A Note to the "moderators"

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I think I'm beginning to see why reason is not a popular commodity around this place.

How could "reason" be a commodity in a place where a goodly number of people discussing the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases believe that JFK's and Tippit's killer didn't even fire a single shot at either victim?

That type of mindset is reserved for an unreasonable forum, not a reasonable one.

So why are you even over here at Education Forum, David von Pein? Unless you like Jim DiEugenio to play with you like a cat plays with a ball of yarn?

Edited November 19, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[J. Raymond Carroll]

How could "reason" be a commodity in a place where a goodly number of people discussing the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases believe that JFK's and Tippit's killer didn't even fire a single shot at either victim?

Hello David, I hope all is well with you and yours. I am one of those who believes that Lee Oswald never fired a gun at ANYONE in his entire life. I also consider myself a man of reason.

That type of mindset is reserved for an unreasonable forum, not a reasonable one.

You don't really believe that, David, otherwise you would not be here.

[David Von Pein]

I am one of those who believes that Lee Oswald never fired a gun at ANYONE in his entire life. I also consider myself a man of reason.

So you were just toying with a lowly LNer when you said this to me in August of this year, right Ray?.....

"Hello David. You may feel like an outlaw here, but IMO you are closer to the truth than most of the members. You are correct in thinking that Lee Oswald acted alone."

And if you truly believe Oswald never fired a gun at ANYONE in his entire life, then, no, you are not a "reasonable" person. Simple as that.

But from one day to the next, I'm having a hard time knowing WHAT J. Raymond Carroll believes.

Does your mind wander a lot, Raymond?

Edited November 19, 2010 by David Von Pein

[J. Raymond Carroll]

But from one day to the next, I'm having a hard time knowing WHAT J. Raymond Carroll believes.

Then please let me clarify. I have studied this case for a long time, probably since you were a cute little kid in diapers, and I have reached certain conclusions. I tried to approach the case with an open mind, and that is not easy to do, given the amount of anti-Oswald propaganda. Jim Garrison accused him of conspiring to murder JFK, and some people think Garrison a hero for doing so. I am not among the Garrison admirers, and consider him a fraud, and I despise Earl Warren, who was a disgrace to the robes he wore. Earl Warren gave AMERICAN JUSTICE a bad name. He was privy to the plot against JFK, and an accessory thereto. I have not determined his motive, but I know he had one.

The killers of JFK were very smart and cunning people, and led by Allen Dulles & LBJ, who was as cunning as any MASS - MURDERER in history.(read Robert Caro) They planned carefully to frame an innocent man. Professor John Newman has penetrated the plot more deeply than any author so far, as I have tried to make clear in my postings on this forum. John Newman's only mistake was to include Lee Oswald in the plot. Vince Palamara has also contributed enormously to our understanding of the plot. The plot succeeded ONLY because of the collaboration of the limo driver, William Greer. I would like to see Greer's bank records pre and post assassination, but of course there has never been an honest investigation up to now.

It would take an entire book to outline all my views on this horrible crime, which greatly damaged the world in which I bring up my kids and grandkids, but I hope you get the flavor of my thinking. Most of the people I encounter are good people, who mean no harm to anyone, but I would be a fool not to recognize that there are some VERY BAD people in the world, and the men who killed Kennedy were the VERY WORST. If you choose to defend them David, then I feel sorry for you.

Does your mind wander a lot, Raymond?

You know David, I have never tried to insult you before, even though I disagree with almost everything you say, so can you please tell me what provoked you to insult my intelligence now?

[David Von Pein]

You know David, I have never tried to insult you before, even though I disagree with almost everything you say...

I'm truly confused, Raymond. If you disagree with the LN scenario so vehemently, then why did you write this as a comment on my Education Forum profile in August 2010?:

"Hello David. You may feel like an outlaw here, but IMO you are closer to the truth than most of the members. You are correct in thinking that Lee Oswald acted alone." -- J. Raymond Carroll

Please explain.

...so can you please tell me what provoked you to insult my intelligence now?

Maybe you should acquire a thicker skin. My comment about your mind wandering certainly isn't even close to the worst insult I could dish out to a person who said this yesterday:

"I am one of those who believes that Lee Oswald never fired a gun at ANYONE in his entire life." -- J. Raymond Carroll; 11/18/2010

But this forum does have rules to abide by, after all. So my real thoughts about the above (incredible) comment will have to go unwritten here at Spartacus.

Edited November 20, 2010 by David Von Pein

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm truly confused, Raymond.

[/Quote]

I nominate that post for UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE CENTURY! David Von Pein is confused and I mean REALLY CONFUSED.!

The concept of an innocent man falsely accused is beyond his ken, even though hardly a day goes by when DNA evidence is not invoked to show that convicting the innocent is a piece of cake, and something that deservedly makes Lee Oswald accuser Henry Wade a household name.

[David Von Pein]

Let me see if the third time will be the charm toward finally getting an answer from Mr. Carroll -- or will J. Raymond ignore this inquiry yet again?....

