Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why Beverley Oliver Is Not The Babushka Lady


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know whether she's the Babuska Lady or not, but the B-Lady certainly looks like she is filming the assassination.

Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby, she worked at the Colony Club, she knew a guy named Larry Ronco who worked for Kodak and at the Texas State Fair and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.

I don't know what it is, but there seems to be a spate of attacks on witnesses on this forum and wonder why these witnesses are so threatening and if this is contageous?

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan, over the years a number of researchers have made the missing motorcyclist argument. This rider was Douglas Jackson, and he was eventually interviewed by the FBI. That Beverly brought this up in an interview does not suggest to me that she was not in Dealey Plaza om 11-22, but that she spent too much time with CTs afterward, and that her recollections of the shooting were forever tainted by this exposure.

She also claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head explode--something pushed by no other eyewitness, save Jean Hill. When one studies Hill's statements, however, one sees that she only came to say this after years of hanging with the CT crowd. I suspect the same is true with Oliver.

She may have been a witness, but what she claims to have witnessed is undoubtedly suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan, you are in good company.

Gary Mack also has problems with Beverly Oliver. Says she worked at Colony Club, knew of Jack Ruby but didn't know him, and was working there the night before the assassination and couldn't have hung out with Ruby and Larry Meyers, and Larry Ronco did not die mysteriously, even though I didn't say he did.

Gary also says that Larry Ronco returned to work at Kodak in Rochester, NY in 1964.

How do we even know about Beverly Oliver again?

And if she wasn't the Babuska Lady, who was she?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what it is, but there seems to be a spate of attacks on witnesses on this forum and wonder why these witnesses are so threatening and if this is contageous?

BK

I didn't attack a witness, Bill. I attacked Beverley Oliver.

Duncan

Duncan

On the "David Josephs, A Question for You" thread, you relayed a story about your own experiences of taking part in a police line-up. You stated you were paid money to attend and it was concerning a face slashing incident (bus driver).

The reason you shared this "story" was to try to undermine my own conclusion that Howard Brennan did not attend a police lineup on 22nd November 1963. There are a wide variety of reasons that has resulted in me reaching this conclusion but the two that were were being discussed when you shared your story were:

he couldn't remember the number of people taking part in the lineup (4) and he couldn't remember whether there were any black people in the lineup (0).

You stated that during your own experience you could see all of the witnesses as they were paraded through to make their identification of who they thought the slasher was. You claimed that the only witness you remember is a "woman" who wrongly chose you.

The problem with your story is that police lineups are run where the witnesses CANNOT be seen by the people on the other side of the glass or curtain. This is quite obviously done to protect them. With this in mind can you explain to members of the forum whether:

a. this lineup took place in a town or city where these long held rules and procedures are not followed?

or

b. you made up this story to to try to undermine my posting without thinking it through and leaving a hole big enough to steer the Queen Mary through?

Before you continue "attacking" any "witnesses" or potential "witnesses" in the JFK case can you please rebuild your own credibility on this forum by explaining the bizarre and unbelievable story you shared yesterday in an effort to undermine me please?

Thanks

Lee

I have no desire to communicate with someone who brands me as a potential xxxx.

I've told my true story, take it or leave it.

But it's okay for you to call Beverly Olivers a xxxx?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what it is, but there seems to be a spate of attacks on witnesses on this forum and wonder why these witnesses are so threatening and if this is contageous?

BK

I didn't attack a witness, Bill. I attacked Beverly Oliver.

Duncan

Duncan

On the "David Josephs, A Question for You" thread, you relayed a story about your own experiences of taking part in a police line-up. You stated you were paid money to attend and it was concerning a face slashing incident (bus driver).

The reason you shared this "story" was to try to undermine my own conclusion that Howard Brennan did not attend a police lineup on 22nd November 1963. There are a wide variety of reasons that has resulted in me reaching this conclusion but the two that were were being discussed when you shared your story were:

he couldn't remember the number of people taking part in the lineup (4) and he couldn't remember whether there were any black people in the lineup (0).

You stated that during your own experience you could see all of the witnesses as they were paraded through to make their identification of who they thought the slasher was. You claimed that the only witness you remember is a "woman" who wrongly chose you.

