Denis Pointing

Thanks David.

Kathy, a simple answer to a simple question then, the Mannlicher Carcano wasn't "a lousy weapon", or at least not all of them, if you read some of Tom Purvis's excellent post's you'll find the Carcano Oswald owned was a very adequate weapon indeed.

David Andrews, can you give a citation please to back up the claim that Klein's or Seaport were "linked" to the C.I.A., thanks.

God Duke, you really are as long winded as hell, lets keep this nice and simple for the folks , yes?

God, Dennis, I didn't realize I was talking to idiots who can't quite handle compound sentences. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Or are you asking me to put it in terms that you can understand? I'd suggest that if you can understand it, most other people can too. I don't see any need to "dumb it down" for "the folks," but I'm sure they appreciate your concern for my overtaxing their intellect.

Fact: Earlene Roberts could have been two min fast in her estimate.

Fact: Bowley's watch could have been one min fast.

Fact: Oswald could have got to the scene in under twelve min.

Fact: Tippit could have been shot at ten past one.

Fact: The above shows Oswald could have killed Tippit.

Fact: Your earlier statement that "That's why it doesn't matter which way Oswald got to 10th & Patton because, no matter which way he presumably got there, he couldn't have done it that fast" is plainly inaccurate.

Duke, you're a damn good researcher, arguably the best on this forum but you have a bad habit of presenting your opinion as fact, its not.

I present facts and tell you what I think of them, or what I think they mean. You don't have to agree, but your disagreement doesn't establish a different fact.

Tell you what: start at 1:16 and work your way backward to 12:30 or earlier. Use the WC times, as well as conflicting statements under oath (e.g., Whaley's statement of how long it took him to drive the cab route in his own vehicle, versus how long it took the AAG to drive Whaley's cab over the same route with Whaley as a passenger), as well as reasonable estimates for other things to have occurred, such as the gathering of the crowd before Bowley's arrival.

If 1:16 is the late end of the timeline, the early end is when McWatters was let go from the check point at St Paul Street. You do the work this time and I'll tell you where I think it's wrong.

Feel free to explain it in detail for "the folks." I think they'll "get it" even if you don't.

No that's fine for me Duke, I understand it all perfectly well thank you. You've made it abundantly clear that neither you nor anyone else can claim a definitive time for the Tippit slaying, the witness testimony is just too contradictory, and yet you still keep trying to state as fact that "Oswald couldn't have done it" or "Oswald couldn't have got there in time", like I said Duke, you are blowing hot air. And you damn well know it. P.S. Do try not to keep throwing these little hissy fits and tantrums every time someone 'dares' to disagree with you please. I realize you've had some articles published but frankly your head is so far up your own backside I truly do worry about you suffocating.

You're right: the statement is not accurate. It was made with tongue firmly in cheek.

It was made in response to an earlier comment that it "isn't possible" to determine any kind of timeline regarding Tippit's death, which claim began by questioning Earlene Roberts' reliability ... as if anything that Oswald was doing at any time had anything at all to do with the murder. First we begin with the conclusion and then we examine the possibilities: Oswald shot Tippit, so could he have gotten there in time?

The answer, of course, is "yes" ... but only if we first make the underlying presumption that Tippit was shot at a time late enough for Oswald to have been able to cover the 9/10-mile distance. I think we're safe in saying that Oswald couldn't have run a four-minute mile; does anyone disagree? (I didn't think so.) So, if Tippit was killed in less time after LHO was seen elsewhere (in other cases, we'd call that an alibi!), then it means that ... whoa! Tippit couldn't have been killed that early!

Get it?

The proof is that he could have gotten there in under 12 minutes, which was before the shooting had been reported (and clearly the report wasn't made before Tippit was shot; we can all agree on that, too). That the shooting likewise could have occurred at any time prior to the 1:16 report is limited by the least amount of time it could take Oswald to get from one place to the next: if he could run a six-minute mile, then the shooting could have occurred as early as 1:10, but since there's no evidence that he could do that, it's not possible for Tippit to have been shot that early.

Simple, isn't it?

All you have to do is start with a firm conclusion - Oswald shot Tippit - and the evidence will support it. Where it might not, it's simple enough to realize that people's perceptions are not always correct - Earlene Roberts' time estimates were probably wrong, as Bowley's watch probably was, too - so at the very least, they don't undermine the conclusion. Since there's no way that unreliable evidence can prove anything beyond the all-too-obvious conclusion, then the conclusion must be correct.

