Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But please don't forget the fact that Oswald was, in essence, already a murderer seven months before 11/22/63. He became, in effect, a "killer" (or certainly a person who WANTED to kill another human being) when he shot at General Walker on 4/10/63. That's a very BIG part of Oswald's overall "profile", would you not agree?

...

I couldn't disagree more strongly. If there was ever a murder case that was solved (without a doubt) on the day it occurred, it's the Tippit murder case. The various witnesses, plus the ballistics (bullet shell) evidence forever will prove the "Guilty" status of Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of Officer Tippit.

...

Several men were seen fleeing the scene of the the Walker shooting - in a car.

 

One of the Tippit witnesses was shot at and seriously injured:

Quote

3) Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980)

Warren Reynolds, was shot in the head two days after telling the FBI he could not identify Oswald. There was no apparent cause for the shooting. Reynolds recovered and later agreed he thought the fleeing gunman had been Oswald after all. Within a week or two of the Reynolds shooting, a key witness in that affair was found dead in a police cell, having apparently hanged herself. She had herself earlier mentioned an association with Jack Ruby and his club. The brother of a Tippit witness was shot dead, and many assumed it was a matter of mistaken identity. While these incidents arouse speculation, there is nothing evidentiary to link them to the Tippit or Kennedy killings. However, it is clear they were inadequately investigated.

 

Edited by Mathias Baumann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There goes Parnell and that banana peel again.

In any kind of fact finding  committee, there is usually a majority and minority counsel.There are too many examples of this to name.

When Rankin refused to have any kind of defense counsel this became the only way that there could be any kind of adversary proceeding.  Because Dulles and McCloy had already pulled  a power play to kill off the guy that Warren wanted as chief counseling order to get their guy, Rankin, in there.

But there was no such arrangement.  The main reason being that the part of the commission that should have been that body--Russell, Boggs and Cooper--saw that the game was rigged and they essentially gave up.  Russell--like Adams and Hubert--essentially stopped attending. And he then ran his own private inquiry.  And BTW, the HSCA knew about this since Burt Griffin told them that.  Russell came to different conclusions which he never actually revealed.  But there have been papers written about this down at the University of Georgia Library, which I am sure Parnell has secured and read.  

We all know, thanks to Weisiberg and McKnight, how Russell and his allies, Cooper and Boggs, were betrayed by the controlling faction--Dulles, McCloy and Ford--at the final meeting. Where the Commission had an impersonator there to mislead them into thinking that there was a stenographic record of their objections, which there was not.  The girl was probably playing tic tac toe on her pad.  And years later, when Russell found out about this, he blew up and began to blast the commission in public. What kind of fact finding committee does that to its own fact finders?

I mean you do know about this right?  And you leave it out for what reason?  Brevity?  You don't think its important?

Where you ever got the idea that at a trial of Oswald the only evidence admissible would be within the confines of the city is so bizarre, so goofy, that it really makes me wonder about you.  I mean if you are not a lawyer,  don't you know any, do you watch TV?

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

How anyone can write down what Payette did above about LHO getting to work that day and completely ignore the fact that they had a dress rehearsal in Chicago  three weeks previous  to the one that worked is simply and utterly amazing.

This is why I compare him to Specter.  That is something he would do.

The truth is that JFK was not going to make it out of 1963. Its that simple.  They tried to kill him three times and the last one succeeded.

In a courtroom, you would be able to admit this as evidence of previous intent.  Intent is important in a murder case.

Can you imagine putting Vallee on the stand?  And he starts talking about who he was, what he did with the exiles, and what he was doing on the day of the attempt?  And it all echoes who Oswald was.

Just a coincidence right?

 Wrongo.

Ah, yes, The Dress Rehearsal In Chicago!  How could I forget [slaps forehead]???  Should we include The Dress Rehearsal With Gen. Walker also - where, oddly enough, LHO left a note addressing the possibility that he might not survive, just as he did by leaving his cash and wedding ring with Marina on the morning of the assassination?  Oh, wait, The Dress Rehearsal With Gen. Walker never happened and the note was a forgery by Ruth Paine - have I got that right?  This conspiracy stuff is just soooo complicated that it takes a more agile mind than mine to keep track of it.

But, whoa, let's slow down here:  How would The Dress Rehearsal In Chicago have any bearing on whether, in Dallas, the conspirators would arrange the events so the patsy would be exposed to all the unnecessary risks outlined in Mr. Payette's simple-minded post?  Did The Dress Rehearsal in Chicago eliminate all of those unnecessary risks by some sort of osmosis?  Why did it make sense for LHO to go to Ruth Paine's at all on Thursday evening - EXCEPT TO GET HIS RIFLE BECAUSE THE IDEA OF AN ASSASSINATION HAD JUST OCCURRED TO HIM?  Why raise all the red flags (and run all the risks) that the visit to Ruth's did?  Just provide the patsy with an untraceable rifle that he could have easily bought with the $170 he obviously had (since he left it with Marina) and keep him in Dallas.  Geez, it's a good thing for you conspiracy theorists that Mr. Payette was only 13 at the time of the assassination - if he'd planned it, instead of those clucks at the CIA, FBI, Army Intelligence and Mafia, you poor souls would probably still be in the dark.

