Paul Baker

Howard Brennan has about as much credibility on this case as John McAdams.

I think that's unfair, unless you're implying that Brennan's testimony should be taken seriously. Personally I think Mr McAdams site is a bastion of common sense. I also heard the debate on Black Op Radio and thought he came across very well. But we digress.

In order to stay on topic I'll take a look in those directions you've pointed me, thanks. I'd be interested to see which windows in the TSBD were open as the motorcade passed. If there was a shooter in the Dal-Tex building, I'm sure someone would have seen something, since spectators are visible there in the best known Altgens photograph. So why no witnesses?

Paul.

You know Baker, sometimes you should read, and listen, more carefully.

Jim, there's really no need to get defensive, or offensive. I don't believe I know everything already. I asked what I thought was a pertinent question based on my understanding of the assassination, and what I heard on Black Op Radio, which I find quite incredible.

So in your opinion as a 'serious' researcher, whatever evidence there is that points to a sniper's nest shooter is either flawed or fabricated? If the shots came from somewhere else, where are the witnesses to that? There were plenty of people around.

Paul.

WHat is the proof that CE 543 was fired that day?

Ballistics?

I'm listening to the most recent broadcast of Black Op Radio. Len Osanic believes that no shots were fired from the sixth floor sniper's nest window. Jim DiEugenio thinks that's probably correct.

http://www.blackopradio.com/black481b.ram at ~ 21:20:

Len: I have never really felt that there was any shots coming from that window ... do you have that opinion ... I'm talking about the sixth floor, sniper's nest.

Jim: I don't really know ... I tend to think probably not.

So who was that man that Howard Brennan saw firing a gun from the sniper's nest as the motorcade passed? The 'pipe' sticking out of the window that Amos Euins saw? What about the TSBD employees on the fifth floor who heard the shots come from directly above them, and even heard the bolt action of the rifle and the shells hitting the floorboards?

I'm interested in understanding how any researcher can entertain the idea that no shots were fired from the sixth floor sniper's nest.

Paul.

15) Arrange for the motorcade to drive past his Sniper's Lair during lunch hour, the only one hour window of opportunity that he had to kill the President.

So you're saying that, if LHO did kill JFK, he would have had to somehow arrange the motorcade himself? This is clearly nonsense.

No-one saw LHO do this or that (disassemble, reassemble, hide rifle, arrange boxes etc) because he was careful that no-one was around when he did.

No-one saw LHO take a dump that day. Did he?

Paul.

I reckon he probably decided when he saw the motorcade route. Until then he didn't know he'd have the opportunity.

Oswald visited his wife on Thursday (meaningless)

He went to pick up a gun ( there is no proof of this. But even if he did pick up a rifle/gun there is no proof it was the rifle used to kill President Kennedy)

You've been a JFK Assassination Research student since 1964, you say? I hope it isn't too late to tell you, Terry, that you're wasting your time.

The stage is yours. I am ready to read any evidence you have that LHO killed JFK or Tippet or..... on 11/22/63.

I am 100% certain you will fail in this endeavor.

Terry, do you know anything about this case? Do you believe that there is not a single piece of evidence that Oswald killed JFK, or Tippet, in Dallas on 22 November 1963?

"simple" truth seems to be your forte. You have to be brain dead to believe that LHO killed anyone on 11/22/63.

Of course Terry. LHO didn't kill anyone. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that he did.

You're up to 1,668 posts now Terry, well done. Anything constructive, useful or interesting amongst those?

Paul.

Paul,

There's really no need to swear, is there? It seems rather odd labeling our responses as "the usual bullxxxx" and then thanking Pat for his "rare" polite response.

Anyhoo, when you say "Mr May" I assume you mean me? My name is, as it says, Hay not May.

Why didn't Oswald wait until friday? I don't think anyone could give a definitive answer on that. We are, after all, talking about matters of the heart (if the reason he went is because he missed his family). Also, no one knows what he had planned for that weekend. Perhaps he'd arranged to meet with someone else?

Actually, didn't Oswald tell the Police he didn't want to go to the Paine house that weekend because they were holding a party for one of the kids? I can't remember exactly, I'll have to look that up...

Martin

Apologies Martin, for getting your name wrong.

