Jim Hargrove Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, Robert Card said: I'm amazed at all the new info I'm finding on this site. I've been away for awhile, and either forgot, or didn't know in the first place a lot of the evidence being presented here, and since the beginning of the site. So yes, the nutters have some use. I'm only saying, don't get angry, because they're just playing around with us. I’m beginning to think that FC is secretly on our side, Robert. He offers up any number of softball statements that are easy to hit out of the park. Perhaps you’re not old enough to remember a tv show called “Home Run Derby,” but in it pitchers would be paid to offer up easy-to-hit pitches so that well-known sluggers from the day could try and hit home runs. A few of the best would hit more than half the ten pitches made per at-bat out of the park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: But, but, but.... you heard Francois didn't you Jim? He said that the FBI was very honest about reporting this Mexico City problem. Surely then Hoover must have told the Warren Commission about it. And surely it was disclosed to the public. Right??? (Sorry... I never tire of that joke. ) To speak seriously about this Shirley, I mean Sandy, Hoover did tell LBJ about the Mexico City impersonation, and did so less than 24 hours after the assassination. If we are to believe Earl Warren in his autobiography, LBJ ordered the cover-up (I mean blaming it all on Oswald by himself) because Johnson was afraid, he said, that Commies were behind the assassination and that disclosure could provoke a nuclear war killing thirty million Americans almost instantly. I've always suspected Warren was telling the truth. I don’t think the FBI was as rogue as it appears to be, although the extent they were will to falsify evidence in order to follow LBJ’s directive is Shirley, I mean surely, stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 20 minutes ago, François Carlier said: We know very well that the third picture (to mention that one) is of someone else. So you're admitting that the third picture is one of an imposter? That deserves a siren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Robert Card said: So you're admitting that the third picture is one of an imposter? That deserves a siren. Not at all. I believe it's a honest mistake. A mix up. Nothing more. Don't you make mistakes yourself, sometimes ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 12 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: I’m beginning to think that FC is secretly on our side, Robert. He offers up any number of softball statements that are easy to hit out of the park. FC and Lance certainly are on our side. Anybody with a 40 plus IQ knows the WC is nonsense. Same with big-a$$ Jesuits like Posner, Bugliosi, and McAdams. All of them trained, critical thinkers with a profound intelligence. DVP may be a true believer, but I think he may be something else too. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 24 minutes ago, François Carlier said: I wasn't aware of what Larsen wrote since I have him on "ignore", and for good. Oh shucks! But then, on the bright side, I will always get the last word in this way. 24 minutes ago, François Carlier said: Since you copied his post, I now know what [Larsen] wrote and it is such a blatant attempt at disinformation that I see that as confirmation that I was right to decide to ignore him. Well at least I didn't publish my disinformation in an official report like Chief Justice Warren did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Yes, I'm sure that Francois and Tracy are right... these four gentlemen are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald. So the third one is an honest mistake, FC? What about the second one? What about the tape recorded conversation that FBI agents said didn't sound like Oswald's voice and spoke in "broken English." Was that also an honest mistake? Or a dishonest mistake? What about the fact that the recording of the "Oswald" who spoke in "broken English" was erased and replaced with 14 minutes of noise? Was that also an honest mistake? Surely are a lot of mistakes here! Do you suppose something else might be going on? No, it's just a number of silly mistakes on the same subject. Silly us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, François Carlier said: Not at all. I believe it's a honest mistake. A mix up. Nothing more. Don't you make mistakes yourself, sometimes ? FC, I find you highly entertaining, and I hope you don't leave. What happened to Lance, I like him, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 30 minutes ago, François Carlier said: 33 minutes ago, Robert Card said: I'm amazed at all the new info I'm finding on this site. I've been away for awhile, and either forgot, or didn't know in the first place a lot of the evidence being presented here, and since the beginning of the site. So yes, the nutters have some use. I'm only saying, don't get angry, because they're just playing around with us. Glad to help. LOL, I've got to admit, that was a good comeback. Touché Francois, wherever you are....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, Robert Card said: FC, I find you highly entertaining, and I hope you don't leave. What happened to Lance, I like him, too. 😃 The very same day, a conspiracy theorist wants to ban me, and another one wants me to stay. It's going to be difficult to please everybody… More seriously, rest assured, Mister Card, that I intend to debate in a serious, respectful manner with anybody who agrees to play by the rules. And I am neither ignorant nor an idiot. I know my stuff. Those who want to debate with an open mind are welcome. Those who think that I was sent by the CIA can ignore me, with pleasure ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 25 minutes ago, François Carlier said: Not at all. I believe it's a honest mistake. A mix up. Nothing more. Don't you make mistakes yourself, sometimes ? There's that good ol' critical thinking in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 44 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: I don’t think the FBI was as rogue as it appears to be, although the extent they were will to falsify evidence in order to follow LBJ’s directive is Shirley, I mean surely, stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 38 minutes ago, Robert Card said: 1 hour ago, François Carlier said: We know very well that the third picture (to mention that one) is of someone else. So you're admitting that the third picture is one of an imposter? That deserves a siren. LOL good point! (I knew there was a point to be made with Francois' statement, but I just couldn't put my finger on it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 A decade and a half after the assassination of JFK, the HSCA repeatedly asked the CIA for an image of Oswald in Mexico City. Despite the fact that the CIA had a pulse camera and one or more backup cameras in each of three different locations focused on the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, the CIA never came up with a photo, although they provided a trainload of excuses. Just another Honest Mistake®, no doubt. The honesty around here is amazing! To read some of this Honest Hilarity, CLICK HERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 On 1/5/2019 at 10:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said: Yes, I'm sure that Francois and Tracy are right... these four gentlemen are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald. The two in the middle are obviously not LHO. But the first photo (hunter photo) falls under the "that doesn't look like you" criteria I mentioned before. For an explanation of the photo see: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html 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