Chuck Robbins

I guess we have another person who has little to add and much to learn. Wasting time arguing about spelling and punctuation is really about as silly as it gets. Mr. Valenti, if you have proof to back up your arguments, please, by all means....share it with us. An opinion, no matter how well thought out, is still just an opinion and does not count as evidence. Demanding that evidence be produced that will disprove your opinion is unrealistic.

Clark Anderson, Legat, in Mexico City, is mentioned in documents as having been in contact with "Oswald" in Mexico City. Another document, (Win Scott to J. C. King) states that the Identity of the man seen leaving the Embassy is a certain person who is well known to you . The information above is from FBI/CIA documents. There is significant evidence, in the records we have available to us, that LHO was not in Mexico, and, that the identity of the person who was impersonating him was known to the CIA officers in Mexico City. The evidence here cuts two ways. It strongly suggests a well organized conspiracy to frame LHO, ergo, a conspiracy connected to the assassination of JFK. It very effectively shows that LHO was being set-up to be "a patsy" just as he had claimed. If any of the men who knew his identity are still alive they should be forced to identify this man.

And Joe Kennedy. Let's not forget Prescott Bush. Hmmmmm?

example. That "carcano" seems to be missing the wood piece, which should be in place with straps helping to hold down the barrel, as is seen on the carcano in photos of the archived weapon. This rifle has the barrel showing the entire length of the stock. Chuck

That is curious. Jackie appears to be holding JFK's arm in the altgens pic. In the Z frame there seems to be space between the hand and the arm. Then, there is that shadow on JFK's hand. What is casting that shadow? Jackie's hand seems to lack the shadowing one would expect to find on a reverse view from the N side of Elm. Kind of hard to have sunshine on both sides of the glove isn't it? Chuck

Has anyone seen the documents regarding LHO having sent a telegram to the Sec. of the Navy very shortly before the assassination of JFK? A short time before JFK was murdered LHO had, according to a clerk who helped with the message, sent a message to the secretary of the navy. LHO had insisted upon a physical delivery of the message and confirmation of it's receipt. LHO was remembered by this man because LHO had made a habit of being a difficult customer. One time LHO attempted to obtain cash from them without i.d. and he was told to return with i.d. or he would not be paid. The clerk recalled that lHO returned with a navy i.d. card and a library card which he used to i.d. himself. No records were ever discovered (imagine that) in the company files which could prove the clerk was telling the truth about this message to the Sec. of the Navy, but, as we know today, LHO did have a navy i.d. card and a library card in his possession. At the time of his coming forward, with his recollections of the events regarding LHO, the clerk could not have known of LHO having only these exact types of i.d. to identify himself. No drivers license and no state i.d. required LHO to use the only i.d. which he could carry conveniently in his possession. I looked for another thread covering this but did not find one. Wouldn't this telegram, if actually sent by LHO, help support the belief that LHO was an employee of one of the branches of Naval Intelligence? Chuck

I think the difference is that the Dallas doctors confirmed a wound seen in the back of the head and on the front of the neck, but had not seen the wound on the top of the head because the bone plate had gotten held into place by Jackie on the way to Parkland and had sealed up by a lot of dried blood on the top of JFK's head. Baxter, However does mention seeing the wound as he referred to it as a 'bone plate'. Bill[/b] Hi Bill, Isn't it unlikely that JFK's blood could dry enough to act as a paste during the very short period of time it took for JFK to get to Parkland where he obtained immediate medical attention ?? Isn't it more likely that these highly trained professionals saw exactly what they reported having seen/not seen? Second guessing men and women who, on average, spend a combined 10 years, first learning and then getting on the job training to become Doctors, is really quite a leap of faith isn't it? No offense, but, I think I will side with the professionals who were actually there on this one.. Chuck

Personally, I have no idea. What I do know is that we now have the miracle of DNA testing which was not available at the time of the exhumation. If it had been available then, there would have been no need for the exhumation at all. There are surviving members of the Robert and Lee Oswald families. The DNA from Robert Oswalds children should match that of Marina's children. Simply compare the DNA from the two branches of the Oswald tree. If they do not match ....THEN we would need to figure out who the person in the grave. Chuck

I rather doubt it. He was fighting for the Union Army that day. Awesome deductive skills there Brendan! (I thought Bush was a southern man?) I appreciate your choosing to focus upon the typo. Curiously, you neglected to comment upon the content of the post. Perhaps you feel my suggestion that Holmes and Ruby were acquainted with each other might actually be valid? Perhaps you believe that Ruby might have had contact with the secret service and/or George Bush at the Sheraton? I wish you would have taken a moment to comment upon the content of the post rather than make a joke about the wrong century typo I made. Thanks again for your illuminating and well thought out critique of my post.