Judge Brown's order can't be correct, at least not relative to DPD radio time, since the shooting wasn't reported over the radio until 1:16; at that time, the body was still in the street. It would imply that Judge Brown knew Tippit was dead before DPD did.

If it is correct, then it's not based upon the time he signed the order nor on the time Tippit arrived at the hospital dead, but possibly on the time the ambulance attendants estimated that they had picked him up, already dead. Today, EMTs can pronounce; then, it's not impossible that medically trained ambulance drivers could do so, but that, not being doctors, they'd have nevertheless rushed him to the hospital "just in case."

So, once again, we are left with this evidence:

For a 1:05 estimate:

• An unanswered radio call to the officer prior to 1:04
  
• A woman who took the bus to work every day at the same time who said, first, that it was 1:06 and later that she'd "be willing to bet" that it was 1;06 or 1:07 (and being adjudged "confused" because of these markedly different times);
  
• A man who got out of his car after the officer was on the ground and after a crowd had gathered who looked at his watch and said it was 1:10.
  

For a later estimate:

• A "citizen" radio call at 1:16
  
• Oswald couldn't get there any sooner
  

Arguing against the latter are these:

• prior to Bowley making the radio call, Donnie Benavides had been trying to do so unsuccessfully for a minute or longer;
  
• prior to taking the mike from Benavides, Bowley had gotten close enough to Tippit to give him a cursory examination and decide that he was "beyond help" (and had picked up his gun from the street);
  
• Bowley had walked half-a-block from his parked car after having driven it a half-block from Denver Street;
  
• A small crowd had already gathered when Bowley first saw Tippit lying in the street; and
  
• The small crowd had time to gather.
  

So unless one is willing to suggest that Oswald shot Tippit with an audience surrounding him, it's pretty clear that Tippit was dead at least two, three or four minutes before the radio call, and very possibly longer, giving him eight minutes to get there with a crowd present, or even less if one considers that crowds don't form instantaneously.

If there's a problem with that, then one simply realizes that Earlene Roberts was wrong, and it wasn't even as late as 1:00 when Oswald arrived at the rooming house, and/or that he didn't stay anywhere near as long as she'd estimated. And Whaley and the FBI were wrong, that it either took less time to get to where Whaley had dropped Oswald off or that he'd left his cab stand earlier than presumed. In the latter case, it also means that Cecil McWatters' estimates were wrong, as was the route supervisor's releasing him from the time-check stop too early. This in turn means either that Oswald got to where he'd gotten onto the bus earlier than presumed, and again that the FBI agents who timed the walk to that location did it entirely too slow, or that Oswald had left the TSBD well before 12:33 and therefore before he encountered Baker and Truly in the lunch room and possibly before he'd even shot the President. Ultimately, it proves that JFK was not shot at 12:30 as we've all suspected, and that both the clock over the TSBD on the Hertz sign was also wrong, and so was the DPD clock that we've all been using as a gauge of time.

So, back to my inaccurate statement: there is no evidence, and since there's no evidence, it must have occurred exactly as proposed. Please don't let facts get in the way; they have a way of working themselves out to our satisfaction.

God Duke, you really are as long winded as hell, lets keep this nice and simple for the folks , yes?

Fact: Earlene Roberts could have been two min fast in her estimate.

Fact: Bowley's watch could have been one min fast.

Fact: Oswald could have got to the scene in under twelve min.

Fact: Tippit could have been shot at ten past one.

Fact: The above shows Oswald could have killed Tippit.

Fact: Your earlier statement that "That's why it doesn't matter which way Oswald got to 10th & Patton because, no matter which way he presumably got there, he couldn't have done it that fast" is plainly inaccurate.

Duke, you're a damn good researcher, arguably the best on this forum but you have a bad habit of presenting your opinion as fact, its not.

The first link below shows a translation of Oswald's application form, if you enlarge the image ( press ctrl an scroll) you can see Oswald gave his permanent address as: 4907 Magazine street, New Orleans, so presumably that's where the Cuban embassy would have notified Oswald, by mail, that his application was successful, which in turn would suggest that someone at that address redirected that letter to Dallas. Do we know who, if indeed anybody, rented that address at that time? It sure wasn't Oswald, as the second link shows Oswald moved out of that address on the 23 September, yet Oswald didn't make out the application till the 27 September!

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=845

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/garner_j.htm

Epstein makes this tantalizing statement at his site:

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/oswald.htm

On October 18th, Oswald's visa was approved by the Cuban Foreign Ministry (despite the fact that he had not officially received a Soviet visa,as required.

