Why Beverley Oliver Is Not The Babushka Lady

[Sandy Larsen]

You "settled on a weapon?" You mean you know what weapon was used?

Sandy,

I was speculating about what kind of weapon would be a good knoll weapon and absolutely, "I settled". Are you trying to form an argument over my use of grammar? Go for it.

Of course I'm not trying to form an argument over your use of grammar. I'm not even sure what you mean by that or why you asked it. If you think I'm judging your grammar you couldn't be further from the truth. First, I don't see anything wrong with your grammar. And second, even if I did see something wrong, I wouldn't care and I wouldn't say anything.

I just didn't know what you meant when you said you had settled on a weapon. Maybe that's a colloquialism I'm unaware of. Where I'm from it means you've made up you mind. And it struck me as odd that you'd made up your mind what kind of weapon was used.

[Chris Newton]

Sandy

Where I'm from it means you've made up you mind. And it struck me as odd that you'd made up your mind what kind of weapon was used.

OK, you didn't misunderstand. Maybe it was the way you said it.

Guns are tools. If a "Pro" was on the knoll, he would have chosen a weapon suited for that environment and task. I was simply speculating what kind of weapon that could be.

I "settled on" the Delisle because it was silenced, short barreled, and most importantly, in inventory.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Chris Newton

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy

Where I'm from it means you've made up you mind. And it struck me as odd that you'd made up your mind what kind of weapon was used.

OK, you didn't misunderstand. Maybe it was the way you said it.

Guns are tools. If a "Pro" was on the knoll, he would have chosen a weapon suited for that environment and task. I was simply speculating what kind of weapon that could be.

I "settled on" the Delisle because it was silenced, short barreled, and most importantly, in inventory.

Thanks for explaining. I understand your statement now that I know the context in which it was made.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Did watching that 3 minute and twenty-one second long section whet your appetite to watch more, maybe even the whole thing? Maybe some of the photo evidence you're looking for is in it yet. (What were you hoping for exactly? A full frontal view?) Look at it this way, maybe you'll hear her say something you can prove to be false!

No it didn't really whet my appetite to spend that much more time on it, and I'm not much motivated to prove her wrong but I appreciate you sending me what you thought was the best excerpt. But to be fair, I decided I should watch and watched most of it. My impression was that for someone who claimed to not know that much about the Kennedy assassination, she was foraying into economics and gave her silver certificate rap as a motive for the assassination. Then postulating an assassin. Does anybody really believe her very up front photo of the assassin from that 70's British documentary? (At least that's where I first saw it.) Do you know the narrator actually later positively identified the shooter as David Ferrie?

If you're rooting for a credible presentation, don't you think she should just stick to the particular area that she knows?, because she loses credibility going off on these tangents. I did see a better hour interview with her one time, a format that is usually more objective.(she's a big GW fan, she seems more concerned about the lives lost in Vietnam than she was about the lives lost in Iraq, but OK, I digress.) I think she did sound believable in that excerpt but you have to keep in mind this is coming from someone who would occasionally tune around to "Celebrity Apprentice" and thought Donald Trump was a responsible spokesman with his feet on the ground, at least on the show.

But it doesn't matter if she was Babushka Lady, because her most noteworthy assertion was not as Babushka Lady, but her assertion that 1)she saw Ruby and LHO together and 2) Ruby introduced LHO as a CIA agent. If you believe her, then you've hit gold. The reason Ruby would be so indiscreet would fit in perfectly with Ruby's need to be a hero or a person of some influence. He was just an indiscreet character.

I just mentioned her reporting about the corroboration of that by Jada because if we don't necessarily believe everything she says, it's a good idea to cross reference what she says with a third party, who in this case did not confirm it after the assassination. There was a lot of speculation in the press after the assassination as to whether Ruby and LHO knew each other. Jada gave numerous interviews, Beverly Oliver didn't. She said it was because she was in fear of her life. But was there really that much repercussion for high profile witnesses on TV who gave interviews before the "official story" came out? Murdering them would only draw more attention to the truth of their testimony. So instead we're lead to believe that Jada, who seemed very forthcoming about her relationship with Jack Ruby in any one of her numerous interviews was lying and that she had in fact, seen Ruby and LHO together? Ok, who can prove otherwise now?

One thing I thought was interesting is that she didn't mention seeing any pictures of the alleged assassin for 2 days until she watched him get murdered on TV, when she realized she had seen him before.

Hey, But if I met Beverly, I'd shoot the sh-t with her. Give her some harmony on "'Amazing Grace". Get down and pray with her for earthquake free fracking.