Jack Ruby had written down the name D. H. Holmes on one of these papers. They were found under the refrigerator in his apartment by the next tenant. The H and D are transposed, but, there is little doubt in my mind that this is the same person. Ruby also has the phone number of the Dallas Sheraton on one of these pieces of paper. I believe the Sheraton was where the Secret Service had set up it's comand post. It is also where one G.H.W. Bush stayed on 11/22/1863. These papers may divulge more information if the names and numbers are checked and referenced. Chuck

More than one person saw Ruby at Parkland. Funny how someone felt it necessary to ensure the silence of this witness through intimidation/terrorism. A report is in the DPD files describing Ruby as being sighted, by a group of women who knew him, outside the school book depository, where he was seen handing a handgun to LHO. Citizens came forward, in 1963-64, to let the authorities know the suspicious places that they had seen Ruby, as well as who they had seen him with, and all of the information in these reports was virtually ignored. It amazes me that so many reports about Ruby were turned in. It amazes me even more that they all were ignored or labeled as being not believable. Chuck

Thank you. It was annoying trying to use the back button and then discovering there were innumerable snipernet windows open. Chuck

Jack, In the many years that I have been associated with this JFK assassination business, starting way back on the Weberman forum, you have always been fair and tolerant. This is the first time, that I am aware of, that you gave both barrels to someone. In light of the personal attacks you have endured over the years.....in my opinion, it was inevitable that it would happen and, in this case, it was long overdue. I especially appreciated the sphincter/geographical reference....a true classic! I will add it to my own very short list of witty retorts. Keep smilin' Jack, these guys come and go, remember? Chuck This is from De La Rossa's website: Fake For many years photoanalyst Jack White has studied the famous "backyard photos" of LHO and has proved without a doubt that they are clever forgeries ... $20.00 + $5.oo s/h Jack White has reached startling conclusions that will rewrite the history of the JFK assassination, This video reveals a world of secret agents,false identities, photo forgeries, official misconduct, murders & even body switches. 1991 I now owe an apology to Mr. De La Rossa. He is not charging $40, as I mistakenly reported, and one of his Jack White videos has already been sold. I know of no reason to doubt, however, that Jack White was paid his lawful royalties. Mr. White, you should know that the two gentlemen who moderate this forum are educators. Educators have the cushiest jobs in the world. For nine months of the year they sit around, like George Bush did on 9/11, reading books to the students. Then they go on vacation for the whole Summer, while the real citizens work their butts off to make the world go round. If Andy and John are not hiking in Spain, they are probably kayaking in the fjords of Norway. I got an e-mail from Andy just last week. I doubt that he is away anywhere right now. Chuck

Mr. Carroll, Nobody is accusing Marina of anything. In every instance where someone has a problem with her testimony, it is not she, it is her handlers, who are blamed for allowing, or convincing, her to give that testimony. Marina has had to live with a nightmare everyday of her life since 11/22/1963. I doubt very seriously that any one of us here at the forum think of her as anything but a victim. There is no need for defending Marina at all. She was, and still is, in a situation not of her own making. Chuck