Is there any documentation of this? If so, how was he notified? Epstein doesn't mention any documentation and my email to him came back.

Thanks.

On October 18 the Cuban embassy in Mexico City approved the visa, and 11 days before the assassination Oswald wrote a letter to the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C., which said, "Had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business."

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca..._Vol8_0181b.htm

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/cia/...10202_0019a.htm

What they tried to 'prove' was that those behind the film - really behind the film - are still very much in control of the propaganda about what happened that day - and determined to keep it that way - evidence, witnesses, facts, physics, etc. be damned. They have the money and the power....but we have the truth - something they don't even care about.

I noticed to my surprise two other members voted for Peter's proposed rule change. I was wondering if either of them could explain why they thought it should be changed.

Yes, Len's right, in fact it should be a requirement for voting. Without it being so the voting is really quite meaningless. I think I made my reasons clear why rule iv needs to stay, without it the forum would be ruined by witch hunts and accusations by the more paranoid amongst us.

Also, and I know this is off topic, does anyone else think it a good idea that when a member is placed on moderation or expelled his/her name should be posted, along with the offence, in this section? That way members can actually see the rules (including rule iv) are clearly being enforced and that in itself, should act as a deterrent. It would also stop wild rumors circulating, at the moment if a regular member isn't seen posting for a few weeks the P.M.'s start flying around asking if so and so has been banned along with all kinds of imaginary reasons as to why. Any thoughts?

Peter Lemkin, I say this without any malice whatsoever, you my friend, perhaps without realising it, are the worst offender for calling fellow members "dis- info agents" and "provocateurs". Since being a member here, some years now, I've seen you accuse at least six members of being one of the above. In the past, when I first came here, you even sent me P.M.'s warning me not to trust certain members. You may think me naive but personally I dont believe any of the members here are dis- info agents or deliberate provocateurs, just people who have differant opinions and wish to express them, but rest assured if any of these 'dark forces' ever do manifest here your fellow members, who are actually quite intelligent, will soon recognise them for what they are and act accordingly. What we dont need are constant warnings and accusations. On a forum used by adults rule iv shouldn't be necessary, unfortunately it very much is. Rule iv must stay. BTW, before reading your above post I didn't realise Tom Gratz had been expelled, I always imagined he'd just left because of the hostility he received here. Hmm, quite worrying that, I'll obviously have to be a lot more careful not to upset the wrong people around here.

When you work out the details of the Tippit shooting and the times that people gave, you'll find that it occurred long before Oswald could have gotten there without being in a car, and then only just barely. Tippit was killed within three minutes of Oswald supposedly being at the rooming house, according to the official reconstruction ... which chose to have Tippit "killed" just before Tom Bowley made the "citizen" announcement over the radio, despite all sorts of evidence to the contrary.

That's why it doesn't matter "which way Oswald got to 10th & Patton" because, no matter which way he presumably got there, he couldn't have done it that fast.

Anyone attempting to create a definitive timeline for Oswald or Tippit regarding the murder time, based on witness testimony and statements are pursuing an exercise in futility. And any researcher who claims with such utter conviction that Tippit was killed "at about 1:05" and therefore "no matter which way he (Oswald) presumably got there, he couldn't have done it that fast" is, quite frankly, blowing hot air.

You're placing far too much faith on the totally unreliable Earline Roberts, whom even you admit was more interested in her T.V. The statement in her testimony "it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, what time I wouldn't want to say." clearly shows the woman was far from sure what time Oswald arrived at the boarding house, she could easily have been as much as 5 minutes out. Which in itself completely shatters any attempt at a timeline.

To be fair the other witnesses don't really come off much better; Benavides says in his testimony "I imagine it was about 1 o'clock" which of course is impossible.

Then there's the testimony of Helen Markam, she witnessed the murder as she walked towards the scene. She first says, "I believe it was a little after 1" but when pressed for a more accurate time she says "I wouldn't be afraid to bet it was 6 or 7 minutes after 1". I don't know about anyone else but the words "I imagine" and "I wouldn't be afraid to bet" don't exactly fill me with confidence. The only truly accurate timeline Markham can give is that she left home at 1:00 to catch her bus at 1:15, she therefor witnessed the murder between these times.