I find it irksome that it's so difficult to have a civilised conversation here. The polite, rational members are a small minority. Because I believe that Oswald did it, that somehow makes me a "nutter", and fair game for insults. Hence my bullxxxx comment. I get irritated sometimes.

Anyway. I'll have to look that up too. I thought Oswald missed the previous weekend due to a party. If he wasn't going to go to Irving on the 22nd that would add credence to the argument that he just wanted to see Marina and the children. Irrespective of that though, there's still the bag. What was in it? I think it's safe to say it didn't contain curtain rods.

I'd say your evidence is lacking. You havent proven anything

It's a shame that, as a believer in conspiracy, you have no real evidence whatsoever! What has a consipracy theorist ever proven? Absolutely bugger all. Zilch. You have no idea what happened, for some reason you just can't bring yourself to believe the simple truth.

Paul were is your proof that Lee entered the garage that night?

Mrs Paine believed he'd been in there, as the light had been left on. Coupled with the bag evidence, and the fact that the rifle went missing from that location, I'd say that proves beyond reasonable doubt that he'd collected his gun from the Paines' garage that evening.

What do you think?

Tip-toeing nimbly through the usual bullxxxx ...

Mr Speer, thank you for your measured and polite response, a rare thing around here. If that bag was folded up, wouldn't it have been easy to conceal? I wouldn't say that was too difficult. The evidence regarding the size of the bag. Isn't the fact that he was *carrying* that bag at all (as seen by witnesses) more important, and that he claimed it contained curtain rods, which he didn't need and were never found?

Mr Kelly. I see what you're getting at now. Oswald planned it at quite short notice, I believe. If the motorcade route wasn't going past the TSBD, JFK wouldn't have been murdered that day.

Mr May. So Oswald went to Irving on Thursday to make amends with Marina? Why couldn't he wait until the following evening, when he would be visiting as usual anyway? Why did he go into the garage, and why did the rifle he kept in the Paine's garage go missing?

Mr May. I still think it's rather obvious that Oswald didn't have to do much planning. Get a rifle, arrange some boxes, sit and wait.

Mr Laverick. "Oswald clearly did it so why study the evidence?" Are you aware that all the physical evidence and most of the circumstantial evidence points to Oswald's guilt? Obviously not. The evidence has been studied, which is why it's clear who committed the crime.

Mr McQuire, try to act your age, you're only embarrassing yourself here. There's too much of this school playground stuff going on. xxxx xxxx pants on fire, etc.

Paul.

I don't understand why this question is so important. From a 'Lone Nutter' perspective, what difference does it make, when the physical and circumstantial evidence points to Oswald's guilt. We know he did it, therefore we know he decided to do it at some point. When, who cares, and how does it help? Knowing when anyone decides to kill someone else is useful, for sure, but usually the prospective killer doesn't talk about it beforehand.

But ...

Oswald visited his wife on a Thursday, which he'd apparently never done before. His reason for going there on that day was to pick up his rifle, so he could shoot the president the next day. This implies that his intentions were real before Marina rejected him. I agree with McAdams, that in all probability he decided to shoot JFK when he learnt of the motorcade route.

As for planning, there wasn't much to do. The president was coming to the assassin's lair. All the assassin had to do was get a gun and sit and wait.

Paul.

I believe the proper way to deal with someone like Paul is to ignore him, he's already taken up too much space on this topic already. The challenge has been extended, if he's got anything of worth to say he'll take me up on it. And if he has nothing substantial to add, he'll continue making personal attacks without addressing the evidence.

That's right Martin, the proper way to deal with the simple, blindingly obvious truth is to ignore it.

No worries. Your avatar is sufficiently clear to preclude confusion.

Chuff chuff.

What hacks? The words came from the transcript of a telephone conversation, the Warren Report and the HSCA Report.

When I read a slew of posts from people who describe Mark Lane as an honest, courageous, integral man, I feel the need to draw attention to evidence to the contrary, of which there seems to be plenty. Tell me Robert, what is wrong with highlighting what has already been observed by others? Do I always have to dig up my own, unique observations?

And why doesn't Mr Lane prove that these impugners are incorrect? I heard him on Black Op Radio a while back, complaining about Bugliosi's 'libellous' attack on him in Reclaiming History. As far as I could tell, all Mr Lane could find wrong was an address. Big deal.