And how does The Dress Rehearsal In Chicago have any bearing on the fact that the patsy was supplied with a pretty implausible assassination weapon (albeit one that got the job done)?  Why raise all the red flags that this unlikely weapon has raised?  As I said, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with a Weaver scope for $75 in 1976.  Our patsy certainly had that much money.  And I guarantee you that in Texas in 1963 he could have bought such a weapon out of the newspaper classifieds with no paperwork whatsoever and no names exchanged, just as I did in Arizona when I was in my gun phase.  Why go through the charade of having him order the goofy rifle by mail order and raise all those red flags?  (It was a charade, right - or is that only the Harvey and Lee wing of the conspiracy fringe?  This conspiracy stuff is just soooo hard to keep straight.)

Quoting ABC News:  "Right-wing radical and Kennedy denouncer Thomas Vallee had arranged to be off work for JFK's visit; Vallee, an expert marksman, was arrested with an M1 rifle, a handgun and 3,000 rounds of ammo."  Uh-huh, that sounds like A Dress Rehearsal For Dallas - in the world of Conspiracy Logic, I guess.  The fact that JFK was despised by so many people and organizations is precisely why numerous entirely different assassination theories have superficial plausibility.  Indeed, one of the theories is that two or more of these were shooting at JFK in Dallas on November 22nd, unbeknownst to each other - the multiple shooters were multiple assassination conspiracies! 

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I mean you do know about this right?  And you leave it out for what reason?  Brevity?  You don't think its important?

I didn't bother because I knew you would kindly jump in and provide it Jim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight Lance:  Are you saying that the Chicago Plot did not happen?

Or are you saying that its not important?

Or are you saying that it would not be allowed into court?  Or all three?

The other blather in your fruity post  is  all based on the Von Peinian idea that Oswald killed Kennedy.  And he shot at Walker. Because the WC says it occurred?

OMG.  You cannot be serious can you?   You know what happened in New Orleans when Clay Shaw's lawyers tried to introduce the WC into evidence?  

They brought it into court in a wheelbarrow, all 26 volumes. When they stopped in front of the judge, he started laughing.  He asked, tongue in cheek, you want to introduce that into court as some kind of binding evidence?  You cannot be serious.  

And that was that.

What is incredible here is that with Parnell, he has an excuse.  But Mr. Running Suit is supposed to be a lawyer.  And we are supposed to think that hey, he must at least value the whole legal process.  But he does not.  He does not even acknowledge that the DPD did not ever consider LHO a suspect in the Walker shooting the entire time they investigated the case.  Or that the evidence report says that the ammo did not come from Oswald's rifle, but a different kind of weapon.  That the FBI transformed that case almost overnight.  When I asked DeBrueys about this at his home in Metaire he said that he knew it was the same guy in both instances, because Kennedy got shot in the head and Walker almost got shot in the head.  And he went from there.

Now that is indisputable evidence right Lance?

Why not take up handball in retirement?  You might be good at that.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Cory, it could not be more obvious that Louis Witt was the umbrella man. Check out this article by EF member Ron Ecker that contains a good graphic by Jerry Organ:

http://www.ronaldecker.com/umbrella.html

From the article you posted:

Quote

In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) released a photo of UM, asking the public for help in identifying him. A tip from a former co-worker led to the appearance of Louie Steven Witt, a Dallas warehouse manager, before the HSCA.

That explains why Witt closely resembles the man in the photo. Because Witt's co-worker thought so. That means the fact that Witt looks like the man in the photo is not remarkable at all. It would be remarkable if Witt had come forward himself, not being aware of any photos.

Quote

And consider the following graphic, courtesy of researcher Jerry Organ, comparing UM with 1978 photos of Witt.

So in 1978 Witt looked like Umbrella Man did in 1963, 15 years before. That doesn't prove anything in my opinion.

Quote

But there is a problem with Witt's HSCA testimony. The photographic evidence plainly contradicts Witt's description of his actions during the moments when the shots were fired. He testified that he was walking toward the street and opening his umbrella as the motorcade approached, and while "other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements," Witt did not see this because of the umbrella he was opening in front of him. "My view of the car during that length of time," Witt claimed, "was blocked by the umbrella's being open." 11 But the photographic evidence shows that UM was standing still with the umbrella open over his head, his view unobstructed, as the limo approached. 12 Thus researchers are far from persuaded that Louie Steven Witt was UM as he claimed. As Gary Mack has observed, Witt should have been investigated in 1963 (and the same goes for DCM), not 15 years later

Reading this I get the feeling that Witt may have decided to take this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be in the limelight and made up a fancy story. Maybe he was a frustrated and disillusioned loner yearning to be "important"...