Ok, but seriously, There are a number of witnesses, some I tend to believe and some I don't and I like to hear some of the learned collective wisdom of this forum weigh in on some of them.

I'm not sure this applies to Beverly Oliver but I do think it's unfortunate sometimes that witnesses are discredited because their memories may fade in time,and they accept someone else's account as their own account about some minor details about the assassination. That doesn't mean their whole story is false. Apart from even time decay, it's hard to give a completely accurate account of an incident you just witnessed. But that obviously doesn't mean we discredit the character of all witnesses.

That ankles comment from Mary Ferrell reminds me of a famous quote.

"She's a dumb broad, with skinny ankles."

Frank Sinatra talking about Nancy Reagan.

Case closed

[Thomas Graves]

Did watching that 3 minute and twenty-one second long section whet your appetite to watch more, maybe even the whole thing? Maybe some of the photo evidence you're looking for is in it yet. (What were you hoping for exactly? A full frontal view?) Look at it this way, maybe you'll hear her say something you can prove to be false!

No it didn't really whet my appetite to spend that much more time on it, and I'm not much motivated to prove her wrong but I appreciate you sending me what you thought was the best excerpt. But to be fair, I decided I should watch and watched most of it. My impression was that for someone who claimed to not know that much about the Kennedy assassination, she was foraying into economics and gave her silver certificate rap as a motive for the assassination. Then postulating an assassin. Does anybody really believe her very up front photo of the assassin from that 70's British documentary? (At least that's where I first saw it.) Do you know the narrator actually later positively identified the shooter as David Ferrie?

If you're rooting for a credible presentation, don't you think she should just stick to the particular area that she knows?, because she loses credibility going off on these tangents. I did see a better hour interview with her one time, a format that is usually more objective.(she's a big GW fan, she seems more concerned about the lives lost in Vietnam than she was about the lives lost in Iraq, but OK, I digress.) I think she did sound believable in that excerpt but you have to keep in mind this is coming from someone who would occasionally tune around to "Celebrity Apprentice" and thought Donald Trump was a responsible spokesman with his feet on the ground, at least on the show.

But it doesn't matter if she was Babushka Lady, because her most noteworthy assertion was not as Babushka Lady, but her assertion that 1)she saw Ruby and LHO together and 2) Ruby introduced LHO as a CIA agent. If you believe her, then you've hit gold. The reason Ruby would be so indiscreet would fit in perfectly with Ruby's need to be a hero or a person of some influence. He was just an indiscreet character.

I just mentioned her reporting about the corroboration of that by Jada because if we don't necessarily believe everything she says, it's a good idea to cross reference what she says with a third party, who in this case did not confirm it after the assassination. There was a lot of speculation in the press after the assassination as to whether Ruby and LHO knew each other. Jada gave numerous interviews, Beverly Oliver didn't. She said it was because she was in fear of her life. But was there really that much repercussion for high profile witnesses on TV who gave interviews before the "official story" came out? Murdering them would only draw more attention to the truth of their testimony. So instead we're lead to believe that Jada, who seemed very forthcoming about her relationship with Jack Ruby in any one of her numerous interviews was lying and that she had in fact, seen Ruby and LHO together? Ok, who can prove otherwise now?

One thing I thought was interesting is that she didn't mention seeing any pictures of the alleged assassin for 2 days until she watched him get murdered on TV, when she realized she had seen him before.

Hey, But if I met Beverly, I'd shoot the sh-t with her. Give her some harmony on "'Amazing Grace". Get down and pray with her for earthquake free fracking.

Ok, but seriously, There are a number of witnesses, some I tend to believe and some I don't and I like to hear some of the learned collective wisdom of this forum weigh in on some of them.

I'm not sure this applies to Beverly Oliver but I do think it's unfortunate sometimes that witnesses are discredited because their memories may fade in time,and they accept someone else's account as their own account about some minor details about the assassination. That doesn't mean their whole story is false. Apart from even time decay, it's hard to give a completely accurate account of an incident you just witnessed. But that obviously doesn't mean we discredit the character of all witnesses.

That ankles comment from Mary Ferrell reminds me of a famous quote.

"She's a dumb broad, with skinny ankles."

Frank Sinatra talking about Nancy Reagan.

Case closed

Dear Kirk,

Sorry but I don't have the time to read your long post.

Did I say that that short segment was the best segment of the video?

Really?

Or is it possible I just chose something near the beginning?

-- Tommy

Edited September 19, 2016 by Thomas Graves