Jump to content
The Education Forum
Cory Santos

I understand why people hate conspiracies

Recommended Posts

This is really fascinating and Payette just overlooks it like a leaf in the wind in Colorado:

 

You never wonder why, if JFK is expected at the Trade Mart at 12:15, and passing by the TSBD 5-10 mins before that, our little shooter is not even up put on the 6th floor until after 12:15?

You should during out the actual exhibits David and let Payette take a look at them.

Share this post


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

You never wonder why, if JFK is expected at the Trade Mart at 12:15, and passing by the TSBD 5-10 mins before that, our little shooter is not even up on the 6th floor until after 12:15?

Oswald was on the 6th floor asking for an elevator to be sent back up at about 11:55. Naturally, CTers will dismiss this evidence and call Givens a l-i-a-r. Oswald, the alleged shooter to whom all the evidence points, is naturally given a free pass by CTers, while many other people---like Charles Givens, Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, and scads of others---are considered to be lying if they said something that soils the glowing reputation of Patsy Oswald.

That elevator request by Oswald is very interesting too....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/The-TSBD-Workers-And-The-Elevators

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-57--The-Elevators-Part-2

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/The-Depository-Elevators--Part-3

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I mean about these guys.  They do the things they say we do.

First there was Tague.  Oh he really did not say that he was too far away etc etc.

Baloney.  That is what he said.

Now, here comes Givens, probably one of the worst witnesses you can imagine. Here is a guy who changed his story!  He first said he last saw LHO on the first floor to saying he now saw him on the sixth floor.  No problem though.  We just erase the first testimony off the record.

Sylvia Meagher first exposed this lie and how the Dallas Police predicted he could be suborned.

Pat Speer then took it even further.

When you have to stoop this low, then you don't have a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Presumed GuIlty, an appendix at the end of the book

Author’s note: This is the actual report of the FBI’s first interview with Charles Givens. Givens is reported as saying nothing about the alleged encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor that he was to describe to the Commission much later. Rather, he is reported to have told the FBI on the day of the assassination that he saw Oswald on the first floor at the same time he later told the Commission he saw Oswald on the sixth floor. This FBI report was not published by the Commission or mentioned in the Warren Report.

 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 11/23/63

 

CHARLES DOUGLAS GIVENS, 2511 Cochran Street, advised he was employed by the Texas School Book Depository, Houston and Elm Street, from October 1, 1963, to present time. GIVENS said he has worked at this same position as a wrapper on several occasions prior to this employment. On November 22, 1963, GIVENS worked on the sixth floor of the building until about 11:30 A.M. when he used the elevator to travel to the first floor where he used the restroom at about 11:35 A.M. or 11:40 A.M. GIVENS then walked around on the first floor until 12 o’clock noon, at which time he walked onto the sidewalk and stood for several minutes, then walked to the Classified Parking Lot at Elm and Records Street. GIVENS then walked to Main Street to watch the parade and after th President and the group had passed, he walked back to the parking lot, at which time he heard several shots fired from the direction of the building at which he is employed. He attempted to return to work but was told that he had been released for the balance of the day. GIVENS advised that a white male, known as LEE, was employed in the same building and worked as a wrapper or order filler. He said he saw this same person’s picture on television on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, who was supposed to have been the person being investigated for the shooting of the President. LEE worked on all floors of the building, and on November 22, 1963, GIVENS recalls observing LEE working on the fifth floor during the morning filling orders. LEE was standing by the elevator in the building at 11:30 A.M. when GIVENS went to the first floor. - - When he started down in the elevator, LEE yelled at him to close the gates on the elevator so that he (LEE) could have the elevator returned to the sixth floor. GIVENS said that during the past few days LEE had commented that he rode to work with a boy named WESLEY. GIVENS said all employees enter the back door of the building when JACK DOUGHERTY, the foreman opens the door at about 7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M. _______________________________________________________________________

 

JD: The important things about this report is that there is not one thing in it about Givens going back up for his smokes and seeing Oswald on the Sixth Floor. 

As we shall see, the 11: 50 time can be disputed, as it was later by Pat Speer.  But its clear that Givens did not go up to the sixth floor at 11:55 from this.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Givens and the elevators....

IN SEPT. 2010, JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

She [Sylvia Meagher] then notes that according to two witnesses, Oswald had tried to board the elevator going down and requested the elevator be sent back up. [Quoting Meagher:] "Why, then, should he [Oswald] decline to accompany Givens down at 11:55, and ask him again to send the elevator up as if he had not already asked the same thing ten minutes before? The first request is corroborated by a number of witnesses, but we have only Givens' unsupported account of the second request." (ibid)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That quote from Sylvia Meagher's book is totally ludicrous, Jim.

Meagher has put on her "OSWALD WAS DEFINITELY NOT GUILTY OF SHOOTING JFK AND WAS NOT PLANNING TO SHOOT JFK AT ALL AROUND NOONTIME ON 11/22/63, AND THEREFORE HE WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON UNDER THE SUN FOR DECLINING TO RIDE DOWN WITH CHARLIE GIVENS IN THE ELEVATOR AT 11:55 AM ON NOVEMBER 22" hat.