The only witness who states a time with any real conviction is Bowly. He arrives on the scene at 1:10 and Tippit has already been gunned down. Bowley's conviction for that time is based on the fact that he looked at his watch on arrival, very sensible, this surely is a reliable witness indeed, trouble is what we don't know is how reliable his watch was. You yourself Duke, present a far more eloquent argument for not trusting Bowley's time piece than I ever could, post #4 here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6322

So, can we find anyone to collaborate Bowley's time? Well, not really. Virginia Davis gives an impossible time when she states "I wouldn't say for sure. But it was about 1:30 between 1:30 and 2". And William Scoqqins is almost as inaccurate when he states "Around 1:20 in the afternoon". We really shouldn't be too critical of the witnesses at the murder scene for their inaccurate guesses in trying to establish a time, they were understandably upset and confused. Perhaps we should should look for a timeline from people away from the murder scene, hopefully the two witnesses concerned wont be so distraught and unreliable, especially as one is a police officer. The other was Louis Cortinas, a sales clerk working at THE TOP 10 RECORD SHOP. Cortinas claims, and this is collaborated by the owner, that Tippet was in the store using the phone shortly before being shot. Cortinas also states that "Tippit had left (no more than 10 minutes) when I heard he had been shot on the radio". Unfortunately, the first radio report was at 1:33 which means Cortinas is placing Tippit in the store at or around 1:23. Impossible of course. No help for a timeline here. Last but not least, we have officer Roger Craig. He states "At that exact moment [of the discovery of Oswald's rifle in the Texas School Book Depository] an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m." Surely, a reliable time for the Tippit killing at last? No, just the contrary, Oswald's rifle was in fact discovered about 1:22 p.m. (Testimony of Seymour Weitzman, Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 7, p. 109) Craig gave an even later time for the Tippit shooting "1:40 p.m." in an interview with Penn Jones published in the Los Angeles Free Press in March 1968. He accepted Jones' correction that it was "a little before 1:15." So, not only do no two witnesses agree on the murder time, but the difference between the earliest and latest 'guess' is one hour!

As I claimed at the start "Anyone attempting to create a definitive timeline for Oswald or Tippit regarding the murder time, based on witness testimony and statements are pursuing an exercise in futility." And I stand by that claim. The only 'time' facts regarding the Tippit slaying that are trustworthy are that Oswald arrived at his boarding house at approximately 1pm, Tippit was killed between 1:5 and 1:15 and that Oswald, walking at a brisk pace, could have covered the distance in 11min 10 seconds.

Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 6, Testimony of Domingo Benavides.

Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 3, p. 305, Testimony of Mrs. Helen Markham.

Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 6, p. 454, Testimony of Mrs. Charlie Virginia Davis.

Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 3, p. 322, Testimony of William W. Scoggins.

In this, there is no specific mention of the dog-leg turn on to Elm, but then, there is also no mention of any other particular turn: but why would there be? Only if someone was aware of the 120° turn onto Elm might it have raised an eyebrow, but then probably only if someone was thinking about Presidential security, which most people probably wouldn't have been (although, clearly, somebody was!).

You probably already know this Duke but the agent responsible for prearranging security in Dallas was Winston Lawson. One would assume his duty's would include at least driving/checking out the designated route. As a side note, Lawson's cousin is one of my closest friends, she once told me that after the assassination Lawson almost had a breakdown because he felt so guilty at "letting down his President" (make of that what you will) he eventually went on to serve under Nixon.

After trying to find more info on the "exclusive" and "private" Kilgallen/Ruby interview via the web I was intrigued to find that many, about 20%, of the reports state the interview was far from exclusive and certainly not private and was no more than a few words inside the packed courtroom during a recess, whilst other reporters looked on within hearing range. Hardly the right setting for Ruby to confess anything of any consequence that would "break the case wide open"! Kinda perplexing, until I realised that most, if not all, of the remaining 80% of the reports which claim an exclusive interview between Kilgallen and Ruby share the same common source, an authoress by the name of Lee Israel, indeed the lady is mentioned in several post's in this very thread. More than that, a great deal of the information concerning Kilgallen and her death written here comes directly from Israel's book "Kilgallen". So how reliable a source is Lee Israel? Well, considering she's a self confessed forger, xxxx, thief, con artist and criminal....I'm thinking not very.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/07/2...show_index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/books/24forg.html

http://www.thetakeaway.org/stories/2008/au...literary-crime/

As members know, I believe the Gene Wheaton story that a CIA operation that used Cuban exiles trained to kill Fidel Castro was turned against JFK.

