Cory Santos

Again, he was not there as a signal but a distraction or diversion.

Yet DCM walks towards knoll and then leaves the plaza. Most people mill around. None of their actions are normal.

Lol

So really the only proof you have that he is umbrella man is his own testimony and comparing grainy photos. Wow, if only we could apply that same logic standard to the rest of the evidence. But lone nutters don’t do they?

Yes I always contend it is one of the true main relevant pieces of evidence that day.

Thank you Matt. So is it possible the application was just to get access to the roof for a shot at JFK? This might show premeditation on Oswald’s part. But this action hardly indicates RP or anyone else if he applied without any assistance from anyone. Any more comments on this Matt?

Interesting. Cite about the application please.

Because Joe it was a distraction. That is all it was. So no one would notice or watch DCM who actually was doing something.

Thanks Tom.

Correct. Also, how he interacts with DCM. Is there actual proof it was him?

https://oakcliff.advocatemag.com/2022/10/charles-brandt-jfk/

Thanks Ron but I disagree and would like to hear Max’s take on it.

Max this goes to my prior issue with her comment about not knowing which building he actually worked in. If she thought it was the old building it was not on the parade route. So it makes no sense. If she thought it was him and knew it was the actual TSBD then she lied about not knowing which building he worked at. Either way that is serious. Your above information fits with this nicely and is important. Can you add anything to the issue of her knowing where he worked? Thanks.

https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-cohen-leads-letter-seeking-release-remaining-kennedy

We have actual documented proof that she was being monitored by the FBI due to her activities. There is no debate about this. Now this would seem to logically follow one of two scenarios. One, the Kennedy’s knew about the surveillance or they didn’t. Assuming they did not know about it, the question is whether this gave Hoover and others a great opportunity to get dirt on the Kennedys IF the two had at a minimum just a friendly relationship with her? Associating with a potential communist sympathizer-which is how the fbi reports seem to look at her- gives a bad impression publicly to the brothers just by association. Recall, Sinatra became unwelcome due to his connections.

https://people.com/politics/secret-service-agent-clint-hill-reveals-suicide-attempt-after-jfk-assassination-new-memoir/

Wow

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hiding-group-sues-biden-national-120028563.html

I didn’t know DVP that you had a loon. Cool. Which species? Lol.

It’s ok David, no one here thinks your a member of the “deep state” lol.

Thank you Joe for your comments. Fine points.

No, that is not what I said. But I would like those questions answered if possible.

If you are going to say it as if it is a sure statement as to whom Marilyn was referring based on Don’s opinion, can you ask Don what proof does he have that she meant Leonardi as opposed to Lawford? Outside of some bloggers suggesting on the internetit I fail to see any actual proof she meant him. 2- Did Don know either MM and/or Lawford and or Leonardi? Thank you

Let me refresh your memory. BEGIN QUOTE: That’s nice but not what I asked you. If you feel it was him alone then based upon your prior posts it appears you feel this way based upon the “evidence”. You mentioned the witnesses. Would you agree that the witnesses do not all agree it was Sirhan? Do you agree that a witness saw a woman going down stairs exclaiming I believe “we got him” or something to that affect? Yes or no?

So it seems I’m not getting a response so I’ll explain my thoughts on this. With JFK, Warren Commission supporters jump all over the autopsy to prove the shots came from behind. Yet with the RFK, they conveniently ignore the autopsy. With JFK, selective witnesses are accepted while others ignored. Okay one says but they are not credible or are confused. But, with RFK, again serious and credible witnesses such as Paul Schrade are ignored. So I asked what evidence are you relying on that RFK was murdered. You stated the witnesses. Ok, fair answer but the witnesses do not all pin it on Sirhan alone. Moreover, the RFK autopsy clearly shows the fatal shot was not fired from Sirhan revolver. Do kindly admit it is not “the evidence”-as if all the evidence leads to one conclusion-you rely on but rather, that limited and selective “evidence” which you alone have determined to be important. Considering the psychology people bring when looking at a problem, if you never see a conspiracy in the evidence you probably are judging the evidence with a biased perspective. That applies to conspiracists as well, so it is fair to apply that logic to myself but David when I say I see no evidence that leads me to conclude Dorothy was killed I think I satisfy the neutral standard. Do you satisfy that standard or do you lean biased to never finding a conspiracy. To refute the actual RFK evidence seems odd if you are neutral.