Greg Parker Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING AND HELPFUL TO ATTEMPT TO OUTLINE THE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE CASE. THEN WE COULD ATTEMPT TO MAKE LINKS TO THE MORE IMPORTANT THREADS WHICH DISCUSS THESE ISSUES. I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO COME UP WITH THE LIST.IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO COPY THIS: AT FIRST I WOULD SUGGEST YOU DO A POST JUST SUGGESTING ADDITIONS TO THIS LIST. I AM SURE I MISSED DOZENS THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED. AFTER A DOZEN OR SO REPLIES I WILL TRY TO INCORPORATE MOST AND WE WILL START AGAIIN. ONCE THE OUTLINE IS DONE WE CAN START TO ADD LINKS TO THREADS. NOTE THAT OTHER THAN THE TOPIC OF CONFESSIONS I AM NOT LISTING ALL PEOPLE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PLOT Was Oswald Sent to the Soviet Union By Any Entity of the U. S. Government? Tim, the trip to the Soviet Union will be explained in part 3 of my Assassination Morphology series. Prior to putting that up, I'll be putting up a "defection" time-line, the contents of which contain major clues. Where Did Oswald Learn to Speak Russian? How Did Oswald Get Permission to Re-Enter the US? Did Oswald Order the Rifle? Did Oswald Order the Gun? Whoever did, ordered it on behalf of a third party - as signified by the phony name used as a reference on the order form - DF Drittal - "dienst fur dritte" - on behalf of a third party. ("Drittel" is German for "one third") Drittal" is not a German surname, and last I looked, I couldn't find anyone with that name listed in any white pages. If you were going to make up a phony name as a reference, surely a common name would have been better. Whoever did it was either just learning German, and therefore used the incorrect form "Drittel" instead of "Dritte" and also the incorrect suffix "tal" instead of "tel"-- OR made those two slight errors on purpose to make the meaning less obvious. Did Oswald Shoot at Gen. Walker? Are the Backyard Photos Legitimate? The Mysteries of Mexico City Did Oswald Go to Mexico City? Who Did Oswald Meet in Mexico City? The Mexico City Mystery Man The Visitors To Odio Other Sightings of Oswald or Oswald Look-alikes Was There a Chicago Plot Against JFK? Was There a Miami Plot Against JFK? Was There a Tampa Plot Against JFK? The Establishment of the Motorcade Route in Dallas Was There Security Stripping in Dallas Did Oswald Carry a Paper Bag Into the Texas School Book Depository? Yes - his lunch bag Was Oswald on the Sixth Floor Near the Time of the Shots? No How Many Shots Were There? What is the earwitness testimony? The Eyewitness Descriptions of the Shooters Is the Zapruder Film Legitimate? Other Photographic Evidence of The Assassination Are There Photographs of Other Shooters Where Did the Shots Come From TSBD (Which Floor and which side?) Dal-Tex Building Records Building The Grass Knoll The Triple Overpas How Did Oswald Leave Dealey Plaza? How Did the Police First Obtain the Description of the Shooter? Probably a composite from Baker, Rowland, Brennan and others. These three at least, matched each other to the point where they were probably describing the same individual. There was also a witness named Price who saw someone fleeing to the rail cars carrying something. His statement says he thought it may have been a "head piece", but at the scene, I'm wondering if perhaps he might have described it as a rifle. If so, he accounts for the part of the description indicating the suspect was armed with 30-30 rifle or a Winchester. He also accounts for Sawyer's apparent confusion as to whether the suspect had been in the building at all (Price had not indicated where the man had fled from. That Price was under pressure to change his story is shown in the FBI report on their interview with him. In that, he is quoted as saying he saw "nothing of significance". The Tramps Arrested In Dealey Plaza The Umbrella Man The Dark Complected Man Did the Presidential Limousine Slow or Stop? Did Oswald Shoot Officer Tippitt? No What were Tippitt's Movements he Morning of The Assassination? When Did the Shooting Take Place? The Search of the Texas School Book Depository You never know just when the truth might come out about that. The Search of the Paine Garage Did Oswald Own a Minox Camera? Yes. Was Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital? Where Was CE399 Found? The Medical Evidence List all of the doctors present in Parkland Hospital Which Doctors Testified to: The WC The HSCA The ARRB Same Question Re JFK's Body at Betheda Add Military Officers Present at Bethesda The Photographs Taken During The Autopsy The Drawings Made for the Warren Commission Subsequent Medical Reviews The Rockefeller Commission The Clark Panel The HSCA The Controversy Over the Location of the Back Wound The Wound to the Throat: What Was It? Where Was the Entry Wound in the Bavk of the Head? How Many Wounds Were There in the Back of the Head? Was There A Shot From The Front? Where Was (Were) The Rear Shooter(s) Stationed? The Paraffin Tests on Oswald Oswald's Interrogation Shows his alibi was rock solid and gives a pretty big clue as to when the cards showing the "Hidell" name first entered the picture. The Wounds to Governor Connally How Did Jack Ruby Gain