuv4mMmEjecAXd9kK-dqVDKTP5su2kaGuhsNeqQ8jQ&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=yfS&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aunofficial&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=darling+granted+night+hearing%22&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e0320be3d2b0e926&biw=811&bih=493

Strong-Arm Politics in AFL Bared

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Nov 26, 1953

Darling was granted a night hearing 'in a downtown Detroit hotel because the union official had to return to Chicago today, said the committee which is

5841268151_2f7cd7d54d_b.jpg

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JQJPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PwEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7282,1425999&dq=paul+dorfman&hl=en

Rhodes Returns To Washington

Toledo Blade - Nov 25, 1963

Ruby also worked as a union organizer for Paul Dorfman, Chicago union boss and close buddy of James Hoffa, Teamsters president. Dorfman headed the Waste and ...

Victor Riesel .Ruby Helped Form A Chicago Union .

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Uh01AAAAIBAJ&sjid=RhEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4093,56898&dq=paul+dorfman&hl=en

Milwaukee Sentinel - Dec 2, 1963

8, 1939 Ruby stayed on for a while. Then the regional office removed him. Out of nowhere came the new secretary-treasurer— Paul Dorfman, buddy of Jimmie ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=paul+dorfman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#q=paul+dorfman&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=q4m&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&tbm=nws&prmd=ivnso&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1963,cd_max:1964&sa=X&ei=kH8PTrjOC4qftwfYt43VDQ&ved=0CBAQpwUoBg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e0320be3d2b0e926&biw=811&bih=493

Ruby Linked to Chicago Gangs; Boasted of Knowing Hoodlums;...

- New York Times - Nov 26, 1963

That was 'soon after the union had been taken over by Paul Dorfman, a close friend of James R. Hoffa, head of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. .

Federal Agents Tie Rubenstein to Hoodlums, Slain Chicagoans

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Nov 26, 1963

job early in 1940 after Paul Dorfman a close friend of James R Hoff a teamster pres ident took over the union. Union Investigated ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=paul+dorfman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aunofficial&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22*He+accused+Jenner+of+improperly+inducing+the+health+fund%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e0320be3d2b0e926&biw=811&bih=493

Dorfman firm price inflated, US charges

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Feb 7, 1984

"At the very beginning, the skids were greased for everything that would follow, " Weeks said. He accused Jenner of improperly inducing the health fund to

5779384305_dd759fc243_b.jpg

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1457&view=findpost&p=227118

I've seen the elephant: an autobiography - page 246

William B. Saxbe, Peter D. Franklin, Diana Britt Franklin - 2000 - 276 pages -

....The government also suspected that Lehr was part of the game, but an exhaustive investigation revealed he was totally straight. He told Ryan, "I'm basically here to work with you. My biggest problem is that I have a guy running the insurance company called [Allen M.] Dorfman, who is a total mobster....

http://www.google.com/search?q=paul+dorfman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#q=albert+jenner+taxes&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1977,cd_max:1977&tbm=nws&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=YYAPTvTYJ8-4twfO16nVDQ&ved=0CBIQpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e0320be3d2b0e926&biw=811&bih=493

Failed To File Tax Return .

Bangor Daily News - Jun 20, 1977

Albert Jenner, who served as minority counsel in the impeachment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Who was the woman on the line?

Can you provide a link to your essay?

Jim,

I don't know who she was and chances of finding out are very slim at best. But never say never. Other "unknowns" have become "knowns".

Here is the piece:

http://reopenkennedy...iddle-explained

Greg, for some reason I can't finish registering on your forum. It says my email already exists. Also, how do the names go on the Forum? Can we use aliases?

I might as well throw in my 2 cents. I don't think anyone has shown more interest and "researched" Karyn Kupcinet more than I. There was a man, a Professor, interested in writing a book about her. He actually interviewed the 2 men who were with her, watching TV the night she died. They left at 11:15, locking the door behind them. She was murdered approx. 12:30 am, Nov. 28, according to authorities. But the Professor dropped it. Instead, he became a Private Investigator.

For instance, I found the right agency and asked for Karyn's autopsy report. They refused and told Scott at findadeath.com that I had requested the autopsy 3 separate times in one year. Now, what's going on with the Coroner and the guy who writes irreverently and shows pictures of dead movie stars?

Scott wrote to me very angrily, I felt, and said, "Is this an emergency?" "Yes," I said. "Times up. 1963 was a long time ago."

The agency that received my emails, gave the document to the Professor now a PI. He had Professor in front of his name and that's all he needed. They blocked my email. The Professor shared the report with me.

No one knows how she died, especially McAdams. And the coroner had a fetish about strangled women. Two women were exhumed whom he worked on and turned out not to be strangled at all. He worked on them shortly after Karyn.

Kathy Cblink.gif

Edited by Kathleen Collins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Who was the woman on the line?

Can you provide a link to your essay?

Jim,

I don't know who she was and chances of finding out are very slim at best. But never say never. Other "unknowns" have become "knowns".

Here is the piece:

http://reopenkennedy...iddle-explained

Greg, for some reason I can't finish registering on your forum. It says my email already exists. Also, how do the names go on the Forum? Can we use aliases?

Kathy C

Hi Cathy,

you're already a member under the username "Kathy C". If you've forgotten your password, just go through the normal process for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, he points out that there is no such thing as a "left-handed" scope for a rifle.

Comments? ...

Of course there's no such thing as a "left-handed scope," but who ever said there was? Straw man.