The problem with your story is that police lineups are run where the witnesses CANNOT be seen by the people on the other side of the glass or curtain. This is quite obviously done to protect them. With this in mind can you explain to members of the forum whether:

a. this lineup took place in a town or city where these long held rules and procedures are not followed?

or

b. you made up this story to to try to undermine my posting without thinking it through and leaving a hole big enough to steer the Queen Mary through?

Before you continue "attacking" any "witnesses" or potential "witnesses" in the JFK case can you please rebuild your own credibility on this forum by explaining the bizarre and unbelievable story you shared yesterday in an effort to undermine me please?

Thanks

Lee

I have no desire to communicate with someone who brands me as a potential xxxx.

I've told my true story, take it or leave it.

But it's okay for you to call Beverly Olivers a xxxx?

BK

And it's ok for you to say that I called Beverly Oliver a xxxx, when I said no such thing in my post?

Duncan

It's never overt. Always subtle. But if it looks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog and barks like a dog you can usually bet good money that it's a dog.

Unless of course one would not be able to recognize a dog should it bite one on the keister.

Farley would of course be able to explain to us the exact procedure the DPD used for Line ups, circa 1963, before continuing further addressing any other assumption he may make.

For the fact is Lee does not know exactly how the line up Duncan was involved in was held, he assumes that it would have been done as he has seen on countless reruns of Barney Miller, however this is not how it may have been conducted at all.

This is exactly why so many have issues with the evidence, they assume, before they research.

He is prepared to label Duncan a xxxx based on an assumption! Is anyone even the slightest bit surprised?

Lee,

Rather than just jump to an assumption, why not ask Duncan how the line up he participated in was conducted? Gather information then run your gator.

I suspect if

I am correct there may have been no glass or curtain, and the witnesses may have even been walked right in front of the suspects. Some regions really do mean it when they say "confront your accuser".

I have myself witnessed many "road line ups" when a victim is asked to identify an individual simply by pointing them out, and not always with the cover of the tinted glass of a squad car.

Moral of the story is, gather evidence so that when you accuse someone you are not left looking like a fool.

SO Duncan now you have my curiosity up. How was your line up conducted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO Duncan now you have my curiosity up. How was your line up conducted?

Thanks for being civil Mike.

I stood in the line up.

The witnesses came out one at a time accompanied by a detective.

Nothing was spoken.

The woman walked along the line, and placed her hand on one of my shoulders.

That's it.

Duncan

Duncan,

I kind of figured it was something like that. So apparently because the line up was not conducted the way Farley thought it should be, then you are a xxxx?

Lee,

Is this the statement you make that you consider asking Duncan how the line up was conducted?

Before you continue "attacking" any "witnesses" or potential "witnesses" in the JFK case can you please rebuild your own credibility on this forum by explaining the bizarre and unbelievable story you shared yesterday in an effort to undermine me please?

If you were asking for clarification, then why would you be making statements about him "rebuilding his reputation". You did not even have enough evidence to attack his credibility at that time, and already had your assumption in place.

Once again Farley makes an assumption that leaves him with much egg on his face.

Are you willing to prove the the line up Duncan was in was some sort of fabrication? Or are you going to judge Duncan the same way you do everything else? With your "assumption" in hand?

No wonder you struggle so with the evidence. You don't seem to waste time with ridiculous things like facts, before you jump to conclusions.

How very.....typical of Farley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO Duncan now you have my curiosity up. How was your line up conducted?

Thanks for being civil Mike.

I stood in the line up.

The witnesses came out one at a time accompanied by a detective.

Nothing was spoken.

The woman walked along the line, and placed her hand on one of my shoulders.

That's it.

Duncan

Duncan,

I kind of figured it was something like that. So apparently because the line up was not conducted the way Farley thought it should be, then you are a xxxx?

Lee,

Is this the statement you make that you consider asking Duncan how the line up was conducted?

Before you continue "attacking" any "witnesses" or potential "witnesses" in the JFK case can you please rebuild your own credibility on this forum by explaining the bizarre and unbelievable story you shared yesterday in an effort to undermine me please?