Access to the Police Station? Sam Pate publicly announced last year that he gave Ruby his spare press pass on the Friday night. He needs to be questioned under oath about that after failing to disclose it to police, the FBI, the WC and the HSCA. Did Ruby Know Oswald? Was Ruby Part of the Plot? Ruby's Mafia Connections The importance of those connections is over-rated, imo. Ruby's Phone Calls Did Ruby Meet with Johnny Rosselli Ruby's Activities The Week Before The Assassination Hanging out with a hypnotist and a young lady with deep police and political connections. Trying to find a partner for a new club, and planning a move to a more expensive apartment - despite claiming business on the skids over unfair competition and a 40k debt to the gummit. Ruby's Activities From The Assassination to his Murder of Oswald How Did Ruby Get His Lawyer? The Ruby Interrogation in Dallas The Ruby Polygraph Was Oswald Working For Any Agency of The U.S. Government? If so, Which One? The FBI Investigation And Its Report The Warren Commission What Significant Witnesses Were NOT Called to Testify? The WC Ballistics Panel The Most Important WC Exhibits The Strange Case of Yuri Nosenko The House Select Committee on Assassinations The Acoustics Evidence and Challenges To It The NAA and recent challenges to it The Dr Burkley Letter to Sprague The Work of the ARRB The Most Importtant Witness Testimony "Confessions" to Participation In the Plot Johnny Rosselli to His Lawyer Chauncey Holt Lem Factor David Morales John Martino Roscoe White (Not His Own) James Files E Howard Hunt Where There Any Mysterious Deaths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) Bill wrote: Gee Tim, Did you come up with all of those questions off the top of your head? I think the entire forum should be question oriented, rather than adversial (debate), as the questions are answerable. There must be a lull in the checkins at the Hotel Paradise. This is the time to read instead of attacking the forum. If you want to take Jack's suggestion, I am informed by reliable sources who have furnished accuate information in the past, that you can now order John Armstrong's Harvey & Lee from Andy W. at the Last Hurrah book store, in the middle of Nowhere, Pennsylvania, or get it from him at Lancer/COPA this week in Dallas. And Good luck to Larry at Lancer and John Judge on the Knoll. As for Tim's typos, I'm sure that's only him thinking and typing at the same time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With response to your usual sarcasms, BK, I will follow the Biblical principle set forth in Proverbs 26:4, only adding that you are about the last person to make note of typing errors. You state that Forum should be in question form rather than adversarial (debate). Why don't you check the name of it? You are wrong that the questions about the assassination are answerable; many are not. And IMO many of the "answers" you propopse are clearly wrong. And am I to sit silent when supposedly intelligent people seriosly suggest that an unnamed high-level official in the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION made a deal with Norman Mailer to resolve his tax problems if he would adopt the lone nut scenario? Or that Greer shot JFK in front of a multitude of witnesses? Or that Jesuits financed the assassination? Edited November 19, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 To Courtney, Tom, Terry and Ron, thank you for your additions to those with pre-knowledge of the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 To Greg: I am sure we all look forward to your time-line and your essay on Oswald's "defection". Regarding Sam Pate, I had not heard that before. Most interesting information. Do you have a reference to it? I agree with you that the man should be questioned--another good reason why a new investigation is needed. But did Ruby simply use the pass to get in to the late Friday press conference? I don't think it is related to the activities of Sunday morning, or is it? Is it your opinion that Ruby would have shot LHO on Friday night if he had had the opportunity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) .......With response to your usual sarcasms, BK, I will follow the Biblical principle set forth in Proverbs 26:4, only adding that you are about the last person to make note of typing errors. THAT WAS CHARLES AND MICHAEL WHO COMMENTED ON YOUR TITLE TYPO, I JUST ADDED MY COMMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE ALWAYS CORRECTING MY TYPOS WHEN YOU CAN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUE. You state that Forum should be in question form rather than adversarial (debate). Why don't you check the name of it? TIM, YOU ARE THE ONE ASKING THE QUESTIONS, AND I SAID THAT'S A BETTER WAY TO GO THAN DEBATE. I DIDN'T NAME THE FORUM. You are wrong that the questions about the assassination are answerable; many are not. WHY ASK A QUESTION THAT CAN NEVER BE ANSWERED? AND WHICH ONES ARE WHICH? And IMO many of the "answers" you propopse are clearly wrong. I HAVEN'T PROPOSED ANY ANSWERS SO HOW CAN THEY BE CLEARLY WRONG? And am I to sit silent when supposedly intelligent people seriosly suggest that an unnamed high-level official in the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION made a deal