David G. Healy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) ... I think the Walker shooting was fabricated after the Kennedy assassination. Why? Because there was simply no history of violence with Oswald, especially with firearms. If they could pin this on him, it would make the Kennedy murder easier to swallow as the act of a sociopath. ... for convenience sake.... Even if a Texas JBS whack job took a shot at Walker and missed, or a pro with intent to miss, what a set up... much the same with the Tippit shooting only NOT missing... LHO a megalomaniac, sociopath and psychopath (and commie)? The possibilities are endless... a set patsy for all 3 shootings: Walker, JFK, Tippit? All 3 on different paths, merged after the fact for convenience sake... 3 Strikes you're out and NO trial....Contrived! Edited August 9, 2015 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) ... I think the Walker shooting was fabricated after the Kennedy assassination. Why? Because there was simply no history of violence with Oswald, especially with firearms. If they could pin this on him, it would make the Kennedy murder easier to swallow as the act of a sociopath. ... for convenience sake.... Even if a Texas JBS whack job took a shot at Walker and missed, or a pro with intent to miss, what a set up... much the same with the Tippit shooting only NOT missing... LHO a megalomaniac, sociopath and psychopath (and commie)? The possibilities are endless... a set patsy for all 3 shootings: Walker, JFK, Tippit? All 3 on different paths, merged after the fact for convenience sake... 3 Strikes you're out and NO trial....Contrived! Well David, if it was contrived, look at all the witnesses who defended Edwin Walker -- Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Marina Oswald, George De Mohrenschildt, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt and Mrs. Igor Voshinin. My doubts arise because except for Edwin Walker and maybe Mrs. Igor Voshinin, nobody in that list above was a member of the "Friends of Walker." Why would non-fascists stick up for an alleged fascist? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 ... I think the Walker shooting was fabricated after the Kennedy assassination. Why? Because there was simply no history of violence with Oswald, especially with firearms. If they could pin this on him, it would make the Kennedy murder easier to swallow as the act of a sociopath. ... for convenience sake.... Even if a Texas JBS whack job took a shot at Walker and missed, or a pro with intent to miss, what a set up... much the same with the Tippit shooting only NOT missing... LHO a megalomaniac, sociopath and psychopath (and commie)? The possibilities are endless... a set patsy for all 3 shootings: Walker, JFK, Tippit? All 3 on different paths, merged after the fact for convenience sake... 3 Strikes you're out and NO trial....Contrived! Well David, if it was contrived, look at all the witnesses who defended Edwin Walker -- Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Marina Oswald, George De Mohrenschildt, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt and Mrs. Igor Voshinin. My doubts arise because except for Edwin Walker and maybe Mrs. Igor Voshinin, nobody in that list above was a member of the "Friends of Walker." Why would non-fascists stick up for an alleged fascist? Regards, --Paul Trejo I don't know Paul... hell, Saint Peter could of been a character witness for Walker, has nothing to do with laying an assault on his life at the feet of a murdered presidential assassin AND a murdered local cop... Has there ever been a resolution to who shot at Walker? It's not necessary to call anyone fascist or non-fascist for that matter, hell it just muddies the water further... racists leanings and accusations are sidebar here. Getting Oswald into a grave without saying a word in a courtroom setting was paramount. Sounds like a bad Hollywood script, which means there's probably some validity to it! LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) delete... duplicate Edited August 9, 2015 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) I think Voshinin is reliant on DeM. And they are not actually defending Walker. They are saying Oswald was in on it. Edited August 9, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 MK: Glenn, I agree that today's politics has next-to-nothing to do with the JFK assassination, Mark, did you read my essay on Nixon vs JFK? Please note below: Before leaving the subject, it’s interesting to speculate on another possible aspect of the pressure campaign brought to bear on Carter to let the Shah into the United States. Everyone knows that John McCloy served on the Warren Commission. In May of 1979, Carter was visiting Los Angeles to make a speech at the Civic Center. He had still not allowed the Shah into the country. The police apprehended a man with a starter’s pistol in the crowd. When they questioned the suspect, he told the authorities he was part of a four-man assassination team. His function was to fire a diversionary shot into the ground while the other members shot at Carter from a nearby hotel. Although the police were skeptical, they later found that a room at the hotel was rented by a man the suspect had named as part of the plot. In that room was a shotgun case and three spent rounds of ammunition. Further, the occupants had checked out the day of the assassination attempt. The apprehended suspect’s name was Raymond Lee Harvey. One of the men he named as a co-conspirator was Oswaldo Espinoza Ortiz. (Time, 5/21/79) About four months later, Carter admitted the Shah. Fair enough. But allow me to clarify my point: the political situation in 2015 leads FROM the JFK assassination, not TO it. I'm a bit more interested in being able to prove how the perpetrator got TO the assassination, and exactly who was [knowingly] involved prior to the assassination. While, to some degree, we can go to the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations and work backwards, attempting to work backwards from the politics of 2015 seems to be more of an exercise in frustration. I do understand