The description I recall is that the scope was "set up for a left-handed person," or words to that effect. A different animal entirely, and a definite possibility.

But quite right: there is no such thing as a "left-handed scope." Points for accuracy. And demerits to whomever mischaracterized a scope being "set up for a left-handed person."

Warren Commission exhibit 2560 -- the scope was "mounted for a left-handed person." Oddly the WC failed to mention this in its "report." Just left it there to be discovered in the "exhibits" later. McAdams is misleading and distorting.

Edited by John Navin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Davey, why stop with that list of people who you say I think are involved..why not say I think millions were involved. Both here and abroad.

And why stop there? Maybe aliens were also in on it.

When are you going to say I think Elvis is alive?

The century is still young, Jimmy. I'm confident that by the end of the year 2015, you'll have found a way to incorporate the whole Western Hemisphere in the plot to kill JFK or cover up the evidence afterward.

After all, you're the guy who's silly enough to still prop Garrison up on your mantlepiece, and you're the guy who is silly enough to think that both Buell Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle just made up Oswald's paper bag from whole cloth.

Ergo, can the Elvis/Aliens/9-11 theories be far behind?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Who was the woman on the line?

Can you provide a link to your essay?

Jim,

I don't know who she was and chances of finding out are very slim at best. But never say never. Other "unknowns" have become "knowns".

Here is the piece:

http://reopenkennedy...iddle-explained

Greg, for some reason I can't finish registering on your forum. It says my email already exists. Also, how do the names go on the Forum? Can we use aliases?

Kathy C

Hi Cathy,

you're already a member under the username "Kathy C". If you've forgotten your password, just go through the normal process for that.

I just rewrote my post.

Kathy C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The experts at Aberdeen thought the rifle was outfitted for a left handed person.

Hmm, was Oswald left handed?

McAdams is exposed again.

And here again, once more, we have a situation which makes the likes of James DiEugenio and many other Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists look ridiculous:

I.E.,

Oswald fired a gun in a right-handed manner (as we can tell from the Marine Corps photo of LHO below):

LHO.jpg

And (presumably) the people who wanted to frame Oswald must surely have known this basic fact about their lone patsy, right?

So what do "they" do? They decide to frame Oswald with a rifle that had a scope on it that was supposedly mounted for a left-handed person??

Brilliant plan.

This is just one more example among dozens of similar examples to demonstrate that the behind-the-scenes plotters (whom the conspiracy theorists insist were really setting up and controlling Lee Oswald every step of the way leading up to 11/22/63) must certainly have attended Brain-Dead University.

One more great example: "They" just allow their patsy to wander around freely on the lower floors of the Book Depository Building at the precise moment when the unknown "they" need him to be on the sixth floor with a gun in his hands.

Didn't the plotters even CARE where their patsy was located when they were attempting to frame him at 12:30? Per Oliver Stone's ridiculous theory on this subject--apparently not. And Jim Garrison even goes one step further than Stone, suggesting in his 1967 Playboy interview that Oswald appears on the TSBD steps in the Altgens picture (instead of Lovelady).

If your patsy-framers get any dumber, Jimbo, they'll have a collective I.Q. of negative 6.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The experts at Aberdeen thought the rifle was outfitted for a left handed person.

Hmm, was Oswald left handed?

McAdams is exposed again.

And here again, once more, we have a situation which makes the likes of James DiEugenio and many other Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists look ridiculous:

I.E.,

Oswald fired a gun in a right-handed manner (as we can tell from the Marine Corps photo of LHO below):

LHO.jpg

And (presumably) the people who wanted to frame Oswald must surely have known this basic fact about their lone patsy, right?

So what do "they" do? They decide to frame Oswald with a rifle that had a scope on it that was supposedly mounted for a left-handed person??

Brilliant plan.

This is just one more example among dozens of similar examples to demonstrate that the behind-the-scenes plotters (whom the conspiracy theorists insist were really setting up and controlling Lee Oswald every step of the way leading up to 11/22/63) must certainly have attended Brain-Dead University.

One more great example: "They" just allow their patsy to wander around freely on the lower floors of the Book Depository Building at the precise moment when the unknown "they" need him to be on the sixth floor with a gun in his hands.

Didn't the plotters even CARE where their patsy was located when they were attempting to frame him at 12:30? Per Oliver Stone's ridiculous theory on this subject--apparently not. And Jim Garrison even goes one step further than Stone, suggesting in his 1967 Playboy interview that Oswald appears on the TSBD steps in the Altgens picture (instead of Lovelady).

If your patsy-framers get any dumber, Jimbo, they'll have a collective I.Q. of negative 6.

According to John Armstrong, who did a tremendous amount of research on his own time and money, the photo above is of Lee Oswald. He was not shot by Ruby. He wasn't the patsy.tomatoes.gif

Kathy C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, he points out that there is no such thing as a "left-handed" scope for a rifle.

Comments? ...

Of course there's no such thing as a "left-handed scope," but who ever said there was? Straw man.

The description I recall is that the scope was "set up for a left-handed person," or words to that effect. A different animal entirely, and a definite possibility.

But quite right: there is no such thing as a "left-handed scope." Points for accuracy. And demerits to whomever mischaracterized a scope being "set up for a left-handed person."

Warren Commission exhibit 2560 -- the scope was "mounted for a left-handed person." Oddly the WC failed to mention this in its "report." Just left it there to be discovered in the "exhibits" later. McAdams is misleading and distorting.

Was Mac Wallace (or any other possible shooter) left-handed?

--Thomas

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

×
×
  • Create New...