with Norman Mailer to resolve his tax problems if he would adopt the lone nut scenario? Or that Greer shot JFK in front of a multitude of witnesses? Or that Jesuits financed the assassination? I HAVEN'T MADE ANY OF THOSE SUGGESTIONS SO WHY ASK ME? BK Edited November 19, 2007 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 Why don't we cut out the squabbling and get on with the process. Before we "cut and paste" links to threads where these issues have been discussed, I wonder if there are any other "issues" that should be added. One thing that comes to my mind is the confrontation in NO that many believe was staged. Obviously if we tried to cut and paste text this thread would soon contain almost as much verbiage as Bugliosi's book. My thought was that we would concentrate on "links" to threads where the issues are discussed. This should make it a handy reference tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 With respect to possible foreknowledge of the assassination we should also consider: the Kirknewton incident the Cambidge call the Oxnard call And if I recall correctly, Fabian Escalante states that Cuban intelligence also had knowledge that am assassination was going to take place, based on its infilltration of the Cuban exile community in South Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 To Greg:I am sure we all look forward to your time-line and your essay on Oswald's "defection". Tim, It's taking a bit longer than I'd hoped in gathering the material and double checking facts , dates etc, but well worth the effort as it's all coalescing nicely. Regarding Sam Pate, I had not heard that before. Most interesting information. Do you have a reference to it? I agree with you that the man should be questioned--another good reason why a new investigation is needed. Don't feel left out that you hadn't heard it before. It was contained in his description of a newsgroup he started last year for his "fan club". It only has one member apart from Mr Pate and though I could be wrong, it seems like I'm the only reader it's ever had. But did Ruby simply use the pass to get in to the late Friday press conference? I don't think it is related to the activities of Sunday morning, or is it? Is it your opinion that Ruby would have shot LHO on Friday night if he had had the opportunity? No. He says he gave it to Ruby at the Friday night press conference. The inference to be drawn is that Ruby used it to gain entrance on the Sunday. Would Ruby have shot Oswald on the Friday night? I doubt it. He wasn't pumped up enough yet, and the fact that he asked for a press pass indicates he expected to use it on other occasions (assuming Pate is now being truthful about being asked for it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 Greg, very interesting and new information about Sam Pate. I am sure all members will be interested in it. I think it important enough it deserves a thread of its own and you should have credit for starting it. Can you do so? Or if you want I'll be glad to start it, copy your post and attribitute it to you. Do you have any kind of bio info on him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 And am I to sit silent when supposedly intelligent people seriosly suggest that an unnamed high-level official in the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION made a deal with Norman Mailer to resolve his tax problems if he would adopt the lone nut scenario? Or that Greer shot JFK in front of a multitude of witnesses? Or that Jesuits financed the assassination? The above amounts to a most revealing example of the trickery that we've come to expect from Segretti Light. 1. Note the wholly irrelevant upper case emphasis on the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. A Democrat! THAT Democrat! 2. Note the attack on a claim that never was made -- in this case, the manner in which Mailer was reached (see next item). 3. Note the unwillingness and/or inability to understand terms and definitions -- in particular, "administration." 4. Note the conflation of hypotheses, illustrating the most notorious, time-honored tactic of the disinformationalist. It's all piffle, and the only moral response is to expose the perfidy for what it is. The prime example: Segretti Light's pronouncement to Bill Kelly: "You are wrong that the questions about the assassination are answerable; many are not." There's the game in a nutcase ... er, nutshell. The grand strategy of Segretti Light's masters is the perpetuation of uncertainty and confusion. Such is his brief and that of Lamby and Purvo (Lamson, Colby, and Purvis; sounds like the Devil's law firm). And by the way, when you read this guy's intellectually and grammatically impoverished posts, you know where the "Light" in "Segretti Light" comes from. Charles Drago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) Well, Charles, the claim certainly was made that Mailer received relief from his tax problems because he adopted the LN thesis. Of course I highlighted the Clinton administration in part because Clinton was a Democrat as well as an admirer of JFK. It makes very little sense that someone in Clinton's administration would be a knowing part of the cover-up conspiracy. What in the world do you suiggest I misunderstood or misstated