And by the way, trying to identify people in grainy black and white photos is something better left to "conspiracy theorists".;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 1:25 AM, David Von Pein said:

But please don't forget the fact that Oswald was, in essence, already a murderer seven months before 11/22/63. He became, in effect, a "killer" (or certainly a person who WANTED to kill another human being) when he shot at General Walker on 4/10/63. That's a very BIG part of Oswald's overall "profile", would you not agree?

 

The Tippit shooting was obviously something Oswald could not have foreseen in advance. And I'm sure he did want to make certain Tippit was dead before he fled that crime scene. He didn't want to start running toward Patton Avenue and then find that Tippit was still alive and able to shoot back at him as he ran. So, Oswald finished him off. (And yet this is the type of cold-blooded killer that many conspiracy theorists feel compelled to try and defend. That's very sad, IMO.)

 

deleted

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Reading this I get the feeling that Witt may have decided to take this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be in the limelight and made up a fancy story. Maybe he was a frustrated and disillusioned loner yearning to be "important"...

The reason CTs give most often for disbelieving Witt is his testimony does not completely match his actions in the Zapruder film. But we know if we were to make a spreadsheet of what every witness said and compare it to the films made that day (and other information), there would be many, many discrepancies.  So, Witt (speaking 15 years after the fact)  was one of many witnesses whose memory did not match actual events. Completely normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Why go through the charade of having him order the goofy rifle by mail order and raise all those red flags? 

When Kennedy was still a Senator  he tried to ban the sale of rifles by mail. According to Lamar Waldron's "Legacy of Secrecy" he even specifically mentioned Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. Does anyone know more about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathias,

Payette knows all the questions about that transaction.  

Like DVP, he is simply stirring things up all over again.  DVP has already admitted that he does not have a life.  Payette is retired.  He apparently needs something to do.

If just once, either of these guys would bring in something new from the declassified files, that would be one thing.

They don't.  I have little doubt that they do not read one single page.

So how interested can they be in this subject, really.

Like I said, I hope Payette takes up handball.  With DVP, hopefully he unretires and goes back to KFC.  I mean he did not make a lot of money form his book.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The reason CTs give most often for disbelieving Witt is his testimony does not completely match his actions in the Zapruder film. But we know if we were to make a spreadsheet of what every witness said and compare it to the films made that day (and other information), there would be many, many discrepancies.  So, Witt (speaking 15 years after the fact)  was one of many witnesses whose memory did not match actual events. Completely normal.

So basically you simply trust his word?

By the way: Did the HSCA ever try to identify the Dark Complected Man? He could've corrobarated Witt's statement. And he was a suspicious character in his own right, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mathias Baumann said:

So basically you simply trust his word?

By the way: Did the HSCA ever try to identify the Dark Complected Man? He could've corrobarated Witt's statement. And he was a suspicious character in his own right, in my opinion.

I just went back and reread his testimony recently. I am trying to figure out how there is anything suspicious in what he said. He told them where he worked and the route he took to get there. He showed the umbrella, which may or may not be the right umbrella (a fact that he admitted). But the clincher for me is the photos-the shape of his face, the hair is exactly right. I don't see anything to the UM thing and I also don't know why an assassination team (had there been one) would need him or anyone to signal them. In short-it is a dead issue IMO in 2018.

The DCM was never identified. He was probably carrying a transistor radio. If he or the UM had been a part of any assassination team, they would have gotten out of there fast instead of sitting down. But they did sit down because they were stunned by what they had seen. I see nothing unusual in any of this. It is unfortunate that they were not investigated by the WC, but they were operating within time and budgetary constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

When Kennedy was still a Senator  he tried to ban the sale of rifles by mail. According to Lamar Waldron's "Legacy of Secrecy" he even specifically mentioned Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. Does anyone know more about this?

I thought that was Sen. Dodd and that there was speculation LHO might have been an "operative" in Dodd's attempted expose of the mail order gun industry, but what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

He showed the umbrella, which may or may not be the right umbrella (a fact that he admitted). But the clincher for me is the photos-the shape of his face, the hair is exactly right.

As I've pointed out - they compared photos from 1978 to photos taken in 1963. Are you suggesting that Witt didn't change a bit in those 15 years? Not even his hair?

His co-worker reported Witt to the HSCA because he thought he looked like Umbrella Man. But I bet there are thousands of people in America who resemble him if all you have to compare them to is a grainy photo.

And considering Witt's conflicting testimony I think it's a fair bet that he might've made up the whole story.

And, come to think of it, he wasn't even sure if it was the right umbrella? You don't find that suspicious? If I had an umbrella that might've been sprayed with Kennedy's blood I'd surely remember it. That is actually the least credible part of his testimony, I think.

Edited by Mathias Baumann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I thought that was Sen. Dodd and that there was speculation LHO might have been an "operative" in Dodd's attempted expose of the mail order gun industry, but what do I know?

I think that's a different story. What I am refering to happened when Kennedy was still a Senator.

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...