Cory Santos

Thank you Gil. this needs to be read again. This is what I was getting at with DVP above. You put it very nicely though I might not agree to an extent with you on Marina.

It does matter if he ate lunch. If he did, he would most likely have done so on the second floor. Thus confirming her sighting of him. That really hurts the theory he was on the sixth floor waiting for the delayed motorcade.

So let’s go over this. DVP, you find Frazier credible as your basis for Oswald not eating lunch on 11-22. Even though Fraziers testimony is clear he was not with Oswald throughout the morning, specifically at noon-when the employees took their brakes for lunch. Frazier testified he saw him once earlier that day working on the sixth floor. That’s it. So Frazier saying he did not bring a lunch DOES NOT prove Oswald did not eat lunch. So you have ZERO evidence Oswald did not eat lunch that day. Just speculation. As to our witness, Ms. Arnold, who said she saw him eating, without getting into the particulars of her statements and the issues with what she was asked etc., Fraziers testimony supports her version. Frazier testified that 1) he (Frazier) usually ate with the guys on the first floor 12 -12:45 a.m. 2). He testified he never saw Oswald eat lunch or ate w him. 3) He did not know where Oswald kept his lunch. Thus it is safe to conclude based on Frazier’s testimony that Oswald did not eat lunch from 12-1245 on the first floor usually. Otherwise Frazier would have answered these points differently. This lends credence to Arnold’s testimony seeing him on 2nd floor eating around 12:15. Oswald in fact did most likely, based on Fraziers testimony, eat alone on the second floor where Baker spotted him drinking a soda after the assassination. See, my points are based on facts. Fraziers testimony lends credibility to Arnold’s version which is supported by Baker seeing him where she said she saw him earlier. The problem is you ignore inconvenient testimony like Frazier saying where the shots came from, but choose to selectively enjoy other misinterpreted points. For example, the bag Oswald brought in. Frazier clearly was badgered but stuck to his opinion on the length and width of the package and identification of it. It wasn’t the same package. Also, why did he not see Oswald leave the building? He was right there for several minutes? To address your ludicrous theory regarding the shots, please explain the science behind your opinion that a person who is standing underneath a window a few floors up, thinks the loud -many witnesses claimed the first shot was loud- came from a different area other than over his/her head? That really is ludicrous and you have no science showing that the acoustics in Dealey would have fooled someone underneath the sixth floor shooting a loud rifle. Just admit it. Frazier correctly identified the area where the shots came from and that is why questioning about that was cutoff so quick. Admit you have no evidence Oswald did not eat lunch that day.

On what evidence are you basing your opinion that Oswald did not have lunch before the assassination on 11-22. I am not asking for your speculation. What facts are you basing your opinion on.

Based on what?

So is it your opinion Oswald did not eat lunch prior to 12:30 on 11-22?

Then he could be incorrect about other things too then. Certainly, you agree with that right?

You did not respond about Frazier saying the shots came from the underpass.

Couple of points then. First, Frazier testified that he thought the shots came from the underpass. W.C. Testimony. Page 234. So you evidently believe him when it fits your conclusions but ignore the rest of his testimony. Ok. Second, what was LHO eating on the second floor before the shooting if he did not bring a lunch? LHO eating his lunch was witnessed so do you DVP really think testimony seeing him on the second floor is a lie? At any point was he on the first floor after 11 a.m.? Your logic here does not make sense. Either he was or he was not seen on the second floor. If he was and he was eating, he could have brought his lunch in the package. If he bought his lunch there is no evidence that he did so. So why was he on the second floor before and after the shooting if he was not eating? That makes no sense unless he was eating. Perhaps the better answer is Frazier was honestly mistaken.

Here it is.

Vince where did you get this? I just saw a YouTube show talking about this. Ferrie”s witness stated afterwards as one thing to the affect that “well, we tried.” A little background please.

Quote: It’s difficult to engage in a rational debate with people who either don't read, or don't understand, basic arguments. End quote. As I said, new day, new subject, same attacks. Nothing changes nor is done about it apparently.

New day, new subject, same attacks.

And with that we now have the possibility there were more than one Earlene running around Dallas. That’s right, you heard it first from DVP. A new theory for all. Earlene doppelgängers. Jk.

Just admit you had no clue about this until my prior house guest Cliff schooled you. It’s ok.

But Cliff, Brown knows what Humes thought. Lol! Facts smacts!

Curious, why did he not try to shoot Nixon? His trip to Texas was in the papers. Have you ever questioned that?

It is hearsay. So generally, no. There are a few exceptions. Now, as someone who studied history at the graduate level, a historian might give it some weight but without other support, generally it would not be solely relied on by a historian in the academic field. Lance am I right or wrong here?

Well tomorrow Theresa is preparing fresh boysenberry mimosas.

30th degree is a promotion. I was 15.

Denis I’m jesting. I don’t see it but if you can get better quality pictures I say go for it. I am not demeaning your theory. I just don’t see it. My point above is lots of things can be seen in these photos that look like a face or something but usually I find it’s unproductive without the negatives being worked on. Again, don’t take what I said the wrong way.

Geez David I circled it for you. Can’t you see it?

Well, let me go try but first Cliff is drunk. . . again, so I have to help him to his quarters. Interestingly he mumbled something about shirts and Oswald.

Ron even if those statements are true the statements are not verifiable. Certainly, these points will not convince anyone, well mostly anyone, without verification. In court those statements are hearsay and only admissible in certain situations for a reason. If you want to convince people like DVP you need more than that.

Sorry, I looked and looked. For a second I thought I saw a younger version of my pool guest Mr. Cliff Varnel.