I'm the slanderer? As opposed to the valentines he sends my way time and again? I guess your "purpose" is to shill for a thin-skinned buddy. Clue me in: exactly how did I "disrupt" the discussion? By responding? By doing some homework on Rybka and his duties that day? For having the audacity to disagree with the hateful premise? What is it about a dialogue that terrifies you so? FYI, some motives (9-11 an inside job; US never landed on the moon; Holocaust denials) deserve to be demeaned. NO, censorious a-holes like yourself are a far bigger threat to civilization. And I don't like blowhards who profess to value dissent and free speech, yet brutally suppress it whenever possible. My rights trump your eggshell-thin ego. Get lost. I rest my case. My chastising of you does not mean I am sticking up for Mark. Although I appreciate his efforts here, we are not "buddies". Ego? You impose your frailties upon me? Please, ego is what you are all about. The ALL-KNOWING Slattery tells us all we have to know. To believe otherwise is to be a cretin, correct? Demeaning remarks, name-calling and full-on propaganda propagation are not what I would regard as the best use of the "free-speech" you profess to value so much. Your dogged determination to spread your version of events, pretending that they are far superior to those as described by Palamara, is nothing short of ludicrous. When you muster the courage to free yourself from the childish manner in which you present your "opinions", read that "personal attacks", you might actually be of some use someday. Until then, in my opinion, you are just another one of the mindless, lock-stepping sheep, that have helped the cover-up of the JFK murder to continue for far too long. Please, if you must continue to spread your manure, save me a bagfull? My garden needs fertilizing. Chuck

Oh dear. My very own personal stalker has returned. He sits back, waits for me to post, then pounces. Quite a life you got there, Mark. Guess it beats playing Scrabble at the 4-H Center. Wilson posted about Rybka, and I calmly and methodically responded. Exactly how is that "stifling" discussion? By merely disagreeing? If so, are you mentally ill? Whose interests are you representing, Mark? Aging nerds who live with their parents? The mystery widens ... Geez, your pathetic slanderings of Mark do nothing to lessen the truth of what he says about you. There have always been a few individuals on these forums whose purposes are clear. They disrupt the discussion of issues, they demean those who question their motives, and last, but not least, they insist upon taking part in a process which has, as it's goal, something that is obviously at odds with their own. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I don't like problems. 'Nuff said? Chuck

Mark, I had a post in which I had speculated that it was a possibility that Alex was the woman Hoover said had obtained the rifle. Alex and LHO were close friends according to her father. If she had been given access to the p.o. box it would explain how a rifle could be picked up at LHO's box without his knowing about it. Of course, this flies in the face of my belief that no rifle was ever sent at all. But, my beliefs do not prove the rifle had not been delivered. The post was pure speculation. Still, I can't help but point out how often coincidence is encountered when studying the murder of JFK. As to Mr. D's daughter being involved? Considering her Father's involvement, it is not an unreasonable question. Chuck

I've said it before and I'll say it again; This was the autopsy of the President of the United States. To believe that FBI agents would allow themselves to sign that document if it did not specifically state what item(s) had been transferred is absurd. Sure, they can lay the blame on an unidentified clerk, as if that really proves that no "missile" had been recovered that night. How about holding these men to the professional level of competence one expects from the FBI and accept the receipt at it's face value? Or is that just wishful thinking? How many times will people accept lame excuses instead of the facts?

It is very interesting that the KGB seemed to be concerned about the relationship between RFK, Ted and Pres. Johnson. It seemed to be, in my opinion, worded in a manner which implied the Kennedy Bros. were in harm's way. Chuck

Sorry, my posts have been doubled lately and I do not know why. This was a dup. of the above post.

As it just so happens, I was present at Lancer's NID 99 for John Armstrong's presentation. LBJ: 'You want me to tell you the truth? [that's a good one, coming from LBJ, who inspired the creation of the term "credibility gap"] You want to know what happened? Bobby and them went up to see him today and he turned them down cold, and said no! ...... (reactions from audience, "Wow!" and laughter, etc.) I can assure you that I was laughing as loudly as anyone in the room. And I am still laughing, because when I asked you if there was any independent corroboration for Lyndon Johnson's claims, you respond by quoting Lyndon Johnson. So you are a Washington lawyer and you are now telling us that Lyndon JOhnson corroborated himself!!!!! I'm sure there is a great metaphor that would encapsulte all this, but where is Bill Miller when I need him? Really J? Then you must get with John Simkin and others forthwith regarding the Spartacus entries for Earl Warren -- and Richard Russell, for that matter. There, the November 29, 1963 recorded phone conversation between LBJ and Russell is quoted. And this sounds pretty close to "bludgeoning" to me: "After the death of John F. Kennedy in 1963 his deputy, Lyndon B. Johnson, was appointed president. He immediately set up a commission to "ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy." Johnson asked Warren if he would be willing to head the commission. Warren refused but it was later revealled that Johnson blackmailed him into accepting the post. In a telephone conversation with Richard B. Russell Johnson claimed: " Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say." And this is supposed to verify RFK approached Warren? Curious, isn't it, that a Mexico City incident (phony Oswald in M.C.?) was the blackmail that convinced Warren? Was this a do it "for the good of the nation" appointment, which Warren would have been obliged to assist in, in order to keep us, the public, pacified? Cryptic references, by Johnson, to an incident in Mexico City. He didn't say an incident personally involving Warren, did he? I have to wonder, had Warren ever been in Mexico City, and, if so, had he done something wrong there? If he had, where is the historical evidence for this faux pas, and why is it not reported in any biographical works relating to Warren? Chuck