Interesting John, but can you elaborate on which part of the operation you belive was "turned" against JFK. Are you referring to the actual shooting or the cover up, or what exactly? And what role (if indeed any) would LHO play in this. I'm thinking the role of "patsy" would have to be filled by a Cuban. Sorry for not being familar with Gene Wheaton's work. Denis.

Just a thought, as Ron pointed out in post #1 a belly shot is very unreliable, if Ruby was the "mafia hitman" many belive him to be, wouldn't he have shot Oswald in the head?

Even at close-quarters, a head shot is hard to make due to pistol recoil - plus in a crowd, it could miss and hit another head. Ruby also may not have fired a pistol to actually try to hit a person in years. We saw that, even with all the collusion available, Ruby could not get off more than one shot before being grabbed. It was easier to palm the gun until Oswald passed, then move in with the gun still held close to Ruby's torso, like a quarterback carrying a football.

Is it really any harder David, if the gun was held directly at someones head? But even if correct Ruby could have shot Oswald in the heart or at least the chest. The point is that Ruby didn't shoot like a hitman or like someone being directed on how to carry out a "hit" from the mafia. Just a stray thought really.

Just a thought, as Ron pointed out in post #1 a belly shot is very unreliable, if Ruby was the "mafia hitman" many belive him to be, wouldn't he have shot Oswald in the head?

Breached forum rules? You have GOT to be kidding. You have breached the very rules of humanity, of common decency and of the very principles of The First Amendment itself. And you are concerned with forum rules? What a joke! How about the rules of fair play, of leveling the playing field, or the rules of the drive-by gang bangers who just resort to playing "Grafitti Tagger" when they happen to disagree with a certain posting or a certain poster? Amazing

You have the nerve to lecture me on "rules of humanity, of common decency" after writing the following rabid racist rantings about Ken Rahn! What a bloody hypocrite you are.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from Belvilaqua:

Villify him.

Pillory him.

Expose him.

Humiliate him.

Badger him.

Call him on everything.

Lambaste him.

Degrade him.

Ream him."

Anyone interested in the real Bevilaqua should read this article by Ken Rahn:

Exterminating the evil and dangerous Ken Rahn

John Bevilaqua, under the alias of John McLoughlin, attended the two Providence conferences on the JFK assassination, the one in 1993 sponsored by Jerry Rose and "The Third Decade," and the one in 1999 sponsored by the University of Rhode Island and my JFK class. He spoke at each, and he and I became acquaintances. After the second conference, he even volunteered to give copies of his manuscript to my class, but never followed through.

Something happened in the fall of 2000, and he turned on me with a vengeance. Writing as "Jim Anderson," he sent a very strong attacking message to alt.conspiracy.jfk, whose contents show that these feelings had been building up inside him for some time. Here is one of the tamer parts of that message:

Hey now, you are talking about our version of Mr. McCarthy, Kenneth Rann, who actually claims that he can, merely by expelling gas from his ass, rise a distance of 9.99999999 (I forget how many 9's) centimeters above a chair while in a seated position with 2 strong, but totally naked, URI football players pressing down on his shoulders, thus proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that the "head snap" could have been produced by gasses coming out of the cranial cavity from bullet number 5 which was a frontal shot thus mimicking the frontal lobotomy that Herr Doktor Rann underwent just to prove, and I quote:

"Vee Ghermans cum frum ze strong breeding stock, and ah soooo schmaaht, zat ve can akchuly undergo Total Frontal Lobotomy and still come up ticking. Vee haff so many exzess brrain zells zat vee can effun donate sum to charatees and still vin ze Nobel Prizes. Yah vohl. You can not effun see zee scarse, because zey vent in behind my eyeballs. Zay popped out the eyeball and poked around for a while and I can still do JFK research. Take a lookie here."

Bevilaqua was apparently set off by earlier comments I had made publicly in support of the theory behind the "jet effect," the idea that the mass of blood and tissue expelled forward from JFK's exploding head would have contributed to his rearward motion seen so dramatically in the Zapruder film. He combined this with my German surname and decided to mock rather than deal with the argument itself.

