Jump to content
The Education Forum

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions


Recommended Posts

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #39

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If

those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST*

answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are

"dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick.

If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to

justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below.

LNT'ers have really tried explaining this one in the past, since it's such an

obvious example of their lies about the evidence. Hopefully, someone will

actually be able to explain the WC's actions here: [but judging from the

previous 38 questions, I won't hold my breath]

39. "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same

day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton

that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before

proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki,

Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved

to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)

Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left

England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in

provable conflict with their own evidence:

Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol...

and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"

But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no

commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order

to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the

only alternative was a non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This

wouldn't do at all - so the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply

lie about the day Oswald left London...

Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?

eof

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...