Truth be told, election stealing in America knows no party boundaries -- evidencing our aphorism, "politics ain't beanbag." Given Bush-Cheney's very substantial margin in Ohio, and approximately 3.5 million vote margin nationwide, I for the most part had brushed off the notion that the 2004 election was heisted. Now I'm open to persuasion, as I'm quite convinced that this Adminstration, along with the Ayatollahs who constitute its "conservative" base, would respect no boundaries in their will to power. If they are willing to trash the truth and our Constitution -- as they demonstrably are -- then what's a little vote stealing among friends? Of more pertinence to this thread, the 1960 election too may well have been stolen in Illinois with the assistance of - yes - the Mob. This fact greatly annoys our brothers and sisters who lay this murder and its cover up solely at the feet of right-wing thugs and their CIA enablers. It also causes angst among those who perpetuate a Camelot myth that rightly collapsed under the weight of disclosures now three decades old. Interesting, isn't it, how inconvenient and stubborn facts can be? This forum is for the discussion of the JFK assassination, is it not? The "Camelot myth, truth or fiction?" forum is down the hall. Please take it there. Chuck

double posted for some reason.

To all, I apologize for the hatchet job I did on this post. I still don't quite know how to quote properly. Bear with me and I will work on improving my editing and posting. Duke, That post was up for a total of perhaps 5 minutes before i edited it down. I guess you managed to get ahold of it before I had removed what I agree was unnecessarily antagonistic. My apologies for that. Now, you make the statement about me being used to being ridiculed, correct? So, according to you, you were ridiculing me. Perhaps I should have left my post intact after all.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx I'd suggest putting away your attitude, it doesn't befit you well and does not lead toward reasonable discussion. I only noticed question marks in my note, so why would you think they are anything other than questions? Are you used to being ridiculed, is that the problem? Believe me, if I wanted to pooh-pooh something, I would and could do it a whole lot more effectively than my earlier post, if that was what it had been intended to do. It wasn't.Since you are posting from memory, why am I supposed to be confident that your memory is absolutely accurate? If it is wrong, am I supposed to keep searching and searching until I (don't) find what you're referring to? You are the one who made the statement, and it is your responsibility to back it up when asked rather than sending someone off on what, for all anyone knows, could be a wild goose chase. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx Did you leave the part of the post intact where I pointed out the effort Mark had put into pasting links to the documents in question? Don't pretend that you had not been given the information asked for, O.K.? Did you quote where I also thanked Mark for his efforts? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx If your memory is so accurate, am I being presumptious to think that you might also remember where you read what you cite? If so, it is common courtesy to point someone to a particular location instead of telling them to look through everything they can find until they locate what you're referring to ... if it even exists! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I repeat, you WERE provided the links, if you had taken the time to review the post in toto. I don't have to prove to you that anything exists. I won't waste my time with your baiting any longer.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I often post from memory myself and occasionally misremember something; I imagine you could possibly be as fallable as I am. Unless, of course, maybe you're J. Edgar Hoover? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx No, I'm as fallable as the next guy, however, I tell people up front when I am running from memory. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx In this case, there are so many details that nobody could possibly know each and every one of them. I think I know as much as most people and more than some. If you know more, please shower me with your pearls of wisdom instead of raining down your disdain. I'd like to think I'd extend you the same courtesy ... even if only to show off my knowledge and prove I'm not just talking through my hat! Forgive me, I'm new to this. There are thousands of pages to read? Ah, no wonder it's so difficult to provide a citation! You're right: if I'd read all that you have, then I'd probably know exactly where to look! Again, can you steer me toward this "related post," or do I have to search the entire forum? Hoover seemed to know the scenario which was layed out before the event played out. Just because he is dead now does not mean that we should forget the content of his earlier statements and recorded conversations. I think that the former was my point, and I never suggested any different than the latter. I am searching my post and don't find where I "said" any such thing. Please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be).xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx You sure toss your opinions around as if they were fact. Are you suggesting that Hoover pulled his data from "his hat"? It would be nice if he had cited the sources of his information, but, seeing as he was the director of the FBI, I believe his sources had to be somewhat reliable. The point here is that you were, in my mind anyway, trying to minimalize the evidence, that Hoover provided, that the assassin stored the rifle at his mother's house. The point I was making was that Oswald was not that person. Then you stated Hoover could not be relied upon, ergo, his statement about the assassin, even though obviously not Oswald, could be ignored. Words to that effect, anyway.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx Yes, that might explain it. Now, then, what is so significant in your mind about Linnie Mae saying "Parkland" instead of naming the hospital or clinic where he actually was? Why in your opinion was it a "wild goose chase" and not just a simple misstatement? Why would anyone have "chased" the "fact" of Pop being in Parkland versus anywhere else? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx I never said it was a wild goose chase. That was another post made by another forum member. Take your own advice about putting words in another's mouth? What makes you think Linnie Mae actually did make a mistake? I believe the story was changed so that Frazier could not be placed at Parkland. His father was not there, so, I ask, why was he there? Is that a little more clear? I tried to be civil with you, Duke. Even after i edited that post, in an attempt to prevent just this sort of exchange, you had to post it and stir the pot. I truly did try to make the best of a somewhat negative situation. At this point, it would be in both of our best interests if we just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I am pretty sure nothing I have to say is of interest to you. I am absolutely sure that what you have to say is of no interest to me. Good day, sir. Chuck