After falling silent for a time, he surfaced again in mid-April 2001 with a vengeance. This time he was writing as Dr. Hans J. Eysenck, "Nazi brain scientist." Added to list of outrages was the fact that the students in my JFK classes generally agreed with my approach to the assassination, something that Bevilaqua preferred to attribute to brainwashing on my part. Here is part of a message he sent to alt.conspiracy.jfk, in response to a thread on a different topic:

"You know what a shame it is when so called certified and accredited (???) professeurs actually have the audacity, under the guise of academic respectability, to profess baldfaced lies and untruths in front of these poor young kids who are paying about $100,000 to listen to falsehoods. When we were in school we used to hiss in unison if we felt we were being lied to with prevarications, mistruths or falsehoods. I witnessed a handful of students, nice kids otherwise, who had been subjected to an entire semester of distortions and brainwashing at the URI laboratory of Herr Doktor Khan. They babbled the "right" jargon on cue, used politically correct techniques of analysis and "critical thinking," which means they criticized anything that smacked of conspiracy theory, cited party line and party dogma on command, and in general just "followed orders" from above in order to get a good grade from the grade master.

…

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY is a very strong term, but I mean this in the strongest sense. Academic Freedom does not have any room for Intellectual Dishonesty.

To bend and twist young impressionable minds when one has already revealed a pattern of the destruction of the minds of youths who have put their faith in you is an intellectual atrocity akin to mind rape and mind bending.

Anyone guilty of these intellectual atrocities and affronts against humanity should be castigated, reviled, belittled and exposed.

And I plan to do just that."

What merited this announced plan to "castigate, revile, belittle, and expose"? Apparently the combination of my last name, my speaking out about unsupported "conspiracies," my JFK class, and my support for the laws of physics.

Here is part of another post to alt.conspiracy.jfk from that same period of mid-Aril 2001. I am now Nazi scientist Dr. Runwith Khan, and the stakes are being raised to Nazi brain science and mind control:

"Just consider an entire classroom of kids watching Khan essentially using Nazi Brain Science in proving that, let's say, The World is Flat, and the entire class watches in awe and rapture, agreeing with him, writing papers on the topic, and then applauding his efforts without smirking or laughing at his efforts. THAT is Nazi Brain Science at its very best.

Sort of like hypnotized Korean POWs in Manchurian Candidate where Khan is playing the role of Dr. Yen Lo to his audience and his students think they are part of a meeting of a New Jersey Horticulture Club.

Khan even looks and sounds a little like Yen Lo, don't you think? …with that sing-song little pseudo-scientific cadence he has which is intended only to confuse his students into a trance like state so they will be more susceptible to his lies and falsehoods.

I am serious folks. This is mind control and altered state consciousness at its very best."

If you think it couldn't get any worse, you are wrong. A week later, Bevilaqua again raised the stakes in a post to alt.conspiracy.jfk, part of which reads:

"If you find and MIT, Draper Labs type he will probably support the Nuke em and Puke em, Military Industrial Complex School of Thought and be...get this....a non-believer in conspiracies in the JFK hit.

My suggestion is: DO NOT SUPPORT HIM

DO NOT DEFEND HIM

Villify him.

Pillory him.

Expose him.

Humiliate him.

Badger him.

Call him on everything.

Lambaste him.

Degrade him.

Ream him."

These goals were contained in another message to a poster who commented on so much meanness in one person:

"The meanness comes only from those who deliberately hide or distort the truth. I want to be purged from his website and from his feeble mind forever. I will continue to call him publicly on any forgeries, distortions, or outright lies he publishes or posts, too. Until the end of time. It is a free country."

Not even the University of Rhode Island could escape his aim. Here are two paragraphs from another message to alt.conspiracy.jfk:

"His students think they are actually part of a class on logic and critical thinking when in fact they are part of a class on anything but. They are part of a class on mind control and thought control as part of the Alton W. Jones campus project at a misleading New England University

…

I am serious folks. This is mind control and altered state consciousness at its very best. Check out what Alton W. Jones did at Columbia University in the 1960's and the 1970's regarding the use of Cold War Psycholigical Warfare techniques to convince people that the Cold War was a good thing for the country."

Closing comments

It is appropriate to close this biography of John Bevilaqua by recalling the huge contrast between stimuli and reactions. His huge, complex Nazi scenario for the killing of JFK was a response to two conversations partially overheard by third parties, plus twelve anagrams, mostly imperfect, in a book written years before the assassination. His campaign against me (preceded and followed by similar but less intense actions against others) was apparently stimulated by my criticism of undocumented "conspiracies," my university course on the assassination, and my support for the laws of physics. The responses are entirely disproportionate to the stimuli.