how JFK's assassination affected world politics afterwards. And I do believe that the particular policies regarding both Vietnam and the Middle East were radically altered after JFK's assassination. BUT I do NOT think it's fruitful to pursue today's liberal vs. conservative squabbles as a means to solving the JFK assassination. I don't think that turning this into a Rush Limbaugh vs. Al Franken forum is gonna bring us any closer to learning the truth. Therefore, I propose nipping that sort of talk in the bud. Now, Mr. DiEugenio...is that somewhat clearer for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Thanks for the clarification. But I just wanted to convey that although the elites try to message that the JFK case is irrelevant today and that only some conspiracy nuts are interested in it, the Carter episode belies that. As does the fact that Obama made his latest speech at American University and mentioned JFK three times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 the people who erroneously try to say that JFK is irrelevant today is completely different than discussing today's relevant politics in order to get to the politics of 50+ years ago. because Obama spoke of JFK three times only means that it IS relevant today. GREAT. it is more relevant than most people know. I walk and live amongst the homeless of Atlanta and am reminded hourly how relevant it is today. Mark's point is that you can't use today's politics, or even Carter, to GO backward and understand/solve the politics that killed JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) ...Why would non-fascists stick up for an alleged fascist? Regards, --Paul Trejo I don't know Paul... hell, Saint Peter could of been a character witness for Walker, has nothing to do with laying an assault on his life at the feet of a murdered presidential assassin AND a murdered local cop... Has there ever been a resolution to who shot at Walker? It's not necessary to call anyone fascist or non-fascist for that matter, hell it just muddies the water further... racists leanings and accusations are sidebar here. Getting Oswald into a grave without saying a word in a courtroom setting was paramount. Sounds like a bad Hollywood script, which means there's probably some validity to it! LMAO! Well, David, please bear with me in this question. In the last work he wrote for the HSCA before he allegedly committed suicide (I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!) George De Mohrenschildt spoke again about how much he opposed Edwin Walker. George had already said as much to the Warren Commission. Michael and Ruth Paine both expressed to the WC how much they opposed Edwin Walker. So did Marina Oswald, and so did Volkmar Schmidt (although Volkmar was never called before the WC). My question is about how anybody would organize a conspiracy of people to lie for the benefit of Edwin Walker -- using people who openly opposed Edwin Walker. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Mark's point is that you can't use today's politics, or even Carter, to GO backward and understand/solve the politics that killed JFK. Succinct and exactly on-point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) PT: My question is about how anybody would organize a conspiracy of people to lie for the benefit of Edwin Walker -- using people who openly opposed Edwin Walker. By this logic, it is completely baffling then as to why Ruth Paine was in Nicaragua supporting the Contra cause. I mean if you ask me the Contras made Walker look kind of moderate. But she was there spying on the American Sandinista supporters for the State Department. And many, many people knew that. As far away as Costa Rica. I mean, how many decades, and how much evidence is it going to take to finally drop this whole Quaker, Good Samaritan veneer about the Paines? I mean Allen Dulles himself joked about it. Richard Russell saw through it after about three weeks on the Commission. So why are we--over fifty years later-- still suckers for it? For instance: Paul do you know that the Imperial Reflex Camera was not on the Dallas Police inventory of Oswald's effects after two days? It did not come into evidence until Ruth Paine gave it to Robert Oswald when he came to her house while Marina was staying with him. Bugliosi buries this fascinating fact in his end notes and then drops it like a hot potato. Edited August 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 Meanwhile,' back at the Ranch.'The cattle are wandering loose. Uh, can we get back home on this thread , or start another PLEASE! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Meanwhile,' back at the Ranch.'The cattle are wandering loose. Uh, can we get back home on this thread , or start another PLEASE! Bill Well, Bill, the question about resigned Major General Edwin Walker's 10 April 1963 shooting (which raises the question of the Paines and De Mohrenschildts who vouched for Lee Harvey Oswald's culpability in it) is still on point, is it not? We're talking about Edwin Walker in the context of the JFK murder -- as we wait for this new book on Edwin Walker by Dr. Jeffrey Caufieild. Right? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 10, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 WIlliam: Without giving away the book, is Jeff going to say Oswald shot at Walker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 He does not commit, except to say it was a publicity stunt. There is adequate evidence to show this, as you know.... which is presented in the book. . One should look at this as a propaganda move at a crucial timing point. Walkers own words, point to it as being the impetus for "Operation Alert". That in itself is grounds for looking at this scenario in a different light than the WC. Considering the timeline and context, it really looks like it had nothing to do with 11-22! Separate act, conveniently used later, as further frame against Os. Depugh had very interesting things to say about Ted and his proclivities for publicity etc Complicated issue on several levels ....right? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now