You can surely see how utterly dumb that quote is from Ms. Meagher...can't you Jim?

For, if Oswald was planning on shooting the President from that sixth floor in just a few minutes (which he definitely was planning to do at the time he talked with Charlie Givens at around noon on Nov. 22), then why on Earth does Meagher think it would be unusual for Oswald to act the way he did regarding the elevator?

Does Meagher really believe that a person who is planning to murder the President from the sixth floor would actually want to descend to the first floor to eat his lunch at just about the same time the President would be passing the building?

Meagher is looking at this "elevator" episode in the wrong context entirely. She's looking at it through the one-sided "Oswald Must Be Innocent" prism. But she should have been looking at it from the POV of the assassin--Lee Harvey Oswald.

Let me repeat this comment I made the other day--it fits in perfectly here, in light of the unbelievably silly quote that Jim D. just supplied from Sylvia Meagher's "classic" book:

"Oswald's persistence in wanting an elevator sent back up to him makes perfect sense from the point-of-view of OSWALD BEING THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

I.E., It makes perfect sense from the POV of a person who would want an elevator to be sent back up to him on the Floor Of Death. As I mentioned previously, Oswald wanted to use that very same elevator as an escape route to get off of that sixth floor very quickly after shooting JFK. What is so hard to believe about that type of mindset?

But, actually Jim, you've fallen on your own sword with the quote I just cited above -- because, you're right about it not making any sense from the standpoint and mindset of an INNOCENT OSWALD who wanted to do nothing more than take that elevator downstairs to eat his lunch with the other boys on the first floor.

Which is why we can know that Oswald had SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND with respect to the elevators on November 22, 1963. He wanted to use the elevator at a LATER time--like, say, just after he had fired some Carcano rifle bullets into the body of the President.

But, as always, since conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio are part of the "Everybody Was A xxxx" fraternity, those CTers fail to evaluate things from the POV of the assassin himself.

Obviously, Oswald had more on his mind at 11:55 AM on November 22nd than merely riding the elevator downstairs to eat a cheese sandwich. Which makes Oswald's DOUBLE PLEA for the elevator to be sent back up to him on the sixth floor an action that is in perfect sync and harmony with all of Lee Oswald's other actions and movements on 11/22/63."
-- DVP; September 4, 2010

David Von Pein
September 6, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, David Josephs said:

President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.

FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by -

  1. denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI)
  2. on Nov 27, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on
  3. having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet.

 

 

Edited by Bob Ness
skip it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

No, that's not how the cover-up went down, in my book.

But none of what you said explains why the current media and power brokers would continue the cover-up. How do you explain Jefferson Morley, for example?  Or is he just posturing on behalf of the conspiracy?

Share this post


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

But none of what you said explains why the current media and power brokers would continue the cover-up. How do you explain Jefferson Morley, for example?  Or is he just posturing on behalf of the conspiracy?

Why are you continuing the cover-up?

It's a tribal group-think no amount of fact can alleviate.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why are you continuing the cover-up?

It's a tribal group-think no amount of fact can alleviate.

I don't have the power to "continue the cover-up" on my own but I am glad you think that highly of me. :) But seriously, I wish anyone from the CT camp would answer my question and this includes Jim D. If the media continues a cover-up to this day, how do you explain Morley?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Tracy, Morley is not employed by the W Post anymore or did you not know that?

And the CIA, and Brett Kavanaugh used that against him to screw Lesar out of his fees.

Do you really think the Post would let him run his web site if he was still on their payroll?

I mean I know Spielberg and Hanks think they were a bunch of courageous truth tellers, but that was a fairy tale.  Do you also read the Grimm brothers?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per DVP, I answered this on the Litwin thread.

See, in this country we have something called presumption of innocence.

The WC was neither a court, nor a fact finding body.  And I explained why over there.

Consequently, their conclusions are worthless. So saying that Oswald was guilty based on that is sort of like peeing into hurricane Michael, 

Share this post


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

I don't have the power to "continue the cover-up" on my own but I am glad you think that highly of me. :) But seriously, I wish anyone from the CT camp would answer my question and this includes Jim D. If the media continues a cover-up to this day, how do you explain Morley?

Of course you're not continuing the cover-up on your own,

You have the help of lots of Lners and CTs who, like you, deny the root facts of the case.

Share this post


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

 Tracy, Morley is not employed by the W Post anymore or did you not know that?

And the CIA, and Brett Kavanaugh used that against him to screw Lesar out of his fees.

Do you really think the Post would let him run his web site if he was still on their payroll?

I mean I know Spielberg and Hanks think they were a bunch of courageous truth tellers, but that was a fairy tale.  Do you also read the Grimm brothers?

Yes, Jim I know that. He is out writing for any number of left-wing sites. The fact that he is free-lance now only makes a stronger argument for him being able to speak out in any way that he chooses. So, my question stands-how do you explain Morley who is apparently sympathetic to the CT cause and would be happy to write about a conspiracy that is easily provable according to the folks here? You have your man in the media-or could it be that he doesn't agree with some theories? Or is it that there is no consensus CT theory to present to him? 

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

×