Why did you say this to me in August?:

"You are correct in thinking that Lee Oswald acted alone." -- J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If you disagree with the LN scenario so vehemently, then why did you write this as a comment on my Education Forum profile in August 2010?:

"Hello David. You may feel like an outlaw here, but IMO you are closer to the truth than most of the members. You are correct in thinking that Lee Oswald acted alone." -- J. Raymond Carroll

Please explain.

OK David I will explain, even though it is VERY SIMPLE!

Lee Oswald acted alone on that day, just as I did and just as you did. He did not commit any crime, and just went about his business. Is that clear enough for you, or should i DRAW YOU A MAP?

[Don Jeffries]

Ray,

Are you starting to understand why so many of us here find your views baffling? When David Von Pein is under the impression you are a LNer, you really ought to reconsider how your thoughts are being expressed.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

When David Von Pein is under the impression you are a LNer, you really ought to reconsider how your thoughts are being expressed.

THanks Don, but I have been posting here for years, and how can I help it if some people are stupid?

[David Von Pein]

Lee Oswald acted alone on that day, just as I did and just as you did. He did not commit any crime, and just went about his business. Is that clear enough for you, or should I DRAW YOU A MAP?

He "acted alone" on 11/22, but he never shot a living soul. Beautiful, Ray.

Maybe you'd better start drawing that map, Ray. It appears as though I'm not the only one who needs it telestrated. Looks like Don Jeffries needs one of those LN/CT maps of yours, too. Of course, who wouldn't, given Carroll's oddball "acted alone, but never shot anybody" verbiage?

Edited November 20, 2010 by David Von Pein

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Looks like Don Jeffries needs one of those LN/CT maps of yours, too. Of course, who wouldn't, given Carroll's oddball "acted alone, but never shot anybody" verbiage?

After a lengthy inquiry I reached the conclusion that Lee Oswald was completely innocent. He approved of JFK as president, and had no desire to see Lyndon Johnson in JFK's place.

Lee Oswald was also perfectly sane.

His trial was conducted in secret, which is UN-AMERICAN. No rational person should believe the verdict of a secret trial, where all the lawyers are on the prosecution side and no defense lawyers are allowed. Over the years a great deal of new evidence and information has come to light, but never any new evidence implicating Oz.

His accusers are split into two camps, commonly referred to as CT's and LN's, and both camps have made HATRED of Lee Oswald a central tenet of their faith. I have friends in both camps. I agree with the CT's that there was a plot to murder JFK, and I agree with the LN's that Oz was not part of the plot,. He was a victim of the same plot as JFK.

One CT assumption is that OZ was murdered because he knew too much. THat is a major error. He was murdered because a public trial, with competent defense counsel, would have proven that the case against him was a FRAME-UP.

All CT's consider this an unsolved case, but I think many LN's also do not really believe the case was solved. If they did, they would not be writing books and articles or posting on the internet. I think David Von Pein is in that category. Methinks he doth protest too much.

[Robert Harris]

Looks like Don Jeffries needs one of those LN/CT maps of yours, too. Of course, who wouldn't, given Carroll's oddball "acted alone, but never shot anybody" verbiage?

After a lengthy inquiry I reached the conclusion that Lee Oswald was completely innocent. He approved of JFK as president, and had no desire to see Lyndon Johnson in JFK's place.

Lee Oswald was also perfectly sane.

His trial was conducted in secret, which is UN-AMERICAN. No rational person should believe the verdict of a secret trial, where all the lawyers are on the prosecution side and no defense lawyers are allowed. Over the years a great deal of new evidence and information has come to light, but never any new evidence implicating Oz.

His accusers are split into two camps, commonly referred to as CT's and LN's, and both camps have made HATRED of Lee Oswald a central tenet of their faith. I have friends in both camps. I agree with the CT's that there was a plot to murder JFK, and I agree with the LN's that Oz was not part of the plot,. He was a victim of the same plot as JFK.

One CT assumption is that OZ was murdered because he knew too much. THat is a major error. He was murdered because a public trial, with competent defense counsel, would have proven that the case against him was a FRAME-UP.

All CT's consider this an unsolved case, but I think many LN's also do not really believe the case was solved. If they did, they would not be writing books and articles or posting on the internet. I think David Von Pein is in that category. Methinks he doth protest too much.

Mr. Carroll, it makes no sense to believe that Oswald was oblivious to what was going on and was framed.

The problem that any perpetrators would have had was that there was no way to be sure that Oswald would not have been seen by his coworkers, watching the motorcade pass as the shots were being fired. In fact, without benefit of hindsight, wouldn't the natural presumption be that he would be outside watching, along with other TSBD employees who would provide his alibi?

Had you actually read the book you were trashing back in the 90's, entitled "Oswald Talked", you would know that Oswald was an informant for the FBI at the time and that he had already warned the feds about the upcoming assassination. That warning was seen on the teletype by FBI security clerk William Walters, just a few hours after Oswald's meeting with the FBI on Sat. 11/16/63.

But the FBI did nothing and I am becoming increasingly convinced that Oswald did the only thing he could do under the circumstances and fired a warning shot, which unfortunately had exactly the opposite effect of what was intended.