about the term "administration"? What conflation of hypotheses are you talking about, man? All I did was list what I think are the most salient issues. Can you READ? Again, following the dictates of Proverbs 26:4, I shall not get in the gutter with you and your petty insults. But your claim that members of this Forum are disinformation agents is unadulterated hogwash. Without casting aspersions on you, the claim is lunatic. And I submit that at least in the last few months I am doing more to try to solve this case than you are. Witness my attempt to try to get the Washington Post to acknowledge that the proof that the NAA is flawed destroys the most important linchpin of the SBT. (I also intend to call the Post to try to get the article in.) Moreover the whole purpose of this thread is to attempt to facilitate research and understanding of the case. Look at the important new fact it generated from Greg Parker. I suspect few of us knew about Sam Pate's claim before Greg posted it here. But Charles if it makes you happy why don't you just sit there at your typewriter and comnpose as many insults as you want. No intelligent reader will be influenced against me by your puerile tactics. I just want you to be happy. Edited November 19, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 And am I to sit silent when supposedly intelligent people seriosly suggest that an unnamed high-level official in the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION made a deal with Norman Mailer to resolve his tax problems if he would adopt the lone nut scenario? Or that Greer shot JFK in front of a multitude of witnesses? Or that Jesuits financed the assassination? The above amounts to a most revealing example of the trickery that we've come to expect from Segretti Light. 1. Note the wholly irrelevant upper case emphasis on the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. A Democrat! THAT Democrat! 2. Note the attack on a claim that never was made -- in this case, the manner in which Mailer was reached (see next item). 3. Note the unwillingness and/or inability to understand terms and definitions -- in particular, "administration." 4. Note the conflation of hypotheses, illustrating the most notorious, time-honored tactic of the disinformationalist. It's all piffle, and the only moral response is to expose the perfidy for what it is. The prime example: Segretti Light's pronouncement to Bill Kelly: "You are wrong that the questions about the assassination are answerable; many are not." There's the game in a nutcase ... er, nutshell. The grand strategy of Segretti Light's masters is the perpetuation of uncertainty and confusion. Such is his brief and that of Lamby and Purvo (Lamson, Colby, and Purvis; sounds like the Devil's law firm). And by the way, when you read this guy's intellectually and grammatically impoverished posts, you know where the "Light" in "Segretti Light" comes from. Charles Drago Touche! And Tim's disinfo tactics are annoying to any who have debated him. It's a waste of time engaging anyone from that law firm on serious matters. Although, by a twist of fate the Gratz agenda might clarify something for me, namely the issue of the Oswald defection. My knowledge of this is patchy. I will be keen to see Greg's timeline and how it meshes with Evica's 'A Certain Arrogance". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 I could tell by just reading Staoleton's name that he would have nothing positive to input, just dittoing the drivel of Drago. As I have said, I am doing more to try to solve this case than Drago--in fact than drago and Stapleton put together. A suggestion: if you just want to insult, why don't you stay off this thread? I think it will produce some fresh insights, as even Stapleton acknowledges. We already have Greg Parker's very interesting story about Sam Pate, that adds a new fact about Jack Ruby and his stalking of Oswald not yet covered in any assassination book. What I would really like right now is any input on any important issues that I have missed. After we think we have a fairly good grasp of the issues, then we will start pasting links to where information can be found, often on threads on this Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) why don't you stay off this thread? I didn't know you had such a gift for satire, mister 6470. Edited November 19, 2007 by Mark Stapleton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Although, by a twist of fate the Gratz agenda might clarify something for me, namely the issue of the Oswald defection. My knowledge of this is patchy. I will be keen to see Greg's timeline and how it meshes with Evica's 'A Certain Arrogance". Hi Mark, As I write this post I'm pouring through the first batch of documents, manuscripts, and other materials from the Evica archive. As your own words attest, you're aware of George Michael's groundbreaking work on the Oswald defection. I have every reason to believe that Greg's contribution to the topic simultaneously will stand on its own merits and compliment, even as it is complimented by, my dear friend's work. Segretti Light, by the way, is working to solve this case the same way a tumor is working to cure the cancer. But I digress. Best, Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now