If you were asking for clarification, then why would you be making statements about him "rebuilding his reputation". You did not even have enough evidence to attack his credibility at that time, and already had your assumption in place.

Once again Farley makes an assumption that leaves him with much egg on his face.

Are you willing to prove the the line up Duncan was in was some sort of fabrication? Or are you going to judge Duncan the same way you do everything else? With your "assumption" in hand?

No wonder you struggle so with the evidence. You don't seem to waste time with ridiculous things like facts, before you jump to conclusions.

How very.....typical of Farley.

I'm going to watch the World Cup. While I'm away...

...seeing as how you like dealing with facts...

...why was Oswald's FLASH removed?

You deal in facts so well you hadn't even heard of this fact before I brought it up for you to answer. Some researcher. You don't even know the case.

Why dont you tell us why it was removed. I would love to read, and destroy another of your ASSUMPTIONS.

I wonder how the world of research will turn if you ever actually address a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on track, witnesses who I do not believe at all ranked in order

1. Beverly Oliver, I do not believe one thing she has ever said

2. Gordon Arnold, I do not believe Gordon Arnold was in Dealey Plaza at all that day

3. Ed Hoffman, I think he may have been standing where he said he was and may have seen some movement or something in the area behind the fence and made it into seeing a gunman, his father said he liked to tell tall tales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS IS FAR FRM THE FIRST TIME SHE HAS BEEN ATTACKED AND THE IMPLICATION OF xxxx HAS BEEN MADE, BUT BEVERLY WILL NOT BE READING THIS THREAD NOR ANY OTHER, SHE BACKED OFF THE FORUMS YEARS AGO, BECAUSE OF SUCH TREATMENT,AS OTHERS ALSO DID, AND WHO COULD BLAME THEM, :ph34r: SHE HAS STATED IN THE PAST THAT SHE HAS TOLD HER EXPERIENCE AND THAT'S THAT MORE OR LESS, SOME WILL BELIEVE AND THOSE THAT DO NOT, WILL NEVER NO MATTER WHAT IS ARGUED, BUT IMO, I DOUBT PERHAPS THOUGH I PERSONALLY DO NOT KNOW OF ANY FILM STUDIES SHE HAS DONE,POSITIVELY OR AND THAT BEVERLY EVER KNEW WHAT A SPROCKET HOLE WAS,OR IS, AND YES THROUGH THE YEARS MANY RESEARCHERS HAVE MADE THE SAME MISTAKE ABOUT THE OUTSIDE MOTORCYCLE,OFFICER AND THERE ARE THOSE OUT THERE RELATIVELY NEW THAT STILL ARE...I THOUGHT THE THROWING OUT OF THE BABY WAS HOPEFULLY DONE WITH, AND YES I AGREE, TOO MANY OF THE WITNESSES ARE AND HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN ON THIS FORUM, TOO OFTEN, SOME PERHAPS APPEAR TO GET GREAT GLEE FROM DOING SO, PERHAPS BECAUSE THEN WHAT THEY THINK MIGHT HAVE SOME VERIFICATION IN THEIR MINDS, FOR THEIR PERSONAL THEORY, THEY LIMIT THEMSELVES AND THAT IS REALLY THE EXTENT OF THEIR RESEARCH STUDIES. :blink: .BTW SHE STILL HAS THE SHOES WITH THE YELLOW PAINT ON THEM FROM THE CURB THAT DAY THAT WAS FRESHLY DONE, BUT PLESE DO NOT LET ME STOP YOU ARGUING, CARRY ON DUNCAN AND ALL BY ALL MEANS..WHY ARE SO MANY BOUND BENT AND DETERMINED TO ONLY SHOW THE NEGATIVE AND NOT THE POSITIVE WITHIN THE RESEARCH, WHO IS TO BE NEXT ON THE LIST ?? :blink: .B PLEASE TO HAVE EXCUSED THE CAPTS. WHEN THIS WAS WRITTEN, THANKS..FINGERS WERE STUCK.HONEST. :blink:

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on track, witnesses who I do not believe at all ranked in order

1. Beverly Oliver, I do not believe one thing she has ever said

2. Gordon Arnold, I do not believe Gordon Arnold was in Dealey Plaza at all that day

3. Ed Hoffman, I think he may have been standing where he said he was and may have seen some movement or something in the area behind the fence and made it into seeing a gunman, his father said he liked to tell tall tales