Regarding the "plenty of reasons in a related post," which is that "related post?" It's not leaping out at me, and none of the keyword searches I've made have turned anything up by you.As to Hoover's comments, as quoted above and otherwise: having died in 1972, we can now ascertain with reasonable certainty that Hoover was not God. Whence, then, his omniscience? He "knew" that "three shots were fired" before anyone had investigated the reports of several more, that "it was a Communist" who shot JFK even in the face of LHO's denials and intimations of naming others, before his FBI usurped jurisdiction (well, to be fair, DPD abandoned it), all from 1000+ miles away, how could that have been so? How, then, did he "know" enough to report to LBJ that "the assassin kept his rifle at his mother's house?" His mother, I recall, was living with him and his sister during that period. I've never been certain if it was a temporary arrangement, if mom and pop had a home of their own elsewhere, as opposed, say, to an apartment that they stopped renting for the duration of dad's illness, and the stay with Linnie Mae was more long-term. With pop being in the hospital, why is BWF's visiting him a reason to be suspicious? Parkland has literally thousands of beds, so what's significant about the fact that a TSBD employee's father occupied one of them? Clearly, he had to be somewhere if he had to be in a hospital at all, and I'm fairly confident that your not suggesting that pop's ailment was "part of the plot" (e.g., if the bullet didn't kill JFK, pop could always slip into his room and strangle him). Personally, I've always thought it interesting that LHO was a "lone-nut Communist" while Ruby was a "lone-nut Jew." Unfortunately, I just can't seem to think of anyone that would want to put the heat on both Communists and Jews for killing a Yankee liberal ... at least, not in Dallas in 1963. If I could, it would be that rock that I'd be looking under. The biggest trouble is that your neighbor - or even your parents! - could be among that ilk, and you'd have no way of knowing .... Got a cite on that comment about Frazier's visiting pop? I thought twice about what I was posting in response to Duke Lane. I decided there was no need to be argumentative. I am not going to try to convince Duke of anything. What follows is my revised reply. Duke, I am confident that you are capable of finding the report from the DPD regarding their interview of Linnie Mae and Wesley. You know where the DPD webpage is with the thousands of papers, right? Find it, I did. Chuck