Bevilaqua's "Final Solution" to the JFK assassination

Testimony to the Assassination Records Review Board (November 18, 1994, Dallas, Texas)

Bevilaqua's version of the Winnipeg Airport Incident (Winnipeg Free Press, 22 November 2000)

Peter Whitmey's more-careful version of the Winnipeg Airport Incident (The Fourth Decade, March 1999)

I suppose John Bevilaqua is given the same amount of lattitude as other members, I have not received any member specific instructions on moderation policy.

I am not aware of him having been a member earlier, and having been banned from this forum.

If you (or any member) suspect(s) there are posts that are in violation of Forum rules, please use the report function to report such posts.

But whats the point Antti? I sent a report about a week ago complaining of Belviaqua which you yourself answered, you said you were sympathetic and even hinted at agreement. But made it clear that no action was going to be taken. Your "advice" was to "use the ignore button". I have a PM from a moderator (who will not be named) that says Belviaqua is under the protection of John Simkin.

Was that moderator "mistaken" or is it true?

Is it true that John Bevilaqua had been a member of this forum before and had been banned or otherwise left?

Is it true that John Simkin has given moderators instructions to give him a "great deal of latitude"?

Thanks,

BK

Bill, I've sent you a P.M....judge for yourself.

Bill, concerning the JFK assassination case, you're miles ahead of most here -- resentment is inevitable. Blow it off, the guy isn't worth your time!

This has got to be a first and hopefully a last, but I find myself actually agreeing with David Healy.

Bill, dont let this raving fanatic intimidate you. Just enjoy the irony, Belivaqua emulates and uses the same tactics as the man he claims to despise the most...Joe McCarthy!!

I agree with Bill that John become increasing unpleasant. This happened last time he was an active member. However, as far as I know, no one has complained to the moderators about his behaviour until now. I would think there is a good case for him being placed on moderation.

Well I for one complained to the moderators just a week ago, the complaint being that many of Bevilaqua's posts have very little, if indeed any, real relevance to the assassination or case. It was made crystal clear that whilst the moderator was sympathetic and even hinted at agreement no action was going to be taken, frankly I was confused as the complaint was a legitimate one, until I was informed by a mod (who under no circumstances will be named) that the moderators had been instructed, by yourself (John Simkin) to "allow Bevilaqua a great deal of latitude". Any comment Mr Simkin? Is it true that because of personal friendship, political affiliation or whatever reason Bevilaqua's posts are not bound by the rules of this forum? Perhaps you feel Bevilaqua is a more importaint member than the rest of us plebs? Or perhaps he pulls more "hits"? This is your forum Mr Simkin, you own it, so if this is the case no one, least of all me, can deny you have the right. But I feel it would be a great shame if the ED forum went the same way as the Rich Dellarosa site where favoritism and protection is the norm. I sincerly hope I've not breached any forum rules with these rather awkward questions, I'm more than aware that I dont carry any special privileges here...the question is can the same be said for Bevilaqua ?

Is the document fake? I didn't know the authenticity of the Nixon/Ruby document was in question.

Chris, the link below explains the pros & cons as to whether the document is genuine or not. Make up your own mind and please post your opinion. Denis.

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2006/12/...t-document.html

This whole line of reasoning... rather questioning, is an example of what I call a wasted search for trivial binary truisms.

The exit strategy for this thread can only result in an answer to a blatantly obvious and trivial binary question:

Was there a conspiracy (1) or was there not a conspiracy (0)? Pick one.

Come on. I think we all know the answer to that patently obvious question. Spend more time on

uncovering who dunnit and why did they do it and maybe you can help to solve this continuing conundrum.

Sheesh!

I really couldn't disagree more, Toms work is an incredible example of what good solid research can accomplish. This work on its own could be enough to get the case reopened. We all owe Tom a debt of gratitude. Perhaps you could show us your accomplishments Mr Bevilaqua.

"The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may "The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may thereafter reject all of his testimony."

Yes Peter as you keep saying, my point is that as Oswald also lied, and not just when being interrogated by the DPD, then we must also apply this legal dictum to him and "thereafter reject all of his testimony" as well.

But yourself and others in the "Oswald was totally innocent of everything" camp never seem to want to accept this. If you wish to belive Oswald was innocent of killing Kennedy (a view I lean towards) fine. If you belive Oswald was innocent of killing Tippit (a view I totally reject) that's also fine. But to maintain that Oswald was totally innocent of any complicity with the assassination whatsoever, except as some kind of "patsy" is not only an insult to my intelligence but also to his. Your quite right when you write "The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may thereafter reject all of his testimony." Yes, you certainly may if you wish "thereafter reject all of his testimony." But if any person does follow this rule then they are being extremely foolish IMO and in grave danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Don't interpret this as some kind of personal attack Peter, my "attack" is against your opening post.

