Jump to content
The Education Forum
Rich Pope

2nd Floor Never Happened

Recommended Posts

It is a camera!  You can see the camera flash.  It is the same camera he had on Elm Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

My problem with being a pop bottle has always been that nobody uses two hands to drink out of a bottle. And yet PM always has both hands raised.

It just occurred to me that he might have a sandwich in his other hand.

 

Nope closer study will reveal one hand risen and one arm down.

PM_Wiegman_Slow2.jpg

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Right. And this second report is self-contradictory because it has Oswald eating his lunch, etc., AFTER the shooting and with police already in the building. Which is a sure sign of alteration.

In fact, if you remove the parts of that paragraph referring to the police search and the Baker/Oswald encounter, it all makes sense again.

 

Exactly and that is why David von Pein is so silent all of the sudden, once confronted with cold hard facts he does a runner.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My problem with being a pop bottle has always been that nobody uses two hands to drink out of a bottle. And yet PM always has both hands raised.

It just occurred to me that he might have a sandwich in his other hand.


Nope closer study will reveal one hand risen and one arm down. 

PM_Wiegman_Slow2.jpg

Edited 36 minutes ago by Bart Kamp

 

I see both hands raised. In this frame, his right hand is at about chin level, and his left hand is at about chest level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I should have stated that more clearly, but it means he did not raise and drink from  that bottle with both hands....

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy Larsen said:

And this second report is self-contradictory because it has Oswald eating his lunch, etc., AFTER the shooting and with police already in the building. Which is a sure sign of alteration.

In fact, if you remove the parts of that paragraph referring to the police search and the Baker/Oswald encounter, it all makes sense again.

 

9 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Exactly, and that is why David von Pein [sic] is so silent all of [a] sudden. Once confronted with cold hard facts, he does a runner.

You CT guys see cover-up and "alterations" everywhere. It has reached the point of utter absurdity.

The things that Sandy Larsen think are "a sure sign of alteration" are things that can certainly be explained in non-conspiratorial ways. One such way is: Oswald couldn't keep his alibi straight, and his story changed and shifted slightly during his interrogation.

In short --- Even though CTers might strongly disagree, there can (and, IMO, are) "non-conspiratorial" explanations for the dozens of things connected with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases that the conspiracy theorists of the world are convinced are the product of a devious plot.

Also See:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / James W. Bookhout

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Lunchroom Encounter

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, Davey.

There are literally hundreds of benign explanations for every single anomaly there is in the JFK case.   And that is because you know, like VB, that Oswald did it.  :drive

(Davey does not want to admit he just got another pie in the face.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just explain the difference between the two FBI reports instead of running in circles and calling every CTer's observation absurd etc.

Stop running, start explaining. You thought you had done so 9 years ago.

And I say you have not.

So here's your chance..... lemme copy and paste it in here for you again.

 

Page 2 of this joint report from Nov 23rd 1963 mentions the following: Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the  second floor where the coca cola machine is located and obtained a bottle of coca cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed the building.

Bookhout-Nov-23-2.jpg

But it is his second, solo, report he turns things around:

Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee’s lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly.

Bookhout-solo-report-Nov-24.jpg

You were told all this years ago already.......

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

In short --- Even though CTers might strongly disagree, there can (and, IMO, are) "non-conspiratorial" explanations for the dozens of things connected with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases that the conspiracy theorists of the world are convinced are the product of a devious plot.


Sure David, just like the " non-conspiratorial explanations" used by the U.S. government to cover up their testing of LSD and radioactive materials on unsuspecting civilians. Which you undoubtedly would be using to defend the U.S. government if the truth hadn't gotten out.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

Just explain the difference between the two FBI reports instead of running in circles and calling every CTer's observation absurd etc.

Stop running, start explaining. You thought you had done so 9 years ago.

And I say you have not.

So, Bart, you think the evil masters of the Patsy Plot© wrote up a bogus second report (the Bookhout solo report), right? If so, why didn't they just destroy the first (joint) report?

Were the evil masters of the Patsy Plot© just being nice by leaving the conspiracy theorists a little clue to their dastardly crime to be found in the Warren Commission volumes?

Plus, both of those FBI reports can be found very easily in the 888-page Warren Report itself---just seven pages apart, on pages 612 and 619.

That was awfully nice of the conspirators to leave that bread crumb of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" right there in the Warren Report for guys like you to find so easily, wasn't it?

More about the various Bookhout reports here....

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-881.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Oh yeah, Davey.

There are literally hundreds of benign explanations for every single anomaly there is in the JFK case.   And that is because you know, like VB, that Oswald did it.

Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders is proven by the evidence. I don't think there's any room for reasonable doubt about that fact. CTers disagree, of course. (What else is new?)

Allow me to quote two authors who wrote "Lone Assassin" books a few years ago. These are four of my favorite quotes from those two books:

"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him [Oswald]. .... A cloud hangs over [JFK's] murder and our nation because we refuse to accept what is so clearly the truth -- that his assassination was a simple act of murder, committed by a man who left evidence proving his guilt. .... The case is solved." -- Mark Fuhrman; Pages 89 and 217 of "A Simple Act Of Murder"


"The totality of reliable physical evidence, supported by eyewitness accounts of his doing what the physical evidence shows he did, makes the case against Lee Harvey Oswald an open and shut case. He murdered John Kennedy and Officer Tippit and gravely wounded John Connally. The [Mark] Lane myth of 'Oswald as Patsy' and all similar conspiracy myths merit no serious consideration. .... While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, those are two really good sources: Mark Fuhrman and Mr Goat Experiments.

 

:stupid

 

At least he didn't quote Allen Dulles.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So, Bart, you think the evil masters of the Patsy Plot© wrote up a bogus second report (the Bookhout solo report), right? If so, why didn't they just destroy the first (joint) report?

Were the evil masters of the Patsy Plot© just being nice by leaving the conspiracy theorists a little clue to their dastardly crime to be found in the Warren Commission volumes? That was awfully nice of them, wasn't it?

More about the various Bookhout reports here....

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-881.html

Don't give a hoot about these stupid beliefs.

I am asking you to explain the difference between these two reports and its consequences.

Nothing more or less, now do your best DVP and thrill us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders is proven by the evidence. I don't think there's any room for reasonable doubt about that fact. CTers disagree, of course. (What else is new?)

Allow me to quote two authors who wrote "Lone Assassin" books a few years ago. These are four of my favorite quotes from those two books:

"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him [Oswald]. .... A cloud hangs over [JFK's] murder and our nation because we refuse to accept what is so clearly the truth -- that his assassination was a simple act of murder, committed by a man who left evidence proving his guilt. .... The case is solved." -- Mark Fuhrman; Pages 89 and 217 of "A Simple Act Of Murder"


"The totality of reliable physical evidence, supported by eyewitness accounts of his doing what the physical evidence shows he did, makes the case against Lee Harvey Oswald an open and shut case. He murdered John Kennedy and Officer Tippit and gravely wounded John Connally. The [Mark] Lane myth of 'Oswald as Patsy' and all similar conspiracy myths merit no serious consideration. .... While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"

Lol I would not use Fuhrman as evidence the sky is blue.  But assuming your position is true release all documents now.  Oh wait the government still has not done that.

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...