Stephen Roy

You're a very perceptive guy. I did overreact a bit. More later

Wow. What a strange question. What do you find strange about it? Strange that it's applied only to Von Pein. Why do any of us come here? To contribute to a discussion on a forum, not an echo chamber. An education forum, where objectivity and discipline have their place. Sometimes, the argument or evidence will confirm our opinions; Sometimes, it will challenge our opinions. That's why I find it a strange question.

Wow. What a strange question.

1) Humes: Yes 2) Report: Not necessarily 3) Photos: Yes OK, yes. Now I see why you and I will always disagree. I surprised that a man of you background has the beliefs you have. I see myself as a realist.

When I first noticed your posts out here some time ago, I thought that you might have some unusual insights or abilities to elicit and analyze information. As you have written more and more and committed your opinions to print, I've lost some of my enthusiasm. It is pointless to analyze an event like this in terms of how it "should have" been. It was how it was: Unexpected, extremely stressful and disorganized. The two groups of medical people who saw the body did so in a rushed and emotional way. The wounds were complex and not 100% clear to either group. One group didn't know about the back wound, the other group only learned belatedly about the throat wound. There was no coherent and clear description of the wounds because no doctor had the body in an atmosphere to conduct such an examination. Your opinion that the "only reasonable explanation" is that officials deliberately blurred the facts is illogical and ignores other alternatives which have been discussed at great length in the responsible literature of the case over the years, such as the extreme atmosphere in which the medical encounters occurred. And then you step further into illogic by saying that if the medical evidence was blurred, other facts could be blurred. I guess we just disagree. I think your response to my comment makes no sense. Let's solve this thing and not hypothesize it far beyond reality.

Nothing changes what I said. If, as you suggest, one MUST conclude that there is "proof that powerful U.S. officials obfuscated the facts," then no fact can be trusted. I'm arguing that you overstated it. You are an attorney, are you not? Certainly you recognize that two or more parties can disagree on even basic facts, and in this case, they do. We disagree on where the bullets struck, where they came from, where Oswald was, what time Tippitt was killed, the true nature of Oswald's politics, etc, etc. I'm sure you're also aware that doubt can be raised about almost any fact, which is often the core of criminal defense.

If one accepts your suggestions here, then NO evidence can ever be trusted to be 100% genuine,

A Dave/VH fan?? I'm impressed!

One possible way of hearing it is: I am no more than a patsy."

I also think the self-limiting qualifier is interesting: "I'm just a patsy."

I have long maintained that there are at least two possible meanings Oswald may have meant in using that word. The obvious one is that "I have been set-up in advance by persons involved in the assassination." The second one is that "I have been set-up by local authorities as the scapegoat, a convenient leftist radical to pin the crime on." There are some differences between these two meanings and their implications. You're right that it would be useful to know the commonly-accepted meaning of that word in 1963.

Sorry, Mark. I didn't mean to be whiny. I was saying that I feel out of step with those now dominating the discussion. I guess I was hoping that a few more like-minded people would broaden the discussion a bit.

I'm feeling increasingly out of step with the discussions in the Education Forum. In the old days, the discussion was approached in the most objective and academic way possible, with clear distinctions between things that were suspected and things that were proven. Today the discussions are dominated by a relatively small group with strong and inflexible opinions, more interested in preaching than in exchanging, and attempts to nudge the discussion closer to reality are not really welcomed. In any discussion group, there needs to be a faction who grounds it in reality. Forum rules prevent me from too much specificity, but there are some ideas being advanced here that are completely unrealistic. I wish we could get the EF closer to its original mission, the one that drew me here in the first place, to seek some level of academic consensus from the combined talents of the members.

I will, But why do you want me to delete it?

Moved at request.

Stephen, Would you please explain why you believe Mr. Glaze is not a reliable source... can you impeach the thrust of the accusations? You may also want to read Armstrong's work on Ruby at harveyandlee.net - it appears that putting Oswald into the TSBD may have been designed as extra leverage for those who were involved in illiegal activity there to go along to get along. But that's just speculation on my part. I'm fully prepared to admit I referred to something that did not prove its case - yet I have yet to see enough rebuttal not to blieve what is presented. For starters, I can't find any evidence that Glaze was the journalist he was described as. Second, the key elements are based on a claimed interview with Shelley, but there is nothing to check to see if the interview ever actually occurred - no date, print reference, etc. Third, the EF article contains stuff I know about - relating to Ferrie, et al - and it's jumbled. Can I "impeach the thrust of the allegations"? That's not how it works. The "allegations" need to be soundly sourced in the first place. Are you honestly telling me that, in reading this article, your BS detector doesn't go off??? In the early days of assassination writing, the writers were cautious to take it only as far as the evidence would reasonably allow; We are now in an era where the conclusion is foregone and any square peg is pounded into a round hole, regardless of source, so long as it supports "the cause." Most important, such carelessness dilutes the research in more solid areas!!! But having read these two threads for weeks now, I can see that my caution is falling on deaf ears.

Do you have a source on that? The School Book Depository was running guns and drugs??? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6017 I guess it depends on who/what you believe.... When I see Gratz and Parker falling over themselves to refute the info it signals to me that the information is reliable. I happen to think Gaal is a very detailed and thorough researcher. Finally, when Robert Charles-Dunne steps up to repreatedly show Mr Gratz for who he is, (as I've done to Parker numerous times) I take him at his word. DJ Wow. I read the EF article you linked, and it doesn't inspire confidence. It is very poorly sourced (Elzie Glaze??) and poorly reasoned and written. It does not support the original statement you made about the TSBD. I am put in mind of one of Mark Lane's observations: "There are enough genuine mysteries about this thing, that we don't need to be inventing new ones."

Do you have a source on that? The School Book Depository was running guns and drugs???

OK, I see where you're coming from. I think people are more nuanced, more a mix of different qualities. I think a person can make more than one impression to different people (and sometimes the same people), but I respect your opinion.

Your estimate of the proportions may be off a bit. A lot of researchers who have drilled down deep into Oswald think it is possible that he was an intelligence agent.

Interesting. Can you give us your description of the true Oswald?

I got a Google News Alert about it a year or two ago. It looks like Oswald's writing and it is along the same lines as his other letters. As Tommy notes, it contains misspellings and would have been written while he was using that PO Box. If it's genuine, I can understand why Gus Hall concealed it: Look what happened to the FPCC, who folded within weeks of the assassination. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that US intelligence had mail covers on so many minor characters but not on the heads of the CPUSA, which was also riddled with informants.

http://www.antiquetrader.com/antiques/antiques-americana/historical-pieces-including-lee-harvey-oswald-letter-headlining-700-lot-auction

What are we to make of this?

I don't know. He appears to have stamped it. If he knew that Banister was in that building and sent potential FPCC recruits there (whether Oswald was a counteragent or a real leftist), it seems like a really moronic move. The FBI paper trail and other research makes me think that it never occurred to the FBI that Banister might have been involved with him. Delphine Points Roberts Strobel SHOULD have been an excellent source. She certainly knew Banister but, like I said earlier, she said nothing in 1963 (while Banister was alive), in 1964 during the WC investigation, she gave a dramatically different account to Garrison's investigation, her first HSCA interview was very reserved, but suddenly in 1978, she tells the story we all know. The HSCA didn't think much of her credibility but Anthony Summers did and does. I don't accept the notion of people who just brush that away with "She was scared at first". You would think that she would know this was important info, if not in 1964, at least by Garrison's investigation.