Dean...I think you are wrong on all three.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS IS FAR FRM THE FIRST TIME SHE HAS BEEN ATTACKED AND THE IMPLICATION OF xxxx HAS BEEN MADE, BUT BEVERLY WILL NOT BE READING THIS THREAD NOR ANY OTHER, SHE BACKED OFF THE FORUMS YEARS AGO, BECAUSE OF SUCH TREATMENT,AS OTHERS ALSO DID, AND WHO COULD BLAME THEM, :ph34r: SHE HAS STATED IN THE PAST THAT SHE HAS TOLD HER EXPERIENCE AND THAT'S THAT MORE OR LESS, SOME WILL BELIEVE AND THOSE THAT DO NOT, WILL NEVER NO MATTER WHAT IS ARGUED, BUT IMO, I DOUBT PERHAPS THOUGH I PERSONALLY DO NOT KNOW OF ANY FILM STUDIES SHE HAS DONE,POSITIVELY OR AND THAT BEVERLY EVER KNEW WHAT A SPROCKET HOLE WAS,OR IS, AND YES THROUGH THE YEARS MANY RESEARCHERS HAVE MADE THE SAME MISTAKE ABOUT THE OUTSIDE MOTORCYCLE,OFFICER AND THERE ARE THOSE OUT THERE RELATIVELY NEW THAT STILL ARE...I THOUGHT THE THROWING OUT OF THE BABY WAS HOPEFULLY DONE WITH, AND YES I AGREE, TOO MANY OF THE WITNESSES ARE AND HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN ON THIS FORUM, TOO OFTEN, SOME PERHAPS APPEAR TO GET GREAT GLEE FROM DOING SO, PERHAPS BECAUSE THEN WHAT THEY THINK MIGHT HAVE SOME VERIFICATION IN THEIR MINDS, FOR THEIR PERSONAL THEORY, THEY LIMIT THEMSELVES AND THAT IS REALLY THE EXTENT OF THEIR RESEARCH STUDIES. :blink: .BTW SHE STILL HAS THE SHOES WITH THE YELLOW PAINT ON THEM FROM THE CURB THAT DAY THAT WAS FRESHLY DONE, BUT PLESE DO NOT LET ME STOP YOU ARGUING, CARRY ON DUNCAN AND ALL BY ALL MEANS..WHY ARE SO MANY BOUND BENT AND DETERMINED TO ONLY SHOW THE NEGATIVE AND NOT THE POSITIVE WITHIN THE RESEARCH, WHO IS TO BE NEXT ON THE LIST ?? :blink: .B

Bernice,

What's wrong with pointing out a blatant discrepancy between the real evidence of the motorcycle cop's movements as seen in the Zapruder film, and the blatantly wrong description given by Beverly Oliver to Vince Palamara on video?

I don't believe that she is genuine, but i'm not stopping anyone from believing that she is genuine.

Duncan

Nothing wrong Duncan if you have the proof of what you have stated,about the information she has expressed, did you contact her and ask if she knows what a sprocket hole is in a film , let alone if has she ever done any of the film studies, and therefore be aware of such, ??For all any of us know, the motorcycle officer may have been pointed out to her, by palamara or, but unless you have asked, and given her the opportunity to clarify..yet you have accused her that you have ''pointing out a blatant discrepancy between the real evidence of the motorcycle cop's movements as seen in the Zapruder film, and the blatantly wrong description given by Beverly Oliver to Vince Palamara on video?''

The whole world has not studied the films let alone the crappy zappy to that extent, nor seriously, to some it is not that important...they have seen it and that has been enough...b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beverley Oliver was obviously unaware of the existance of the sprocket holes of the Zapruder film.

She clearly bases her statement on a viewing of the Zapruder film without the sprocket holes.

This is yet another example of why she is not the Babushka lady.

Martin, did you ever consider that whoever took that movie, never attempted to cash in on the hundreds of thousands and probably millions of dollars that it would have fetched?

I am hard pressed to think of a good reason for that, other than the obvious.

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...