That, Denis, is hearsay.

But for the sake of argument, let's look at it, anyway. Did Ruth Paine keep lunch bags in here home? Unlikely since hubby was playing bachelor boy. Oswald also purportedly said that "you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches". Would she have the kind of paper described by Frazier... the "cheap crinkly" kind "like you find in a five and dime"? Quite possibly.

You want to invoke "curtain rods"? That's hearsay, too.

As to your specific question, does that rule (that if a person lies to you on one point, you may thereafter reject all of his testimony) also apply to Oswald?

Hardly, since he made no statements under oath. And as above, even if we stretch the rule to include hearsay coming out of the police interviews - there are at least a couple of scenarios which could have played out.

1) The interviews were not recorded in any manner and were therefore open to vigorous challenge

2) Accept the attributed statements. Defend them as truthful if the prosecutor tried to categorise any as lies. Dispute/counter any evidence trying to demonstrate a lie.

So, the DPD lied when they claimed Oswald said the only package he took to work that morning was his lunch? They could of course have made up almost anything, even a full confession but no, they invented the lunch pack story.

Also, as there were no witnesses to the conversion Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony concerning Oswald telling him the package contained curtain rods is just hearsay and not to be trusted.

No doubt Roy Truly also lied about the lies that Oswald wrote on his job application form, you know the ones where Oswald gave a false address, said his last job was the USMC and claimed to hold an honorable discharge.

And whilst mentioning the USMC lets not forget that they also must have lied when they said Saint Oswald obtained an early discharge because he said his mother was ill.

Thanks Greg, you've giving me a whole new insight into the case. Everything that contradicts Oswald's word must be discounted because its either lies or just hearsay (or should that be heresy). Oswald of course never lied about anything and every word he uttered must be true because....well, just because...

Denis,

Okay, Oswald lied on his employment application about his address. Then how did the Dallas Police learn of his address if he lied about it on his TSBD employement application?

If you look at what Oswald said during his interrogations, much of it is the truth, but some of it is contradictory. He admitted he owned the pistol but denied owning a rifle.

What's that all about?

And if you believe the curtain rod story, or cover story, then you have to also explain the guy who picked up a hitch hiker the day before the assassination, he later identified as Oswald, and dropped him off at TSBD with a big bag he claimed was curtain rods.

What's that all about?

You want to imply that Oswald killed the President and Tippit because he was a xxxx?

There's more questions here than answers.

Everybody decides who and what they're going to believe anyway.

BK

Bill, I dont necessarily accept Oswald killed the president, although I do belive he killed

That, Denis, is hearsay.

But for the sake of argument, let's look at it, anyway. Did Ruth Paine keep lunch bags in here home? Unlikely since hubby was playing bachelor boy. Oswald also purportedly said that "you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches". Would she have the kind of paper described by Frazier... the "cheap crinkly" kind "like you find in a five and dime"? Quite possibly.

You want to invoke "curtain rods"? That's hearsay, too.

As to your specific question, does that rule (that if a person lies to you on one point, you may thereafter reject all of his testimony) also apply to Oswald?

Hardly, since he made no statements under oath. And as above, even if we stretch the rule to include hearsay coming out of the police interviews - there are at least a couple of scenarios which could have played out.

1) The interviews were not recorded in any manner and were therefore open to vigorous challenge

2) Accept the attributed statements. Defend them as truthful if the prosecutor tried to categorise any as lies. Dispute/counter any evidence trying to demonstrate a lie.

So, the DPD lied when they claimed Oswald said the only package he took to work that morning was his lunch? They could of course have made up almost anything, even a full confession but no, they invented the lunch pack story.

Also, as there were no witnesses to the conversion, Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony concerning Oswald telling him the package contained curtain rods is just hearsay and not to be trusted.

No doubt Roy Truly also lied about the lies that Oswald wrote on his job application form, you know the ones where Oswald gave a false address, said his last job was the USMC and claimed to hold an honorable discharge.

And whilst mentioning the USMC lets not forget that they also must have lied when they said Saint Oswald obtained an early discharge because he said his mother was ill.

Thanks Greg, you've giving me a whole new insight into the case. Everything that contradicts Oswald's word must be discounted because its either lies or just hearsay (or should that be heresy). Oswald of course never lied about anything and every word he uttered must be true because....well, just because...