As for that thread you quoted, just look at your initial response. What's the point?

Yes it is, for those who like to hear things from the horse's mouth.

Those wishing to hear from the horse's other end still have their own spot to congregate.

Very amusing, well done. Though it would be slightly more effective coming from someone that is able to distinguish one end of a horse from its other.

If you're so certain that Mark Lane's work doesnt stand up to scrutiny, why haven't you posted anything on my "Mark Lane Challenge" elsewhere on this forum?

Because I enjoy a challenge.

I think he was doing what all lawyers do Paul.

Look at the HSCA report (this is in the context of the murder of MLK):

"Many of the allegations of conspiracy that the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane [...] the facts were often at variance with Lane's assertions [...] Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them [...] Lane's conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned."

Is he really typical of all lawyers? I don't think so. So why do people regard the likes of Mark Lane et al (Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, etc.) as truth-seekers, heroes, etc., when their work, and their contribution doesn't stand up to close scrutiny?

Is it really such a good thing that Mark Lane has joined this forum?

Maybe Mark can illuminate this aspect of his work.

That would be very interesting, yes.

Forget the Tippit killing for a moment, Lee. Simply consider the way in which Mark Lane questioned Mrs Markham over the telephone, and how he subsequently presented that evidence to the WC. Do you believe this demonstrates integrity on Mr Lane's part? Do you believe he was searching for the truth?

Who's really blind here, Lee?

It was a tremendous act of courage and integrity to do what you did after November 22, 1963.

History will remember you in the best possible way. Without doubt, you are an American hero.

Whoa! Take your blinkers off folks! Has anyone here read the transcript of Mark Lane's telephone conversation with Helen Markham, compared to what he said to the WC about it? You can find it here. Integrity is not a word that immediately springs to mind.

I'd also point you all towards the section dedicated to Mark Lane in Reclaiming History.

American Hero? Didn't Jim Garrison once describe Lee Harvey Oswald as such?

I never thought about it before, but if Oswald wrote "taken prisoner" and not "arrested" it implies he was afraid of being arrested for political reasons, not criminal reasons.

Perhaps Lee didn't know the Russian for 'arrested'. In any case, what about 'If I am alive'? Do you think he expected to get shot for political reasons?

Paul.

The note, imo, was more likely in regard to his pro Fidel picketing.

Pro-Fidel picketing? Given point 11 in his note, I don't think that idea holds water ...

11. If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located

at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going

to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing

the bridge).

Paul.

Aside from Marina's dubious allegations there is no evidence that Oswald fired a shot at Walker.

This simply isn't true. There was a handwritten note by Oswald, to Marina, giving her instructions as to what to do if he was caught. In addition photographs were found of Walker's house amongst Oswald's possessions after the assassination of JFK. I have little doubt that CT'ers will claim the photos were planted, but the note by itself is compelling evidence.

Page 1 of note here.

Page 2 of note here.

Translation can be found here.

Paul.

In this case, you assume Oswald's trying to kill Walker indicates he'd try and kill Kennedy. This is a non-sequitur.

Pat, I have to disagree. Irrespective of motivation, the Walker incident demonstrates that Lee Harvey Oswald was capable of murder.

I've seen just a single interview with Robert Oswald, the one I mentioned. I wish I hadn't mentioned it! All was thinking about was motivation, and Robert gave some insights into the working of Lee's mind (as did others in the same programme). I was ignorant of these other things he's said (thanks to those who posted them, very interesting). Regardless of what the man thinks though, the physical evidence speaks for itself.

Paul.

Robert is convinced that his kid brother killed the President.

Paul.

Seems nobody has told you, Paul, so I will let you in on a secret.

OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

If Robert Oswald changes his opinion tomorrow, and decides that the assassins were Howard Hunt & Co (and not his brother Lee) will that prove to you that Lee Oswald was innocent?

No, of course not. Why are people so defensive around here? Did I say that I believe LHO is guilty and acted alone because his brother said so? No. I mentioned Robert's words in the context of motive.

I believe that LHO is guilty and acted alone, because all of the physical evidence points at him, and him only.

Where's your physical evidence, Raymond?